New rape law allows change of mind - Page 3

chequita guevara · July 30, 2003, 13:26

Quote:

Originally posted by Japher
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...

Oh, so women are inanimate objects that have no right to control their own bodies?

Tingkai · July 30, 2003, 13:26

Quote:

Originally posted by Oerdin
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?

So you know for a fact what happened, eh.

Velociryx · July 30, 2003, 13:28

No, Che....that's not what he's saying, and you know it's not.

But there's a fundamental problem with the "instant response" thing, and I've already pointed out what it is. Per your interpretation, the man is automatically guilty of the crime the moment the woman withdraws consent (even if he stops....still too late, per your definition...still rape).

-=Vel=-

Sprayber · July 30, 2003, 13:29

I don't know about some of you all but with all the grunting and yelling and other things, is no really gonna register with some people. This is not an exam taking place in a quiet place. I guess a third party will have to get involved to be a refferee.

monkspider · July 30, 2003, 13:30

I agree with the general sentiment that this is a silly law.

Dis · July 30, 2003, 13:30

that will how sex will be in the future.

you will need witnesses and cameras to safely have sex

Velociryx · July 30, 2003, 13:31

On the other hand Diss, the porn industry should really take off....all those tapes lying around....

-=Vel=-

Sava · July 30, 2003, 13:31

Quote:

you will need witnesses and cameras to safely have sex

only if the squeemish safety nazis have their way...

mrmitchell · July 30, 2003, 13:31

How come there aren't any women rapists?

Sava · July 30, 2003, 13:32

Quote:

How come there aren't any women rapists?

because hetero sexual men are evil...

Velociryx · July 30, 2003, 13:33

Cos only brutish men are capable of such a crime, obviously....

Dis · July 30, 2003, 13:34

I think I had a thread if a woman can rape a man.

I don't think it can be done.

mrmitchell · July 30, 2003, 13:35

Man, think about it though.

(Then again, they couldn't find a guy who wouldn't consent unless it was a really old fatass rapist...)

The correct goal of the womens' rights movement is for women to gain equality, not power. This is a step towards power--any sexual act could possibly be rape if the ***** plays her cards right.

Woman pride / power

Woman equality

DAVOUT · July 30, 2003, 13:39

Is it not that which was designated by the Romans under *coïtus interruptus*, and largely misinterpreted till now as a practice aiming to reduce the birthrate?

Velociryx · July 30, 2003, 13:39

Sure could, Mitchell....hell, as it stands now, all a woman has to do is SAY she's going to cry rape (proof or not...doesn't matter) and the lawyers start circling and salivating in pavlovian style...good rape case with lots of publicity...that's the kinna thing that can launch a career...

-=Vel=-

chequita guevara · July 30, 2003, 13:39

Quote:

Originally posted by mrmitchell
How come there aren't any women rapists?

Who says there aren't? Female on male rape is typically ridiculed by police and otherss, so a man who was raped by a woman often is subjected to massive humiliation. Female on female rape isn't as common, but it happen.

Japher · July 30, 2003, 13:39

Concent was like a verbal contract, now they have added a clause that allows one side to back out whenever or for whatever reason they want. I don't know of any other contract out there that is like that. You should never sign a contract without reading it thru...

Heck, maybe they won't have to say anything at all anymore; "Oh, I was going to make him stop, but I was in so much ecstasy that I couldn't get the words out."

I think it is a silly law. Not because of the timing issue, but because it promotes irresponsibilty. To me it's like allowing stupid knocked up teenagers to get abortions.

People need to take sex more seriously, and shouldn't be deciding halfway, or almost all the way, through that they don't want to anymore...

It only takes one good push to take the virginity away from some one.

Tingkai · July 30, 2003, 13:40

Quote:

Originally posted by Dissident
how was he convicted though?

or did he admit to continueing after she said stop?

This is from the court decision. Apparently, the guy claimed it was consentual and he stopped when she said she had to go home. Another guy had sex without before this guy. The first guy admitted he raped her.

"On cross-examination, Laura testified that when defendant entered the room unclothed, he lay down on the bed behind her and touched her shoulder with just enough pressure to make her move, a nudge. He asked her to lie down and she did. He began kissing her and she kissed him back. He rolled on top of her, inserted his penis in her and, although she resisted, he rolled her back over, pulling her on top of him. She was on top of him for four or five minutes, during which time she tried to get off, but he grabbed her waist and pulled her back down. He rolled her over and continued the sexual intercourse. Laura told him that she needed to go home, but he would not stop. He said, “just give me a minute,” and she said, “no, I need to get home.” He replied, “give me some time” and she repeated, “no, I have to go home.” Defendant did not stop, “[h]e just stayed inside of me and kept like basically forcing it on me.” After about a “minute, minute and half,” defendant got off Laura.

Defendant testified, admitting that he and Juan were kissing and fondling Laura in the bedroom, but claimed it was with her consent. He also admitted having sexual intercourse with Laura, again claiming it was consensual. He claimed he discontinued the act as soon as Laura told him that she had to go home."

Edit: Also from the decision:
Thereafter, she told defendant three times that she needed to go home and that she did not accept his protestations he just needed a “minute.” Defendant continued the sex act for at least four or five minutes after Laura first told him she had to go home. According to Laura, after the third time she asked to leave, defendant continued to insist that he needed more time and “just stayed inside of me and kept like basically forcing it on me,” for about a “minute, minute and [a] half.”

chequita guevara · July 30, 2003, 13:40

Quote:

Originally posted by Japher
Concent was like a verbal contract

Contracts for sex are non-enforcable and illegal in every state in this country.

Combat Ingrid · July 30, 2003, 13:43

I have two solutions to you guys who think this law is so evil:

1. Don't have sex
2. Hire a good lawyer to write an iron-clad contract that you both sign before getting started

Or a third one: move to Sweden, here you can gang-rape young girls almost for free. As long as you pick one that is too drunk to defend herself, it's not considered as "rape" but as "abuse", and the punishment will be much less than for "rape". At most, you will get six months to one year in Swedish prison (roughly equivalent to a three star hotel)

There has been a number of gang-rape cases in Sweden the last few years, but I couldn't find a link in English. You should be damn happy they at least TRY to protect your women!

EDIT: skip #2 (see Che's post)

Japher · July 30, 2003, 13:44

Quote:

Contracts for sex are non-enforcable and illegal in every state in this country

Put it in 'quotes' I don't care, because that is what has become.

'You must have consent' = 'contract'

'you did not have consent' = 'contract to not have sex'

I think that is why had "like" in there.

Sava · July 30, 2003, 13:45

Quote:

You should be damn happy they at least TRY to protect your women!

Bad laws with good intentions are still bad laws.

chequita guevara · July 30, 2003, 13:45

It's sad to see so many men think that women don't have a right to decide what goes on with their bodies or that their rights to their bodies are limited by the "needs" of the male.

Az · July 30, 2003, 13:46

Quote:

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
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 . . .

I knew I was subject to these jokes when I was about to make a point in this case.

che, you're being silly. Immedeately?

Velociryx · July 30, 2003, 13:46

Let's face it....to be perfectly safe, the wave of the future will have to be to change this....you'll need the "Consent Cam" rolling for proof, your lawyer in the next room (maybe even running the cam?), who holds the camera AND the (legally binding) contracts stating that

"the party of the first part has agreed to enter into a consentual sex act and see it to completion with the party of the second part."

Anything less....do not pass go, do not collect $200....

-=Vel=-

chequita guevara · July 30, 2003, 13:47

Actually, the attitudes expressed by so many of you neanderthals is exactly why this law is necessary.

Ned · July 30, 2003, 13:48

I don't mind a girl changing her mind in the middle, so long a he can get his money back.

Japher · July 30, 2003, 13:48

Che: This is a discussion about a law, and not about how I feel about women. I would never get in to a situation were the woman would want to stop in the middle of having sex because she 'changed' her mind.

The point is that this law mutilates what was consent into something completely unrecognizable and will give way to more petty law suits that have nothing to do with rape as a crime, but rape as a method to get back at your ex-boyfriend.

Sava · July 30, 2003, 13:48

Quote:

It's sad to see so many men think that women don't have a right to decide what goes on with their bodies or that their rights to their bodies are limited by the "needs" of the male.

Stop with this distraction... it really discredits your stance. It sounds exactly like the whole "liberals hate America" crap that the Right spews. It's not about deciding what women want to do with their bodies. They have a decision to not have sex. This law isn't going to apply to women who say "no" right off the bat. This law isn't going to apply to women who are having consensual sex. This law is only going to allow some women to abuse the legal system. The women that truly get raped in such circumstances (and I question how often this happens) won't be helped by this law. They still have the burden of proof.

It's not about women's rights or whatnot, CHE, it's about the practicality and logistics of a law, i.e. it's the wrong solution for a real problem.

chequita guevara · July 30, 2003, 13:49

Quote:

Originally posted by Azazel
che, you're being silly. Immedeately?

If I can do it, you can too. I have done it, so you cannot argue that it's impossible for the guy to register "no" or "stop" instantly. Even in the throws of ecstacy, I have been able to stop. Anyone who says thy can't is trying to make an excuse for being a bastard.