New rape law allows change of mind

[Velociryx]

I love phrases like that....

"Many" rape cases lack physical evidence.

Really? How many? What percentage? Of the total number of rape cases prosecuted last year, what percentage of them lacked any form of physical evidence (bruising, torn articles of clothing, semen)....how many?

Statistics aside, you still haven't addressed the point I brought up earlier, that being....a couple are having sex....in the midst of the act, the woman "changes her mind." Per your definition, at that INSTANT, it's rape.

Meaning, the man has no opportunity to respond whatsoever....no opportunity to pull away. Too late. Already rape.

No, I don't have any quick, easy answers for crimes on the other side of the coin (women forced to have sex under threat of violence). I admit that it happens. Can you now admit that this new law opens the door for a whole new field of abuse? Sure, it might catch a couple more rapists. It might also send a lot of men to jail just cos "she said."

But that's okay, isn't it?

-=Vel=-

[Tingkai]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov


I think it's just because they didn't have time to say it.

*Sava Commences sex*

Girl: "No I--"

*Girl looks over, Sava is asleep*

And the judges say
6/10 for Sava
10/10 for Boris

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Japher
Aye, so if she is drunk, and he bought her the drinks, and she never says 'yes' or 'no' then this rape?... If she feels afterwards that she did not want to have sex?

Under Illinois law, if the person is not in a frame of mind able to reasonably give consent, i.e., they were passed out, then yes, it's rape. Hence the date-rape drug. She's not only unable to say no, she won't even be able to remember whether or not she was raped.

Guess that's okay though, because she agreed to have a drink and there's no physical evidence (for Sava).

[Sava]

Go ask COAR, if it still exists at DePaul. More than 90% of all rape cases end in dismissal (or did at the time the statistic was taken, in the early 90s).

I haven't been going to DePaul for nearly a year now.

And that stat, even if it's true, really isn't relevant unless it's compared against actual cases of rape. It's possible that 90% of cases don't have sufficient evidence to prove rape.

*Sava Commences sex*

Girl: "No I--"

*Girl looks over, Sava is asleep*

nah, it's more like 30 minutes of foreplay/oral; then about another 30 minutes of her riding me. The key to great sex (for men) is satisfying your woman first... then letting her do you.

If after the first phase or so, the girl I was with said "no", I would stop... talk... but if she just didn't want to have sex for no important reason, I'd tell her to get lost. If there was some other issue, I'd definitely talk and work it out. For me, having sex with someone who wants me as much as I want them is a turn-on. If the interest isn't there, I don't want any part of it.

[mrmitchell]

Consent.

Before the ****ing, the woman says "Let's ****" or "Yeah, we can ****" or the similar. This is an example of consent. Without consent, it is illegal to continue to the actual ****ing.

During the ****ing, it's an opt-out thing, obviously. Should the woman changer her mind mid-****, the man should pull out reasonably soon. What is reasonably? No one knows. This is why the law should not be there--more attention to the consequences of the **** should be given BEFORE the ****, not during it.

After the ****ing, although some parties doubt this, the woman is within her legal rights to break up, claim the **** a rape, and get a hefty legal settlement. This precedent has not been tested against in a court of law; why would you not trust the little innocent thing?

[Sava]

Guess that's okay though, because she agreed to have a drink and there's no physical evidence (for Sava).

At least you aren't totally daft.

[Japher]

Vel

I would say that time frame of "stopping" would have to consider whether or not the person wanting to "stop" is be restrained.

Personally, I feel the restraining part is wrong and worthy of charges (kidnapping, etc. I am sure there is a law about holding someone against their will)... Also, sexual assualt should be brought up. Yet, calling it rape brings up big issues that I think this law blurs.

--

[Tingkai]

Originally posted by mrmitchell
During the ****ing, it's an opt-out thing, obviously. Should the woman changer her mind mid-****, the man should pull out reasonably soon. What is reasonably? No one knows. This is why the law should not be there--more attention to the consequences of the **** should be given BEFORE the ****, not during it.

IIRC, the definition of manslaughter is when someone kills another person accidentally, but in a method that they should have reasonably known would cause death.

So you would say that manslaugher should not be a crime?

[Japher]

We are saying that Rape requires "no" consent at all.

Yet, in these cases consent was given, thus these events are more along the lines of manslaughter and rape is akin to murder.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Velociryx
(bruising, torn articles of clothing, semen)

I'm sorry your honor, but she likes it rough. Torn clothing and semen are not evidence of rape in and of themselves. Semen is evidence of sex, not rape.

Statistics aside, you still haven't addressed the point I brought up earlier, that being....a couple are having sex....in the midst of the act, the woman "changes her mind." Per your definition, at that INSTANT, it's rape.

If she says stop, you stop. You don't keep going and then stop. What is so hard to understand about this?

Can you now admit that this new law opens the door for a whole new field of abuse? Sure, it might catch a couple more rapists. It might also send a lot of men to jail just cos "she said."

But that's okay, isn't it?

-=Vel=-

No, I can't admit it because I don't believe it to be the case. Your argument is exactly the same as those put forward by those who argued against the very notion of date rape and spousal rape. I do not believe that this is going to lead to a rash of men getting tossed into jail for not stopping soon enough.

The divide is between men who think women are human beings and those who think women are jizz jars. If you have respect for your partner, then this law won't be a problem fo you. If you simply use women to masturbate into, then maybe you'll find out what rape is like from the other end.

[Sava]

Tingkai, that's totally irrelevant.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Sava

nah, it's more like 30 minutes of foreplay/oral; then about another 30 minutes of her riding me. The key to great sex (for men) is satisfying your woman first... then letting her do you.

First, TMI

Second, if sex only lasts a total of an hour for you, with foreplay, I don't think I will be taking any lessons in the art from you, thanks.

[Sava]

Second, if sex only lasts a total of an hour for you, with foreplay, I don't think I will be taking any lessons in the art from you, thanks.

That's on average... and plus, this is just what would be considered sexual relations. It doesn't take into account the entire encounter. Since my GF and I live about 90 minutes apart now, we don't have the time to spend a whole day or night ****ing. And plus, as fun as it is, sex isnt' the be all end all of a relationship. I feel sorry for you if sex is all you have.

Sorry about the TMI, but you opened the door to the specifics, I felt it necessary to set the record straight

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Japher
We are saying that Rape requires "no" consent at all.

Yet, in these cases consent was given, thus these events are more along the lines of manslaughter and rape is akin to murder.

And yet Manslaughter is a very serious crime which can land you in prison for as much as 25 years, same as 2nd degree murder.

So you just don't want us to call it rape and you'll be happy with it? Well, in Illinois the law outlaws sexual assault, not rape.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Sava
That's on average... and plus, this is just what would be considered sexual relations. It doesn't take into account the entire encounter. Since my GF and I live about 90 minutes apart now, we don't have the time to spend a whole day or night ****ing. And plus, as fun as it is, sex isnt' the be all end all of a relationship. I feel sorry for you if sex is all you have.

Excuses, excuses.

Yes, because I like to spend more than the length of an ER episode enjoying sex, OBVIOUSLY I must sacrifice the other aspects of a relationship.

Sorry about the TMI, but you opened the door to the specifics, I felt it necessary to set the record straight

Nothing I posted required a factual account of your sex life (if you must call that sex!), so it's still T-M-I!

[Ned]

Che, I am not sure you understand the counterargument. The question is not whether the man should stop or not. The question is whether this is the kind of "rape" that should be punished by the criminal justice system.

As I said earlier, this kind of rape occurs in a "relationship." The woman's remedies are many in such a situation. The law should be reserved to punish true criminals and not invade private relationships where the private remedies are normally sufficient.

I give you one more example: Your girlfriend "borrows" your car without your consent. Normally, this is a matter that you can handle within the dynamics of your personal relationship. One does not call the police and have the girlfriend arrested for grand theft.

[Az]

what's TMI?

[Japher]

I concur Ned

---

Yet, since the general public cannot seem to be held responsible for their actions:

I would rather they clarify Rape/Sexual Assault a lot more than lumping everything into one catagory, and accusing everyone who has sex a rapist as long as everyone they have ever had sex with gave and continues to give consent for that action.

Q1: Did You Give Consent?
Yes - Go to Q2
No - 1st Degree Rape

Q2: Did You Ever Voice That You Did Not Want To Continue?
Yes - Go to Q3
No - No Charges

Q3: Did He/She Continue?
Yes - Go to Q4
No - No Charges

Q4: Did He/She Prevent You From Stopping?
Yes - 2nd Degree Rape/Sexual Assault
No - Go to Q5

Q5: Did You Continue?
Yes - No Charges
No - Go to Q3

--

Yet, I don't think a 2nd Degree Rape charge is as serious as a 1st degree as it does not and should not lable the accused as a "sexual preditor". That person was put into a predicament where their chances of making the right decision were severely diminished... I think it's something similar to entrapment.

[Japher]

TMI= Too Much Information

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Ned
Che, I am not sure you understand the counterargument. The question is not whether the man should stop or not. The question is whether this is the kind of "rape" that should be punished by the criminal justice system.

It's not clear from the case presented that this girl had an ongoing relationship with the guy. It appears that she had just had sex with someone else, was okay having sex with this new guy when she then changed her mind.

I give you one more example: Your girlfriend "borrows" your car without your consent. Normally, this is a matter that you can handle within the dynamics of your personal relationship. One does not call the police and have the girlfriend arrested for grand theft.

Would you argue, however, that you should not have the option to involve the police? What if she took it after a fight? What if you had an emergancy, need to go to work or a job interview? What if you just met her, said she could borrow the car to go to the store, and then she took off for Vegas for a week? Would you be so forgiving then?

Ned, what they are arguing against is the whole concept of changing one's mind during the act. After the act is too late, and despite their claims that this will make it easier for women to claim rape as revenge (which blackice has reported happens in slightly more than 50% of all accusations), it already happens and the police seem to find out anyway. The police are very good judges of character and can usually spot a liar and faker regardless of what the law says.

My point aganist them still stands. The whole concept of date-rape was argued against "because it would make it easier for women to claim they were raped if they just didn't like the sex blah blah blah." It hasn't led to an increase in false rape claims, but it has allowed women who were forced to have sex by their aquaintences to get some small measure of justice.

This "new" law is merely a clarification of existing law. Anyone who thinks that consent, once given, cannot be withdrawn, is living about two decades in the past.

[korn469]

Azazel

TMI=too much information

If it is consensual sex, and a person changes their mind, and voices they want to stop but don't actually stop is it really rape? I think it varies from case to case with at least some instances on both sides. However, if they try to stop the sexual encounter and they are restrained then obviously it is some form of rape.

I also agree the statement that bad laws even if they have good intentions are bad laws.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Japher
Yet, since the general public cannot seem to be held responsible for their actions:

You mean like raping someone and not wanting to go to prison?

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Japher
Q1: Did You Give Consent?
Yes - Go to Q2
No - 1st Degree Rape

Q2: Did You Ever Voice That You Did Not Want To Continue?
Yes - Go to Q3
No - No Charges

Q3: Did He/She Continue?
Yes - Go to Q4
No - No Charges

Q4: Did He/She Prevent You From Stopping?
Yes - 2nd Degree Rape/Sexual Assault
No - Go to Q5

Q5: Did You Continue?
Yes - No Charges
No - Go to Q3

If you can agree with the above, why do you have a problem with the law? How does the whole he said-she said not apply here, since it is still her word vs his? How would this prevent false rape claims?

Why do you not think that most states already have multiple degrees of sexual assault?

[Japher]

The whole concept of date-rape was argued against "because it would make it easier for women to claim they were raped if they just didn't like the sex blah blah blah." It hasn't led to an increase in false rape claims, but it has allowed women who were forced to have sex by their aquaintences to get some small measure of justice.

"it hasn't lead to an increase in false rape claims"... how the heck do you know that!? Since all the claims are sent through as rape whether they were or not! All a woman has to do to get the cuffs slapped on her man is to just yell 'rape' these days... no 'false claims' there... no

You mean like raping someone and not wanting to go to prison

No, I mean like having sex but the deciding that they didn't or don't want to anymore.

The police are very good judges of character and can usually spot a liar and faker regardless of what the law says.

So all them murderers that are being executed are really guilty... Good, because I am for the death penalty.

[Japher]

If you can agree with the above, why do you have a problem with the law? How does the whole he said-she said not apply here, since it is still her word vs his? How would this prevent false rape claims?

Why do you not think that most states already have multiple degrees of sexual assault?

You need to ask those questions to the 'victim' to get the claim. You ask them to the 'perp' to get a conviction. If he says he didn't restrain her, and there is no proof, then there is no case.

[korn469]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
The police are very good judges of character and can usually spot a liar and faker regardless of what the law says.

this is simply laughable

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Japher


You need to ask those questions to the 'victim' to get the claim. You ask them to the 'perp' to get a conviction. If he says he didn't restrain her, and there is no proof, then there is no case.

And that is how it generally works these days.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by korn469
this is simply laughable

Generally doesn't mean ni all cases, and given that the police were inclined to let you go one would think you'd agree.

[korn469]

Che,

It was the judge and prosecutor not the police in my case

on my probation report the arresting officer recommended the maximum amount of jail time possible basically because he said I was a bad person, the only thing that made it ok though was that he had marked the box that said no jail time by accident and he scratched it out instead of using white out or getting a new sheet...it was quite funny because it made him look completely incompetent

[Velociryx]

Okay Che....let's use your own examples. You said earlier that you had been in a situation where the lady in question changed her mind mid-stream, right?

She said stop, and so you did.

But....you didn't stop "immediately," now did you? I mean, the whole term "immediately" is rather subjective. She said stop and yet, between that time and the time you actually DID stop, SOME time passed.

A second? Two? I wasn't there, I don't know.

What I do know is that time elapsed.

Under your definition then, you are guilty of the crime.

Duration does not matter, right? Rape is rape if it's for a second or a day, yes? And under this new law, she would have been within her rights to bring you up on charges if her "immediately" and yours differed any at all.

But that's okay too, I guess, cos after all, this law might catch us another rapist or two, so even if your intentions were honorable (ie - you intended to stop, and did, in fact....just not fast enough for her)....and if you end up doing time for it, that's okay, right?

-=Vel=-