New rape law allows change of mind - Page 2

Japher · July 30, 2003, 13:00

This just gives women more leeway to lead the man on! She'll get hers than not give him his, blah!

Whatever

Sava · July 30, 2003, 13:01

Quote:

Originally posted by Boris Godunov

So you don't think a woman (or man, for that matter) has the right to change her mind during the act?

While I agree that the woman or man has that right, I am skepticle of the practicality of this law. Because the original sex was consensual, you are talking about a lack of physical evidence. And without evidence of rape, it boils down to a he said/she said situation. There is too much of a potential for abuse/false accusation. I believe the pendulum has swung too far. And my slippery-slope comment is perfectly legit.

DinoDoc · July 30, 2003, 13:01

Quote:

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
It's not stupid it all. Look at the reverse situation.

Well, how would one go about proving a charge based on this law then?

Az · July 30, 2003, 13:01

Quote:

Originally posted by Boris Godunov

Tell me more about these mind reading powers of yours... will I be rich?

The minds of people say nothing of your future.

Seriously, though, how is a couple of minutes "immideately" on that scale of things.

chequita guevara · July 30, 2003, 13:07

Quote:

Originally posted by DinoDoc
Well, how would one go about proving a charge based on this law then?

The same way it's done now, very rarely. Currently it's almost impossible to get a rape conviction unless there is some sort of trauma or witnesses who are willing to testify. I don't think the law will result in more convictions, but it might save a few women from being raped.

Boris Godunov · July 30, 2003, 13:09

Quote:

Originally posted by Sava
While I agree that the woman or man has that right, I am skepticle of the practicality of this law. Because the original sex was consensual, you are talking about a lack of physical evidence. And without evidence of rape, it boils down to a he said/she said situation. There is too much of a potential for abuse/false accusation. I believe the pendulum has swung too far. And my slippery-slope comment is perfectly legit.

No, it isn't legit, it's slippery slope nonsense.

I don't think this law changes anything with regards to the burden of proof. It is simply clarifying something that should be evident to most people, but apparently isn't--changing one's mind can be done at any time, and is their right. I'm sure the law was in reaction to cases where defendants had acknowledged continuing sex acts after being told to stop, but claimed they thought it was ok because the woman originally consented. I don't see this as lowering any proof requirements. Such claims appear to be strawmen.

I don't agree with chegitz, however, since humans aren't capable of "immediate" action, especially when engaged in a fundamental, sensational part of our natural instinct. Allowances must be made for a person to register the refusal. If that means erring in the direction of acquitting those few who finish up in the 5 seconds after being told to stop, that's gotta be the way it is. The rights of the accused are given a bit more weight in our system, and that is how it should be in this regard as well.

chequita guevara · July 30, 2003, 13:09

Quote:

Originally posted by Azazel
Seriously, though, how is a couple of minutes "immideately" on that scale of things.

Immediatey is a vague term. Depending on your frame of reference, it can mean a few seconds or days. Apparently you are a quick lover while Boris takes all night. Thus for him, a few minutes would be immediately while for you . . .

Oerdin · July 30, 2003, 13:09

I have a real problem with continually expanding the definition of rape. What protections are there for a man, like Kobi Brian, who had consentual sex but the good digging whore latter claims rape just so she can settle outside of court for a huge settlement? Do any of you remember the farce that was the Kennedy rape case about 10 years ago where another girl had sex with a rich man and then said point blank "Pay me $X or I'll claim you raped me"?

What does a man do in a situation like that? The system is stacked against him.

Sava · July 30, 2003, 13:10

Quote:

No, it isn't legit, it's slippery slope nonsense.

okay Fez...

Boris Godunov · July 30, 2003, 13:11

Quote:

Originally posted by Azazel

The minds of people say nothing of your future.

Seriously, though, how is a couple of minutes "immideately" on that scale of things.

The article just says he didn't stop immediately. That doesn't mean he didn't continue on for what anyone would consider a reasonable amount of time. Like I said, I think it's reasonable to interpret "immediately" as up to 10-15 seconds.

I mean, it took 30 seconds for the Hindenburg to crash--so 15 secs is more than enough time to register a refusal and withdraw.

Dis · July 30, 2003, 13:13

I have no problem with a woman saying no before or during sex.

just not after. That's where I have a problem.

DinoDoc · July 30, 2003, 13:14

Quote:

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
The same way it's done now, very rarely.

Then what's the point of the law?

Velociryx · July 30, 2003, 13:14

In those cases, the man pays up and prays that the system doesn't hunt him down anyway.

I agree, the deck IS stacked, and this prolly won't be the last time rape is further redefined to give the accusors yet more leeway.

What's the next step? Oh, well see your honor, I changed my mind but he finished before I could voice it, it MUST BE rape!

-=Vel=-

Sava · July 30, 2003, 13:14

What happens if she says, "no" right as the man is climaxing? He finishes (a few seconds), and she cries rape... hmmm... what happens then?

chequita guevara · July 30, 2003, 13:16

Quote:

Originally posted by Boris Godunov
I don't agree with chegitz, however, since humans aren't capable of "immediate" action, especially when engaged in a fundamental, sensational part of our natural instinct.

When humans are having sex they do not lose their power of reason, their ability to understand language, their ability to determine right from wrong. . . . except maybe during the moment of orgasm, and possibly just before it. Even then, it can be done. It is, after all, a form of birth control (if not a very effective one).

The instant consent is withdrawn, it becomes a crime to continue. That's how it works for all crimes, I see no reason to treat rape any differently.

Velociryx · July 30, 2003, 13:17

Jailtime, obviously, Sava....the brutish, barbaric man forced himself on the poor, innocent lil' thing.

-=Vel=-

Dis · July 30, 2003, 13:18

what about men who say no in the middle of sex?

chequita guevara · July 30, 2003, 13:18

Quote:

Originally posted by Oerdin
Do any of you remember the farce that was the Kennedy rape case about 10 years ago where another girl had sex with a rich man and then said point blank "Pay me $X or I'll claim you raped me"?

I remember the case, but as I remember, the Kennedies offered to pay her to shut up, not the other way around.

Oh right, famous people never committ rape.

MIKE TYSON WAS INNOCENT!

Velociryx · July 30, 2003, 13:19

Che - The problem with that is that the man's automatically guilty.

They couple is...engaged.

If she says no while they are, then, per your definition, RIGHT THEN, it's rape. It's already too late. The man is guilty (he's still inside her when consent is withdrawn). Guilty. Bang. Done.

-=Vel=-

Japher · July 30, 2003, 13:19

Quote:

what about men who say no in the middle of sex?

Now your just being silly

chequita guevara · July 30, 2003, 13:19

Quote:

Originally posted by Dissident
I have no problem with a woman saying no before or during sex.

just not after. That's where I have a problem.

Well, since no one is saying that

Velociryx · July 30, 2003, 13:20

Nope...no one is saying that...yet.

-=Vel=-
Give it time tho....

Japher · July 30, 2003, 13:20

So, the consent is to start having sex not to actually finish...

DinoDoc · July 30, 2003, 13:21

You have to earn that right.

Sava · July 30, 2003, 13:21

Quote:

Now your just being silly

Not if she says, "oh yeah, I have herpes."

Japher · July 30, 2003, 13:22

That's lame; it's like saying I am going to start driving a car, but then once you get on the road you decide you don't want to any more. So you just stop driving, but you don't stop the car...

Dis · July 30, 2003, 13:24

women are evil

that's why I only sleep with prostitutes. Prostitutes can't say no and claim you raped them

Tingkai · July 30, 2003, 13:24

I found this description about the California case. Can't vouch for its accuracy.

In the case that challenged the old rule, a 17-year-old girl, Laura T., had consented to sex with the defendant, John, but then later told him that she needed to go home. While she never explicitly told him to stop, he continued for, "four or five minutes after Laura's first statement and for a minute to 90 seconds after her third and final one" (Cooper, 2003:2). John had apparently told Laura, "Just give me a minute" (Cooper, 2003:2). While this case may not appear to be rape to some, the California Supreme Court has ruled that it was indeed a rape. The Court took into account what was called a "primal urge theory" that could possibly justify a "reasonable time" rule for John's failure to stop. However, the Court later rejected this claim saying that John had been given sufficient time to withdraw and that the law books would not allow for such a claim of "reasonable time" (Cooper, 2003:2). It is important to remember that rape does not occur when a woman simply changes her mind or feels that she has made a bad decision. In this case, John had also grabbed Laura's waist and pushed her down while she was making the statements that she needed to go home.

chequita guevara · July 30, 2003, 13:25

Quote:

Originally posted by Japher
So, the consent is to start having sex not to actually finish...

You do not have a right to have sex with any specific person, only a right to have sex in general. Just because a person consents to have sex with you at one time doesn't mean she's consented for all time (as used to be argued and still often is).

It should be self-evident that you need continuing permision to have sex with someone.

Dis · July 30, 2003, 13:26

how was he convicted though?

or did he admit to continueing after she said stop?