New rape law allows change of mind

[Sava]

Anyone who says thy can't is trying to make an excuse for being a bastard.

Here's a news flash mr Morality.... NOT EVERYONE IS LIKE YOU! and you are just being stupid now...

[Japher]

sounds exactly like the whole "liberals hate America" crap that the Right spews

Same old Sava, right back in it swinging.

Always think it is funny how we shoot from different sides, yet always seem to hit the same target

Oh, and Liberals do hate America

[Velociryx]

And Che....I think I'm safe in saying that the folks commenting here do not feel the way you claim that they do.

Rather, they see this law as taking those rights to new levels of absurdity, ESPECIALLY given that it makes it nigh on impossible to PROVE (her word against his, nothing more....physicial evidence? Nahhh, don't need it, she SAID so, so it must be true, right? There are NEVER instances or any conditions whatsoever where a woman might lie about something like that, are there? C'mon Che, you're a smarter boy than that). But where are the protective laws for men falsely accused?

Oh, there aren't any....cos men are bigger and stronger, right? They can take it...

-=Vel=-

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


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The instant consent is withdrawn, it becomes a crime to continue.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.

This is silly, because then the woman can claim rape for ANY duration passing after she says to stop, even milliseconds. You have to establish a reasonable threshold of when the man has time to register the refusal and pull away. I think up to 15 seconds is perfectly reasonable. Otherwise, you will get accusations of rape for guys who did stop "immediately," just not "immediately enough" for the accuser.

The man has a right to be given a reasonable window for compliance, IMO, because no 2 situations are the same, and you can't know what exactly is going on at the moment of the refusal. A few seconds isn't going to make a dramatic difference in the emotional state of the woman. What if her first refusal is a whispered "stop" that the man doesn't hear, because he's grunting away? There are a lot of nuances.

The strawmen about changing one's mind after sex, while they may be amusing to those posting them, are offensive, because the same logic tying that to coitus interruptus can be used to justify denying a woman's right to change her mind before initiating sex.

[Sava]

Rather, they see this law as taking those rights to new levels of absurdity, ESPECIALLY given that it makes it nigh on impossible to PROVE (her word against his, nothing more....physicial evidence? Nahhh, don't need it, she SAID so, so it must be true, right? There are NEVER instances or any conditions whatsoever where a woman might lie about something like that, are there? C'mon Che, you're a smarter boy than that). But where are the protective laws for men falsely accused?

The proponents of this law don't bother to take into account common sense and apparantly don't have any understanding of how the legal system works.

[Tingkai]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
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.

Yup.

If you're in bed with a woman and things are going smooth and then suddenly the woman says "no, I want to go home", that means you're sh!t out of luck and you stop. You don't get to keep going at it and if you do, you're going to get hauled into court.

Is anyone here going to say that they would keep on going after the woman says "No, I want to go home"?

[Sava]

[The strawmen about changing one's mind after sex, while they may be amusing to those posting them, are offensive, because the same logic tying that to coitus interruptus can be used to justify denying a woman's right to change her mind before initiating sex.

It's not a strawman at all. It's a legitimate instance of how this law can be abused. ANd you're an idiot if you ignore it.

[Ned]

Actually, this has happened to me. What then occurs is a dialog between the man and the woman about a little more "time." At some point, she will really become insistent. It is at this point the man should stop, else he continues only by force. It is, in fact, a form of rape.

This said, I would not classify the "crime" as rape. It is hardly that at all. The law should simply stay out of this. Even the concept that a man could be charged for rape under these cirucumstances is ludicrous.

The woman has her own remedies: divorce, breaking up or not going out again. This should be sufficient.

[Sava]

If you're in bed with a woman and things are going smooth and then suddenly the woman says "no, I want to go home", that means you're sh!t out of luck and you stop. You don't get to keep going at it and if you do, you're going to get hauled into court.

You guys must have boring sex lives if you are in a perfectly rational state during sex.

Or you could be like Boris and have little or no understanding of heterosexual relations.

[Velociryx]

I agree. This law is open to extreme abuse.

A woman could mouth the word "stop" (technically "voicing it," even if the man doesn't see or hear the faint whisper), and....that's enough.

Hey! She SAID no! His problem if he didn't hear. Even better, after the fact, she could just claim she said no.

Who's a jury gonna believe, the big strong neanderthal, or the weepy 'victim?'

Obviously rape exists, and yes...it's a horrible crime.

This law is not the solution, unless by "solution" you mean, a simple, effective means of tossing men in jail if a woman decides at any point during or after the sex act that she's unhappy about something or just simply wants the man gone.

Don't believe it happens? You dream.

-=Vel=-

[Sava]

The woman has her own remedies: divorce, breaking up or not going out again. This should be sufficient.

EXACTLY... and if there is a brutal crime... THEN THERE WILL BE EVIDENCE UNDER EXISTING LAW TO LOCK THE ****ER UP!

This law only opens the door to legal abuse.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Sava
It's not a strawman at all. It's a legitimate instance of how this law can be abused. ANd you're an idiot if you ignore it.

Since this law changes NOTHING about the burden of proof required for rape (you seem to be selectively ignoring that), this statement is utter bullshit.

As I said, this law is codifying something that should already be apparent: People have the right to change their minds during sex, and if the partner deliberately continues, it's rape.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Japher
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.

That's untrue. You don't know until it happens. I was with two different women who changed their minds during sex. Both of whom continued to have relationships with me. It's just that at that moment, they changed their minds. I, being a decent human being who thinks about others and not just that I want to get off so **** the *****, stopped.

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.

It's really funny, cuz that's the exact same argument that was used in the seventies when guys tried to argue that it was impossible to rape your wife, since she consented when she married you. It's the same argument used by date rapists who argued she consented when she came back to my room or got in my car cuz she knew what I wanted.

Any free human being can withdraw their consent from any act with another human being at any time (as long as it's not for an illegal reason, such as race). If I don't want to work with you, I can quit, you can't force me to work. If we have a contract, I might have to pay damages, but you cannot force me to work for you, live with you, or even asociate with you just because I consented to do so at one time. If you were to try and continue to do so, I could sue you for harrasment. This is no different and merely clarifies what should be an obvious point, any free person cannot be forced into an act against their will by another, regardless of the circumstances.

[Sava]

People have the right to change their minds during sex, and if the partner deliberately continues, it's rape.

Sorry bo bo, but if there is sufficient evidence to prove rape, the question of when consent was given or not given is irrelevant. The existing law is sufficient. And this new law only expands the possibility of abuse.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Sava
Or you could be like Boris and have little or no understanding of heterosexual relations.

Funny, because I had "heterosexual relations" when you were a pimply virgin.

[Velociryx]

any free person cannot be forced into an act against their will by another, regardless of the circumstances.

You said it, Che.

And per the article, she wasn't forced into the act. She entered into it quite willingly.

-=Vel=-

[Sava]

Funny, because I had "heterosexual relations" when you were a pimply virgin.

You are turning into Fezzy bobo... you're taking me too seriously.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Velociryx
Rather, they see this law as taking those rights to new levels of absurdity, ESPECIALLY given that it makes it nigh on impossible to PROVE (her word against his, nothing more....physicial evidence? Nahhh, don't need it, she SAID so, so it must be true, right?

As has been pointed out previously, many rape cases lack physical evidence. Women who "consent" to bing raped under the threat of violence will only have their word against the rapists. Since it's just a he said, she said case, I guess you don't think that qualifies a rape.

In fact, most cases of rape lack evidence that sex was not consensual. I guess we should only outlaw rape where actual violence is used.

[Adam Smith]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara You do not have a right to have sex with any specific person

Damn.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Sava
Sorry bo bo, but if there is sufficient evidence to prove rape, the question of when consent was given or not given is irrelevant. The existing law is sufficient. And this new law only expands the possibility of abuse.

No it isn't irrelevant, because, as was said, there have been cases in the past where rapists have justified continuing, even after being asked to stop, because they had initial consent. And they've gotten away with it. This law would prevent such scumbags from getting away with it.

[Tingkai]

Originally posted by Sava
You guys must have boring sex lives if you are in a perfectly rational state during sex.

Or you could be like Boris and have little or no understanding of heterosexual relations.

I know you're young and you probably haven't had much sex, but if a woman suddenly says "No, I want to go home", the natural reaction is to say "what?" If you're coming when she says that, then you're probably going to pause and say "okay".

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Velociryx
Who's a jury gonna believe, the big strong neanderthal, or the weepy 'victim?'

Nine times out of ten they believe the guy, actually.

[Sava]

I know you're young and you probably haven't had much sex, but if a woman suddenly says "No, I want to go home", the natural reaction is to say "what?" If you're coming when she says that, then you're probably going to pause and say "okay".

Every girl I've had sex with (4 women in 6 years since I was age 17-23) was enjoying it too much to say "No I want to go home..."

[Sava]

Nine times out of ten they believe the guy, actually.

Source? or a BAM?

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Velociryx
any free person cannot be forced into an act against their will by another, regardless of the circumstances.

You said it, Che.

And per the article, she wasn't forced into the act. She entered into it quite willingly.

-=Vel=-

And you missed the part where she changed her mind. Apparently you believe then, that it's okay for employers to enslave you because you agreed to work for them.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Sava
Every girl I've had sex with (4 women in 6 years since I was age 17-23) was enjoying it too much to say "No I want to go home..."

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*

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Sava
Source? or a BAM?

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).

[Tingkai]

Originally posted by Velociryx
any free person cannot be forced into an act against their will by another, regardless of the circumstances.

You said it, Che.

And per the article, she wasn't forced into the act. She entered into it quite willingly.

-=Vel=-

But that's the whole crux of the matter. Under the old law, once a woman gives consent, at any point, that's it. She has said it is okay, so it is not rape.

The new ruling says that a woman has a right to change her mind.

It seems obvious to me that a woman has a right to change her mind. But the question remains about how long does it take for the man to stop. That should be the deciding factor, along with other actions. In the Califonia case, the judges ruled that the man's physical actions amounted to rape. I think the judges may have erred on that issue because they said he held her forcefully, but it might have been a natural sexual action.

[Japher]

You don't know until it happens

Where did I say it never has?

The point of the matter is the consent to start should not be given until you know the person your are with will honor the request to stop.

Everything else is irresponsible, and I don't feel that the consequences of the irresponsibilities of a person should be protect under law.

, any free person cannot be forced into an act against their will by another, regardless of the circumstances

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?

No one Forced her to have sex. Albeit the forced her to finish what she started... I agree it is wrong. yet, it is not a law that needs to be.

It's like jumping out of that car that then goes and hits someone. Are you responsible for the injuries to that person? You started driving, but you are not required to keep driving, because that would be forcing someone to do something and that is wrong.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Sava
Sorry bo bo, but if there is sufficient evidence to prove rape, the question of when consent was given or not given is irrelevant. The existing law is sufficient. And this new law only expands the possibility of abuse.

Dorkus, if there is actual evidence to prove rape, then consent was probably never given at all. Evidence of rape only happens when there is actual, physical, trauma. This tends to be rather rare, since the threat of violence is usually enough to control a victim.