a time limit on rape -

[La Rocque]

When a woman says yes and then changes her mind,
how fast must a man stop before its a crime?

This is being debated in the US Courts at this time
Some US States have laws that say a man must stop immediately
too bad my brothers you could be 5 seconds from an orgasm
and if you live in a US State with this law and don't stop ... see you in court

But even advocates of the law concede it's hard(wink, wink)
to set a time frame in which sex must cease after consent is taken back
Any thoughts?

 

[rahvin]

I'm more interested in knowing why the need for keeping track of the time arises at all. Are the courts full of cases deemed dubious because the guy stopped a couple of minutes after the consent was taken back? It would seem far more likely for one who wants to force himself on a girl to keep going regardless of her change of heart.

Even if you want to side with the most female-friendly point of view, the debate sounds futile: if consent is withdrawn, the guy has to stop right away. Meaning, as soon as he hears/realizes. It should work like every other crime that's only a crime if it's against somebody's will.

@La Rocque: Could we get into the habit of posting a link to the relevant piece of news when starting a discussion? I'm sure many will be interested in having the sources posted straight away.

 

[Kovenant84]

Well, from a purely personal point of view, if I hear the word 'stop' said in an even remotely serious tone, I stop. There's just no fucking around with that.

From a legal perspective, though, the issue gets murky. First, it's automatically a he-said / she-said thing, and it's even more difficult, because at the point this would be brought in, both parties would have had to agree that the sex that point was consentual. So there's likely no witnesses to the actual act itself, as opposed to people seeing a guy pulling a girl along or something prior to a rape. As well, how long do you give the guy, as most guys in that situation (assuming she really said it, and he had no intention of being a rapist) would either hear and stop, or possibly not hear it (if she said it quietly enough), or misheard it (as in "don't stop"). I know the latter is easily done. Not to sound creepy, but I overheard my neighbor having sex in sophmore year - got freaked out, because I thought I heard her say 'stop', and so I rushed to the adjoining wall, to see if I needed to call the cops or something, and heard her saying... well, I won't get into that, but she definitely wasn't asking him to stop.

EDIT: To the above, there would definitely be a buffer period of some amount of time, but I think that (unless the guy was a really damn quick finisher) there would be ample time between the withdrawl of consent and the guy finishing up that he would realize her intent and be legally (and one would hope, morally/ethically) bound to stop.

Also, the claim would likely have not physical evidence, either, as there would definitely be signs of intercourse, but, again, both parties had agreed that the sex started as consentual.

Honestly, I have no idea how they'll rule on this. I don't know how they could. Obviously something must be done, because any guy who keeps going knowing that the woman doesn't want him to is most definitely a rapist, but how it's going to be implemented is beyond me.

~kov.

 

[Dafne]

i'm just wondering how the hell cases like that go on!!! i mean NO MEANS NO!!! even if it follows a yes!
and what i deeply dont understand (i know this goes a lil bit further though) is how on earth someone can take pleasure when hurting someone else.

 

[Taliesin]

Uuhh.. what? First she says yes, then she says no?
I dont know, if I heard "Stop!" or something in bed, Id think the woman has a cramp or is not feeling well for.. whatever reason, I dont interpret "2 more thrusts and Im sueing you for rape!" into a "Stop!"

In Germany, judges have a certain room for "common sense" in their judgements, which is dangerous of course, but can be handled with a system of courts on several levels.
Why is it that common sense has no room in american courts? How come I can sue a coffee company for not printing "Warning: Hot coffee is hot!" on their cups? Why can I sue McDonald's, just because Im a fatass?

Anyway, if a woman first gives her consent and then in the middle of the action takes it back, I dont think rape is the real issue at hand here

 

[hyena]

i concur completely with rahvin about the posting of sources, i am on another forum that requires sources for each and every piece of news lest said piece of news is deleted... and it works wonders against wild conjectures.

anyway, i guess that the debate is not really about two or three more thrusts. my impression is that these discussions refer to situations where one of the partners, normally the woman, doesn't want to progress to the next stage of sex, whatever it may be (example: consent might be given to petting but not to intercourse), and the guy forces this progress.

if someone refuses to stop, is it rape? well, yeah - although i also think that the woman is responsible for her taste in men; while there might be someone who undergoes a complete personality change only when in bed, i guess that someone who doesn't stop when told to is likely to show other signs of abusive and violent behavior, and women should exert extra care when getting involved with such men. the rapist should go to jail, even if the two people are married or cohabiting, but the woman should be forbidden to see him again, especially if there are children (most abusive relationships have repetitive patterns and victims come back to their aggressors only to accuse them of the same evils again and again).

this said, men - where i am concerned personally, ALL men - react terribly to the word 'stop'. i honestly hope that all the guys who posted in this thread actually walk the walk, because most definitely the men in my sentimental life never did. make no mistake, nobody ever forced himself on me: while my pick of partners is doubtful from the perspective of emotional stability, i am not drawn to physically abusive men and never was with one (moreover, since i normally tend to go for slight guys, i would probably break his neck). however, the psychological pressure has been terrible every single time i asked someone to stop; note also that i tend to state my boundaries before starting (and that would be "before starting a relationship", not "before starting sex"), so it's not like they don't know... but i have been accused of wanting to deny them happiness and serenity, of not understanding their needs, of being out of step with the world, out of step with myself, and various other horrible things. this is not as serious as rape, of course, but it can be pretty harmful when coming from a loved one. it almost put me off the whole thing in several occasions, too much pain involved. and i mistrust guys on this point, in general.

 

[rahvin]

anyway, i guess that the debate is not really about two or three more thrusts. my impression is that these discussions refer to situations where one of the partners, normally the woman, doesn't want to progress to the next stage of sex, whatever it may be (example: consent might be given to petting but not to intercourse), and the guy forces this progress.

I've stumbled upon sites that go a little beyond that and dissect the possibilities of a woman first giving consent to intercourse and then withdrawing it for whatever reason (but it's hinted at: effects of alcohol or recreational drug just wore off). Such sites - perhaps in good faith - insist that "But she was ok with that a minute before!" should not be a valid justification in court. While I respect their view and certainly believe that whoever forces himself on a woman ought to have his genitals removed (not really. But it would be nice), in point of fact what they're saying is that women should always be able to win a rape lawsuit based on their word alone, because no matter when or how or why they changed their mind, the psychological refusal always reigns supreme.

 

[marduk1507]

@Tal: Your anti-americanism is just ridiculous, sorry. But I agree, the enforcement of the law is often counter-productive in the US. The debate (the source would really help) is based on the idea that law should be taken literally, and there is no room for the "spirit of laws", as Montesquieu would say. Taken ad absurdum, forced anal sex is not illegal, i.e. not taken as a rape, because it simply doesnt fit into the legal definition of sexual intercourse, BUT you could also be sued for having anal sex with your wife, because its illegal in some states. But I dont think this is typical only for the US, EU is full of legal cases testing the limits of silliness.

 

[rahvin]

How come I can sue a coffee company for not printing "Warning: Hot coffee is hot!" on their cups? Why can I sue McDonald's, just because Im a fatass?

The answer is in the preamble of this article. The even shorter version is: In the US any violation of contractual obligations easily results in out-of-court monetary composition, thus improving the plaintiff's chance to obtain money. As surprising as you might think it is, Americans are not exceptionally naive in not realizing when the coffee cup is hot: they're exceptionally astute in forcing companies to "share their wealth".

However, we're talking about rape here, and this is something that - rather appropriately, I think - pertains to the penal system.

 

[Kovenant84]

In addition, the fabled 'coffee is too hot' story actually had more justification. By law, coffee is required to be served a certain number of degrees below the boiling point of water. This particular establishment was on file for having violated that law multiple times (without major incident). Therefore, when the woman did spill her coffee, it was a good 20-30 degrees (fahrenheit) higher than the legal allowance.

I'm with you on the McDonald's thing, though.

~kov.

 

[Taliesin]

@Tal: Your anti-americanism is just ridiculous, sorry. But I agree, the enforcement of the law is often counter-productive in the US.

Thank you for making so much sense today What did I ever do to you to deserve this shit anyway? So I cant critisise the US, because somewhere in europe, there are courts being just as silly? It just keeps making sense.

Anyway, I think we should talk about the situations to which this rape-law would apply.
I can think of 3 situations
1) It's a "normal" relation, the couple is having sex when a sudden change of mind occurs and the woman yells "Stop!"
2) A one-night stand situation without drugs
3) A one-night stand situation with drugs

In my opinion, the law should not apply to situation 1 and 2, because I fail to see the "criminal drive" in the man. Same goes for situation 2, plus it doesnt really go well for the woman's morality to hop in bed with someone she hardly knows and after a brief moment of reflection sue the guy for rape.

 

[Kovenant84]

Ok, to work with your breakdown, Tal,

1) Guy could be understandably confused, as this is at least an established relationship and (presumably) there have not been similar incidents prior to this. However, in such a situation, one could contend the guy should respond quicker, as one would assume he cares about the woman. Again, though, it depends on how long it continues after the 'stop' is requested (poor wording, I know).

2. I'm not so sure that the guy should be excused from this. Who knows the woman's reasoning? Perhaps she was just depressed at the time, wanted some companionship, and realized partway through that it's not what she wanted? I always wondered how many regretted their 'logic' with that adage "The quickest way to get over someone is to get under someone else."

3. Of course this should probably be the most serious. Any time alcohol or drugs are involved, there will be impaired judgement. I'm not certain how likely it would be that the drugs/alcohol would just happen to wear off halfway through the act, but who knows. In any case, this would probably be the easiest to prosecute.

The problem with most of this is exactly what Rahvin stated. Essentially, as soon as the woman claims she asked the man to stop, he's locked up and sentenced. Under this, there really is no way to fight such an accusation. I'm all for the real rapists getting locked away, and I'm not familiar with the rate of falsely reported rapes, but I can't imagine an innocent guy would like this at all. It truly is 'guilty until proven innocent', which is I think my largest problem with it.

~kov.

 

[La Rocque]

@La Rocque: Could we get into the habit of posting a link to the relevant piece of news when starting a discussion? I'm sure many will be interested in having the sources posted straight away.

I'd like to link you with a link but I have no link to link to
I'm an old school person, I get most of my information from the print media
I crossed paths for the first time with the rape/consent in our local newspaper
' a man in Illinois(or maybe it was Indiana) was given an 11 year prison sentence for raping his wife'
the main theme of the article was she had enough and wanted to stop but he continued after her repeated request to stop. He's up for parole in 4 and half years
Weeks later I was reading US News & World Report Magazine (great mag. BTW) and the rape/consent story was written about again, my thoughts went back to the newspaper article.
I spend all most of my free time at the local library, this Monday I was reading (Time or Newsweek, not sure which mag. as I read both cover to cover every week) this thread I started came from another story about rape/consent. What I wrote at the start of this thread is word for word from the mag., except, my brothers ... see you in court and the words(wink, wink) in the last paragraph.
Other than myself, do not have knowledge of anyone on the forum actually having sex?
I presume some are and thought they would find it of interest???
Links, we ain't got no stinking links
La Rocque, aka old school hippie from another era -

 

[rahvin]

Other than myself, do not have knowledge of anyone on the forum actually having sex?

It's just possible that they find it should be private business.

I presume some are and thought they would find it of interest???

Hi, and welcome to Misunderstanding Central!
Lots of people found your thread of interest. In fact, they've been discussing it seriously, and I didn't even post pictures of regional stereotypes to upset the sanctimonious fireangel. It's just that we would love to read the related piece of news. While magazines and newspapers are ok, the information can certainly be found on the Web as well. Next time, try looking it up on Google. I understand it's more work than simply posting the thread, but I feel it's not too much when actually wanting to start a discussion.

 

[marduk1507]

Thank you for making so much sense today What did I ever do to you to deserve this shit anyway? So I cant critisise the US, because somewhere in europe, there are courts being just as silly? It just keeps making sense.

WOW, well, if you call that criticism, then I humbly apologise.

 

[hyena]

Anyway, as a small aside, it's easy to make fun of the 'hot coffee' story, but in most European countries we have no class action laws. This damages everyone, and I'm glad that such a law is being drafted in Italy. It is just not fair that the misbehavior of some companies should damage a large number of people just because they have no legal means of organizing, and of course a large company is going to win a lawsuit against a single person every time if it is not about something really big (say, wrongful death). I absolutely do not buy into the anti-globalization theories according to which all multinational companies are evil etc, but I reckon that some may act wrongfully from time to time. Mocking legal systems that allow class action is just playing into the hands of a few criminal managers.

 

[plintus]

Women shouldn't talk in bed:

 

[fireangel]

In fact, they've been discussing it seriously, and I didn't even post pictures of regional stereotypes to upset the sanctimonious fireangel.

that was so kind of you

 

[La Rocque]

Went back and checked:
Time ... 12 Feb 07 (law) page 59
'if the woman says no
the man must go'

edit

It's just possible that they find it should be private business.

Are You the same rahvin who told the forum about how You and DT band members were comparing their penis sizes?
at least my business was woman/man and not a man/man thing

 

[King Chaos]

I think it's rape if there's no consent from the start. If there is consent but then the woman asks to stop and the guy doesn't, he's just a complete arsehole. No law has been broken. If the guy assaults her to keep the sex going after a struggle, then I'd just rule it as assault and take into account the domestic element and with sex being involved, see it as more severe.

This is going to sound sick, but as far as I understand some women get off on odd things. Maybe saying stop and pretending they don't want it but getting it anyway is a thrill to them... in which case you wouldn't want to dissapoint their secret urge to be without control during sex. I'm getting this information from a survey I read along time ago where it turned out a popular sexual fantasy for women was to be quite literally "raped" by their boyfriend. sick indeed. My girlfriend mentioned while we were talking dirty one time that she'd like me to take her against her will... Or take her while she's sleeping.

Then there's also the chemical issue. It's very hard to be brought to the point of climax and then be told you can have no release. You would find a way to ejaculate even if it meant doing it yourself. If you're already inside a woman and being passionate, I'm certain the sexual drive and psychological involvement in sexual activity would effect a persons ability to think completely rationally, and a few more thrusts aren't going to make you feel guilty until the release comes... then you'd probably feel like scum.