NationStates Jolt Archive

wow. just, wow.


Court: Woman Can't Say No After Start Of Sex (http://www.thewbalchannel.com/news/10198629/detail.html)

ANNAPOLIS, Md. -- An appellate court said Maryland's rape law is clear -- no doesn't mean no when it follows a yes and intercourse has begun.

A three-judge panel of the Court of Special Appeals Monday threw out a rape conviction saying that a trial judge in Montgomery County erred when he refused to answer the jury's question on that very point.

The appeals court said that when the jury asked the trial judge if a woman could withdraw her consent after the start of sex, the jury should have been told she could not. The ruling said the law is not ambiguous and is a tenet of common-law.

The decision startled activists who believe people have the right to say no at any time. Jennifer Pollitt Hill of the Maryland Coalition Against Sexual Assault called the law "insulting and dangerous."

Montgomery Delegate Jean Cryor said the Women's Caucus of the General Assembly would likely examine the decision during the next legislative session.

What exactly is the "start of sex"?

thats just stupid never should of been over turned hell guy should of been taken out and shot.

That only works if they have strict legal definitions for the start and end of sex, and somehow I doubt they do.

But beyond that, that's awful. I should always be permitted to stop consenting to an ongoing activity.

Now is this the fault of the court or in the design of the law?

What exactly is the "start of sex"?

For me? Eye contact.

Now is this the fault of the court or in the design of the law?

I'd say in the design of the law. State legislators are notorious for crafting laws with more holes than Swiss cheese (witness my great state, Colorado, where they neglected to write in a minimum age of consent for minor female children, leading to a decision that set that as as 12 (I think)).

But beyond that, that's awful. I should always be permitted to stop consenting to an ongoing activity.

i'm trying to imagine another case where it would even be conceivable to not be able to withdraw consent. so far i'm coming up empty.

I'd say in the design of the law. State legislators are notorious for crafting laws with more holes than Swiss cheese (witness my great state, Colorado, where they neglected to write in a minimum age of consent for minor female children, leading to a decision that set that as as 12 (I think)).

Now even though morally correct, I disagree w/ the courts making decisions like that, in effect, legislating from the bench.

If there is a loophole in the law, the court was technically correct. It's up to the legislature to fix it.

For me? Eye contact.

Thank you for highlighting exactly why the court is wrong.

It's like determining the start of life. There are different opinions.

Now even though morally correct, I disagree w/ the courts making decisions like that, in effect, legislating from the bench.

If there is a loophole in the law, the court was technically correct. It's up to the legislature to fix it.

Granted the judiciary shouldn't legislate from the bench but when cases a presented that show the laws to be inadequate, they should strike them down. They can, as was done in New Jersey and Massachusetts on gay marriage, refer the matter to the legislature to be addressed there.

Now even though morally correct, I disagree w/ the courts making decisions like that, in effect, legislating from the bench.

Oh stop with the "legislating from the bench" bs, it's tired, overused, and often implied incorrectly.

When there is a definitive and noticable gap in the written law which must be filled the courts are allowed, as part of their duty, to fall back on common law maxims. Given that there was a gap in the law, the court can look to common law traditions to fill that gap.

It's not legislating from the bench, it's looking to common law when there is no statutory law to fill a noticable and unacceptable gap.

There is a natural right to withdraw consent. What's wrong with Maryland laws?

Thank you for highlighting exactly why the court is wrong.

It's like determining the start of life. There are different opinions.

True, but then again maybe the law is very clear. And to be honest the article said, "start of intercourse," instead of "start of sex." One is not necessarily the other, the former is pretty clearly defined.

But the law is wrong on the basis that, well, you could get a woman to consent and then start violently raping her and she wouldn't have any legal recourse.

Thank you for highlighting exactly why the court is wrong.

It's like determining the start of life. There are different opinions.

Wtf, how could the start of sex be anything but the start of intercourse?

Thank you for highlighting exactly why the court is wrong.


And you are familiar with what the law in Maryland says? The court upholds the WRITTEN law first, and absent that, looks to common law.

If the written law says it, that's the law. The court can not be wrong if it enforces the law, the law, however, may be inadequate.

Additionally, it seems the concept "start of sex" is a jury question. From the way I read it it appear sthe jury is able to conclude, on their own, at what point sex began (as it is likely a issue of fact not an issue of law it is prudent to let the jury decide that on a incident by incident basis).

However at the point the jury does conclude that sex has begun, under maryland law it appears that consent can not be retracted after that point.

Now really folks, arm chair lawyers are just really bad lawyers. Would anyone feel qualifies to remove someone's appendix without having first gone to medical school? No? Then why does everyone feel qualified to speak on matters of law without formal training in law?

But the law is wrong on the basis that, well, you could get a woman to consent and then start violently raping her and she wouldn't have any legal recourse.

and moving outside the realm of sex, this would mean that any time you consent to do some activity, you would lose the right to say "stop, you're hurting me" once the activity was under way. that's fucking batshit loony, at best.

Oh stop with the "legislating from the bench" bs, it's tired, overused, and often implied incorrectly.

When there is a definitive and noticable gap in the written law which must be filled the courts are allowed, as part of their duty, to fall back on common law maxims. Given that there was a gap in the law, the court can look to common law traditions to fill that gap.

It's not legislating from the bench, it's looking to common law when there is no statutory law to fill a noticable and unacceptable gap.

It's only BS when you disagree w/ it. It is NOT the judiciary's job to establish or modify laws. That is for the legislature. In all cases.

and moving outside the realm of sex, this would mean that any time you consent to do some activity, you would lose the right to say "stop, you're hurting me" once the activity was under way. that's fucking batshit loony, at best.

I agree entirely. However it's not the court's job to change such a loony law, it's the legislature's.

Then why does everyone feel qualified to speak on matters of law without formal training in law?

because it ought not be the case that one needs extensive formal training to understand the rules governing society?

Now really folks, arm chair lawyers are just really bad lawyers. Would anyone feel qualifies to remove someone's appendix without having first gone to medical school? No? Then why does everyone feel qualified to speak on matters of law without formal training in law?

That's a poor argument as it can be applied to anything anyone discusses. I mean, are you a musician? If not, better not discuss that latest album you like - you aren't qualified!

It's only BS when you disagree w/ it. It is NOT the judiciary's job to establish or modify laws. That is for the legislature. In all cases.

say it with me, say it clearly.

"the court can adopt common law principles in instances in which there is a noticable and unacceptable gap in the statutory law".

Get it? Hear me? The court can't go against what the law is as written, however if the written law inadvertantly leaves a gap then the court can look to common law to fill it.

Once again, armchair lawyers make bad lawyers.

I agree entirely. However it's not the court's job to change such a loony law, it's the legislature's.

But you just said it's alright for the courts to look to common law to do so. Which is it? Is it the legislatures or the judiciarys?

say it with me, say it clearly.

"the court can adopt common law principles in instances in which there is a noticable and unacceptable gap in the statutory law".

Get it? Hear me? The court can't go against what the law is as written, however if the written law inadvertantly leaves a gap then the court can look to common law to fill it.

Once again, armchair lawyers make bad lawyers.

Completely contradicting your post:

I agree entirely. However it's not the court's job to change such a loony law, it's the legislature's.

Got it? Hear me? The it's the legislature's job to fix the law. Not the court's.

I guess trying to denigrate your opponent is your best defense.

[---mandatory snip---]

But, there hasn't been any declaration at which point sex actually begins.

I made my statement because a post previously stated that for him, sex begins at eye contact. I used it to show how the court could be wrong. I pointed out that one person may think sex begins at the flirting stage, while someone else thinks it begins once an oral or penetrating action occurs.

Wtf, how could the start of sex be anything but the start of intercourse?

It can't be. But people like making their own definitions of things to suit their own ends. I find it stupid that you can suddenly say no to something you've already started doing willingly. But then people do dumb things but it is still rape.

i'm trying to imagine another case where it would even be conceivable to not be able to withdraw consent. so far i'm coming up empty.
Maybe for the judge that ruled on this "intercourse" only lasts 2 seconds, so there's hardly time to withdraw consent.

But you just said it's alright for the courts to look to common law to do so. Which is it? Is it the legislatures or the judiciarys?

Just because you're a tad thick don't take it out on me.

But let me explain really really slowly, just so you understand, ok?

If the legislature crafts a law, the written word of the law, the court is BOUND to follow the WRITTEN WORD of the law, unless that written word violates state/federal constitution.

Ok, with me so far? When the legislature writes something down the court must follow it.

HOWEVER when the legislature leaves a gap in the law, and that gap must, by necessity be filled, then, and ONLY THEN, are courts allowed to look to common law principles to fill that gap, and the legislature has the perogative to amend the law to either agree, or disagree, with the common law.

So once again, once it's written, court must follow, if it's left out, then court can look to common law. Legislature may, as they wish, accept or reject the common law when crafting a written filler to that gap.

You know, I don't understand these guys. If the guy had just stopped he probably would've gotten another shot at it anyway. It's happened to me before. Girl starts, girl gets all emotional and wants to stop, you stop, she gets to thinking you're trustworthy because you did and girl starts again. Who wants to have sex with a girl who isn't having sex back anyway?

Maybe for the judge that ruled on this "intercourse" only lasts 2 seconds, so there's hardly time to withdraw consent.

For some people intercourse may only last 2 seconds. :p

That's a poor argument as it can be applied to anything anyone discusses. I mean, are you a musician? If not, better not discuss that latest album you like - you aren't qualified!

I can discuss, in my blatantly unqualified opinion, whether I like an album or not, that is purely opinion.

One can, in their blatantly amateurish opinion, state whether they agree, or disagree with a law in question.

However for an amateur to make claims of legal RULES, and legal FACT, without the background to substantiate those claims is the equivilant to me saying "this is a C note that guy just played" without any actual training as to what a C note sounds like.

I will say again, trying to make legal claims without legal knowledge is like trying to remove someone's appendix without having gone to medical school.

For some people intercourse may only last 2 seconds. :p
That's what viagara is for!

Maybe for the judge that ruled on this "intercourse" only lasts 2 seconds, so there's hardly time to withdraw consent.

Once again, it's not a judicial question it's a jury question. All the judge said was, once you decide that intercourse has begun, consent can not be removed by law (actually...the appeals court said the judge SHOULD have said that, but that's neither here nor there). The determination as to WHEN it began is a matter for the jury, however once the jury determines it has begun, as a matter of state law, consent can not be removed beyond that point.

Granted the judiciary shouldn't legislate from the bench but when cases a presented that show the laws to be inadequate, they should strike them down. They can, as was done in New Jersey and Massachusetts on gay marriage, refer the matter to the legislature to be addressed there.

The court cannot strike down a law that is inadequate. That is the legislative branch's duty. The court can only strike down a law if they deem it to be unconstitutional. The lack of a law protecting this girl was the duty of the legislative process to handle. The courts can't do that.

I can discuss, in my blatantly unqualified opinion, whether I like an album or not, that is purely opinion.

One can, in their blatantly amateurish opinion, state whether they agree, or disagree with a law in question.

However for an amateur to make claims of legal RULES, and legal FACT, without the background to substantiate those claims is the equivilant to me saying "this is a C note that guy just played" without any actual training as to what a C note sounds like.

And yet people CAN and DO make "amateur" pronunciations, in music, law and every other subject there is. So what you're talking about is not what CAN be discussed, but what you would prefer to be discussed.

Your opinion, in other words. :)

I will say again, trying to make legal claims without legal knowledge is like trying to remove someone's appendix without having gone to medical school.

Not at all. The latter has consequences that include incarcertation, death and/or severe physical trauma to a victim, while the former is just words on a Jolt gaming forum.

Just because you're a tad thick don't take it out on me.

But let me explain really really slowly, just so you understand, ok?

If the legislature crafts a law, the written word of the law, the court is BOUND to follow the WRITTEN WORD of the law, unless that written word violates state/federal constitution.

Ok, with me so far? When the legislature writes something down the court must follow it.

HOWEVER when the legislature leaves a gap in the law, and that gap must, by necessity be filled, then, and ONLY THEN, are courts allowed to look to common law principles to fill that gap, and the legislature has the perogative to amend the law to either agree, or disagree, with the common law.

So once again, once it's written, court must follow, if it's left out, then court can look to common law. Legislature may, as they wish, accept or reject the common law when crafting a written filler to that gap.

And more w/ the insults. Typical. According to the article, the law stated that consent could not be withdrawn.

"Common Law" really just means "whatever the courts feel like".

You can keep up the insults all you want. It does not change the fact that the judiciary modifing laws based on "common law" is legislating from the bench. If they feel justified in striking the law down as too vague, fine. Then it's up to the legislature to rewrite it.

Maybe if you weren't so thick, you'ld see that.

Not at all. The latter has consequences that include incarcertation, death and/or severe physical trauma to a victim, while the former is just words on a Jolt gaming forum.

Well fair enough, let me amend. Trying to talk about legal fact and legal rules without training in legal methodology is like trying to discuss how to remove someone's appendix properly.

Sure you can, and maybe you might be right, but it is somewhat the height of arrogance to assume you're qualified to discuss it...

And more w/ the insults. Typical. According to the article, the law stated that consent could not be withdrawn.


That's nice. I wasn't talking about that law when I was discussing common law, I was discussing the law in which the age of consent was inadvertantly left out so the court set it at 12 in compliance (I assume) with common law. I agree that in the issue of the law the article discussed, the written word was clear and the court must abide by it. It is in issues when the written word is NOT clear that the court can look to history and tradition to determine commonly accepted definitions.

Since you can't bother to stay on the topic I was discussing, I consider the rest of your post superflous.

Go to law school, then tell me how the law works, k?

Well fair enough, let me amend. Trying to talk about legal fact and legal rules without training in legal methodology is like trying to discuss how to remove someone's appendix properly.

Sure you can, and maybe you might be right, but it is somewhat the height of arrogance to assume you're qualified to discuss it...

Maybe so, but personally speaking, I would rather be guilty of arrogance (which I am) than of making someone bleed to death.

Not at all. The latter has consequences that include incarcertation, death and/or severe physical trauma to a victim, while the former is just words on a Jolt gaming forum.

So you concede that they are the same, except for their material consequences?

Well fair enough, let me amend. Trying to talk about legal fact and legal rules without training in legal methodology is like trying to discuss how to remove someone's appendix properly.

Sure you can, and maybe you might be right, but it is somewhat the height of arrogance to assume you're qualified to discuss it...

Ah, gotcha, so only people "qualified" can discuss anything anymore w/o being considered by you to be "arrogant".

There goes the internet.

Maybe so, but personally speaking, I would rather be guilty of arrogance (which I am) than of making someone bleed to death.

Well given, sure. However here's my thing. I would never, EVER presume to tell someone how to do their job. I would never try to give medical advice, I would never try to advise somoene on how to do their taxes, I'd never try to rebuild someone's car engine. I would never attempt to set up someone's computer network.

I do not act like an expert in fields i am not an expert in.

I do not try to act like I can do someone else's job.

So perhaps you'll understand why I get a bit miffed when someone tries to do mine.

That's nice. I wasn't talking about that law when I was discussing common law, I was discussing the law in which the age of consent was inadvertantly left out so the court set it at 12 in compliance (I assume) with common law. I agree that in the issue of the law the article discussed, the written word was clear and the court must abide by it. It is in issues when the written word is NOT clear that the court can look to history and tradition to determine commonly accepted definitions.

Since you can't bother to stay on the topic I was discussing, I consider the rest of your post superflous.

Go to law school, then tell me how the law works, k?

Translation: You change the topic and then accuse me of doing it then go on to make an argument by authority.

Putz.

Ah, gotcha, so only people "qualified" can discuss anything anymore w/o being considered by you to be "arrogant".

There goes the internet.

arrogance, by definition, is to presume you understand something you do not. To talk on matters of legal fact without any education in the subject is arrogance, yes.

arrogance, by definition, is to presume you understand something you do not. To talk on matters of legal fact without any education in the subject is arrogance, yes.


Um, no, that's not what arrogance means. Apparently you shouldn't talk about definitions of words since you don't have a degree in English.

By definition:

offensive display of superiority or self-importance; overbearing pride.


The definition would fit you. Have a nice day.

Translation: You change the topic...

Putz.

An but I did not. Check post #7. Farnhamia made a comment about ANOTHER, entirely SEPERATE law. and then you, yes YOU, replied to the comment about the OTHER entirely SEPERATE law calling THAT decision "legislating from the bench". (see post #9).

I then replied to you. Farnhamia mentioned the law, YOU called THAT decision, NOT the decision in the op "legislating from the bench", and I corrected you on your statement.

You made the comment about the other case in question, not I, I merely responded to YOU. Really if you can't be arsed to follow your own flow of conversation I don't see why I should bother discussing it with you.

So now what were you saying?

offensive display of superiority or self-importance; overbearing pride.




I would consider it pretty damned prideful to think you would be qualified to discuss things you obviously are not, wouldn't you?

An but I did not. Check post #7. Farnhamia made a comment about ANOTHER, entirely SEPERATE law. and then you, yes YOU, replied to the comment about the OTHER entirely SEPERATE law calling THAT decision "legislating from the bench". (see post #9).

I then replied to you. Farnhamia mentioned the law, YOU called THAT decision, NOT the decision in the op "legislating from the bench", and I corrected you on your statement.

You made the comment about the other case in question, not I, I merely responded to YOU.

So now what were you saying?

So I was responding to Farnhamia and you jump into the conversation arguing a side note and completely ignoring the part of the same post involved in the OP. Hence changing the topic.

You were saying?

True, but then again maybe the law is very clear. And to be honest the article said, "start of intercourse," instead of "start of sex." One is not necessarily the other, the former is pretty clearly defined.

But the law is wrong on the basis that, well, you could get a woman to consent and then start violently raping her and she wouldn't have any legal recourse.

It doesn't necessarily mean she doesn't have recourse. She can sue for battery and probably assault as well.

There might even be other crimes it would be possible or appropriate to charge him with, though in this case you probably run into double jeopardy issues. It just means that the guy's not going to jail for most of the rest of his natural life based on the law as it now exists. (I imagine the law will be changed somewhat.)

(And for whatever it is worth, I did go to law school.)

I would consider it pretty damned prideful to think you would be qualified to discuss things you obviously are not, wouldn't you?

Nice change of direction.

So again, you feel people should only be allowed to discuss things if you consider them to be "qualified".

More arrogance on your part.

I would consider it pretty damned prideful to think you would be qualified to discuss things you obviously are not, wouldn't you?

are you sure that's a precedent you want to set?

So I was responding to Farnhamia and you jump into the conversation arguing a side note and completely ignoring the part of the same post involved in the OP. Hence changing the topic.

You were saying?

Oh please. The quote you replied to:


I'd say in the design of the law. State legislators are notorious for crafting laws with more holes than Swiss cheese (witness my great state, Colorado, where they neglected to write in a minimum age of consent for minor female children, leading to a decision that set that as as 12 (I think)).

Your response


...I disagree w/ the courts making decisions like that, in effect, legislating from the bench.

Which decision were you refering to? The one in the op? or the one discussed in the post you quoted.

If the OPs then why did you reply to the post about a ruling entirely different? If the post you quoted, then I was exactly correct in what I was saying.

As for "jumping in" on the conversation...it's a forum you dolt. There's no little private asides, it's an open area.

So again, you feel people should only be allowed to discuss things if you consider them to be "qualified".


Only be allowed? well of course not, you have a 1st amendment right to speak in public, and since I don't own these boards I have no authority to say what is said here.

I simply stated that it is arrogance to discuss topics like you know what you are talking about in areas you obviously don't.

You REALLY should work on those reading comprehension skills, your grade school teachers obviously failed you.

It doesn't necessarily mean she doesn't have recourse. She can sue for battery and probably assault as well.

Maybe, but isn't there a reason rape is it's own crime? One of them I can think of being that it's just an insult to my intelligence. It's like changing "murder" to "grand theft" of life.

are you sure that's a precedent you want to set?

What precedent? Is it not one of the meanings of great pride to assume that you would be correct in your assumption even though you lack the required factual basis on which to base that assumption?

I would consider myself pretty damned arrogant if I assumed I knew as much about medicine as a doctor.

I would consider myself pretty damned arrogant if I assumed i knew as much about doing taxes as an accountant.

I would consider myself pretty damned arrogant if I assumed I knew as much about automotive repair as a mechanic.

I consider it pretty damned arrogant for one to assume he/she knows as much about law as a lawyer.

Oh please. The quote you replied to:



Your response




Which decision were you refering to? The one in the op? or the one discussed in the post you quoted.

If the OPs then why did you reply to the post about a ruling entirely different? If the post you quoted, then I was exactly correct in what I was saying.

As for "jumping in" on the conversation...it's a forum you dolt. There's no little private asides, it's an open area.

So it's a place people can discuss things even if their not "qualified" in your opinion?

Notice how you completely snipped the portions of the post that did relate to the OP which you ignored and sidetracked.

Keep trying.

wow. just, wow.


Court: Woman Can't Say No After Start Of Sex (http://www.thewbalchannel.com/news/10198629/detail.html)

ANNAPOLIS, Md. -- An appellate court said Maryland's rape law is clear -- no doesn't mean no when it follows a yes and intercourse has begun.

A three-judge panel of the Court of Special Appeals Monday threw out a rape conviction saying that a trial judge in Montgomery County erred when he refused to answer the jury's question on that very point.

The appeals court said that when the jury asked the trial judge if a woman could withdraw her consent after the start of sex, the jury should have been told she could not. The ruling said the law is not ambiguous and is a tenet of common-law.

The decision startled activists who believe people have the right to say no at any time. Jennifer Pollitt Hill of the Maryland Coalition Against Sexual Assault called the law "insulting and dangerous."

Montgomery Delegate Jean Cryor said the Women's Caucus of the General Assembly would likely examine the decision during the next legislative session.

You know, that bothers me.....so if a Girl says stop, but the guy won't (Which I believe constitutes rape), it is not considered Rape?!!?

Maybe, but isn't there a reason rape is it's own crime? One of them I can think of being that it's just an insult to my intelligence. It's like changing "murder" to "grand theft" of life.

well yes, however I think the point is that even though it was not LEGALLY rape, it may still have been some other crime.

The legislature defined rape in a context...apparently the circumstances of this event did not meet the context of rape, so she was not raped (regardless of whether we think that such a definition is the correct one). It doesn't mean some other crimes weren't committed against her

Only be allowed? well of course not, you have a 1st amendment right to speak in public, and since I don't own these boards I have no authority to say what is said here.

I simply stated that it is arrogance to discuss topics like you know what you are talking about in areas you obviously don't.

You REALLY should work on those reading comprehension skills, your grade school teachers obviously failed you.

And you still need to look up the definition of "arrogance". Keep up the insulting. It makes you look so professional.

You know, that bothers me.....so if a Girl says stop, but the guy won't (Which I believe constitutes rape), it is not considered Rape?!!?

not once intercourse has begun, according to the maryland legislature...

What precedent? Is it not one of the meanings of great pride to assume that you would be correct in your assumption even though you lack the required factual basis on which to base that assumption?

I would consider myself pretty damned arrogant if I assumed I knew as much about medicine as a doctor.

I would consider myself pretty damned arrogant if I assumed i knew as much about doing taxes as an accountant.

I would consider myself pretty damned arrogant if I assumed I knew as much about automotive repair as a mechanic.

I consider it pretty damned arrogant for one to assume he/she knows as much about law as a lawyer.

Argument by Authority.

Apparently your teachers failed you as well. Making an opinion is now the height of arrogance in A101's book.

It makes you look so professional.

You are under the impression that I care about how I look professionally to a bunch of people outside of the context of my job, who don't know my name, and have no way of identifying me outside of this board.

If I wanted to be professional this conversation would have cost you about $100 by now.

well yes, however I think the point is that even though it was not LEGALLY rape, it may still have been some other crime.


I know that, and that's unsatisfactory since a factual rape could then be dismissed as "battery." It's bad enough that rape victims go through all kinds of trauma, including denial and lack of support from general communities, without the law saying adding to that.


The legislature defined rape in a context...apparently the circumstances of this event did not meet the context of rape, so she was not raped (regardless of whether we think that such a definition is the correct one). It doesn't mean some other crimes weren't committed against her

And that definition of context is something I do not agree with. I trust you don't have a problem with my disagreement even though I am a humble non-lawyer living in California?

not once intercourse has begun, according to the maryland legislature...

Yes, but that doesn't mean it isn't wrong......

Making an opinion is now the height of arrogance in A101's book.

Try to read, i already said you're able to have an opinion on anything you want, an opinion is an opinion, it has not factual basis.

However making STATEMENTS OF FACT such as "the judge decided wrong" or "that's not what the law is" or "commonlaw is defined thus" are statements of facts.

And making a statement of fact, given that you have no background on assertaining the veracity of that fact, and only assume you're right based on, wait for it, your own pride (see, I brought it back to your definition) is arrogance.

Don't tell me how to do my job, I won't tell you how to do yours, I'm sure you're capble of making sure the fries are crispy (now THAT was an insult if you feel like keeping track).

You are under the impression that I care about how I look professionally to a bunch of people outside of the context of my job, who don't know my name, and have no way of identifying me outside of this board.

If I wanted to be professional this conversation would have cost you about $100 by now.

So you say.

while i am not going to be on the side of denying a woman's right to withdraw consent, let's look at this practically for a minute...

you and your girlfriend are in bed "doing it" -- penis is in vagina.

you in particular are having a WONDERFUL time. as your passion consumes you, you call your girlfriend by your mothers name. she decides right then and there that you are a pervert and she request that you get the hell out.

how long do you have to remove your penis before its rape? if it takes you 10 seconds to realize that she is serious and try to change her mind for another 20 seconds before acquiescing, is it rape? if you are so close to orgasm that you ejaculate before being able to remove your penis, is it rape?

legally, if you have ONE act that is half by consent and half after the withdrawal of consent is it right to call the whole thing rape? should a man who selfishly finishes before removing himself from the situation be sent to prison for years and have to have his name on the sex offender list for the rest of his life the same as a man who rapes babies does?

I know that, and that's unsatisfactory since a factual rape could then be dismissed as "battery." It's bad enough that rape victims go through all kinds of trauma, including denial and lack of support from general communities, without the law saying adding to that.



And that definition of context is something I do not agree with. I trust you don't have a problem with my disagreement even though I am a humble non-lawyer living in California?

well yeah, i don't think there are many here who would say it isn't a radically morally wront definition...but that's the definition they came up with, so the court applied it...

Although I suspect it will be changed after this ruling.

I'd like to know which idiots let this law stand. Surely someone before this noticed how stupid this law was. How long has this law been in effect?

I know in Texas , up until about ten years ago, a man could only be charged with spousal rape if the woman suffered significant injury. Another stupid law.

Well fair enough, let me amend. Trying to talk about legal fact and legal rules without training in legal methodology is like trying to discuss how to remove someone's appendix properly.

Sure you can, and maybe you might be right, but it is somewhat the height of arrogance to assume you're qualified to discuss it...

I note that you managed to pick the easiest surgery around. All that is done is one incision, and then the appendix is sliced out and disposed of, and the patient gets sown back up.

It's quite possible to know something without undergoing extensive training in it.

while i am not going to be on the side of denying a woman's right to withdraw consent, let's look at this practically for a minute...

you and your girlfriend are in bed "doing it" -- penis is in vagina.

you in particular are having a WONDERFUL time. as your passion consumes you, you call your girlfriend by your mothers name. she decides right then and there that you are a pervert and she request that you get the hell out.

how long do you have to remove your penis before its rape? if it takes you 10 seconds to realize that she is serious and try to change her mind for another 20 seconds before acquiescing, is it rape? if you are so close to orgasm that you ejaculate before being able to remove your penis, is it rape?

legally, if you have ONE act that is half by consent and half after the withdrawal of consent is it right to call the whole thing rape? should a man who selfishly finishes before removing himself from the situation be sent to prison for years and have to have his name on the sex offender list for the rest of his life the same as a man who rapes babies does?


You bring up a very valid point.

So you say.

since you're so keen on pointing out logical fallacies, you got a nice one of your own going there.

Poisoning the well, if I'm not mistaken.

Try to read, i already said you're able to have an opinion on anything you want, an opinion is an opinion, it has not factual basis.

However making STATEMENTS OF FACT such as "the judge decided wrong" or "that's not what the law is" or "commonlaw is defined thus" are statements of facts.

And making a statement of fact, given that you have no background on assertaining the veracity of that fact, and only assume you're right based on, wait for it, your own pride (see, I brought it back to your definition) is arrogance.

Don't tell me how to do my job, I won't tell you how to do yours, I'm sure you're capble of making sure the fries are crispy (now THAT was an insult if you feel like keeping track).



Oops, did I make that statement in my first post? Nope. You started your little insult fest based on me saying I disagree w/ a type of decision and why. You know, an opinion. Are you going to change the definition of that as well?

Why don't you spend some time w/ a dictionary before changing the definitions of words humpty dumpty. But it's not "arrogant" to do that, is it?

I note that you managed to pick the easiest surgery around. All that is done is one incision, and then the appendix is sliced out and disposed of, and the patient gets sown back up.

It's quite possible to know something without undergoing extensive training in it.

One of the easiest surgeries to be sure, and it illustrates my example.

What's the proper dose of anethesia? How long should the incision be? How many stitches? At what point do you make the cut to remove it? What tools are best used?

Hell, what side of the body is the appendix on? I wonder how many people could even answer that one 100% accurately.

It's one of the easiest surgeries, and how many non medical experts can accurately describe the full procedure start to finish?

while i am not going to be on the side of denying a woman's right to withdraw consent, let's look at this practically for a minute...

you and your girlfriend are in bed "doing it" -- penis is in vagina.

you in particular are having a WONDERFUL time. as your passion consumes you, you call your girlfriend by your mothers name. she decides right then and there that you are a pervert and she request that you get the hell out.

how long do you have to remove your penis before its rape?

That depends on whether she files for criminal charges to be brought against you. And if she does, she is doing something that is almost as bad as rape itself - false accusation of rape.

since you're so keen on pointing out logical fallacies, you got a nice one of your own going there.

Poisoning the well, if I'm not mistaken.

So you admit now that your entire tirade is based on a fallacy. Good.

What precedent? Is it not one of the meanings of great pride to assume that you would be correct in your assumption even though you lack the required factual basis on which to base that assumption?

I would consider myself pretty damned arrogant if I assumed I knew as much about medicine as a doctor.

I would consider myself pretty damned arrogant if I assumed i knew as much about doing taxes as an accountant.

I would consider myself pretty damned arrogant if I assumed I knew as much about automotive repair as a mechanic.

I consider it pretty damned arrogant for one to assume he/she knows as much about law as a lawyer.

debating on an internet forum and practicing law are two different things, if we are to say that you must be an expert in something to debate it, then atheists can't debate about religion, single persons about gay marriage, kids who went to school about homeschooling, etc.

Oops, did I make that statement in my first post? Nope. You started your little insult fest based on me saying I disagree w/ a type of decision and why. You know, an opinion. Are you going to change the definition of that as well?

I said you improperly called the decision "legislating from the bench". It is not. You applied the wrong definition.

You applied the wrong definition because you do not know what the definition means, and you assumed it to be correct because you do not know long held legal principles on the application of common law.

You do not know long held legal principles on the application of common law because you have no formal legal training.

Absent formal legal training you are unqualified to make claims as to definitions of legal terms (obviously, since you got it wrong).

Being unqualified to make claims as to definitions of legal terms but believing based on your own unfounded pride that you are qualified to make claims as to the definitions of legal terms is arrogance.

What's the proper dose of anethesia?
Considering that the surgeon is not the one who oversees the anesthaesia, I doubt that they know.

How long should the incision be?
Depends on the person. Mine appears to have been about 40 mm.

How many stitches?
Surgical glue is best.

At what point do you make the cut to remove it?
At the point where the appendix joins the intestine. Timewise, removal is done as soon as possible. It may be desirable to pinch the appendix so that any contents do not spill, although it may not be possible, if the inflammation is too severe.

What tools are best used?
Scalpel and forceps.

Hell, what side of the body is the appendix on?
Right side.

I wonder how many people could even answer that one 100% accurately.
Out of the ones who will be talking about it? All of them.

It's one of the easiest surgeries, and how many non medical experts can accurately describe the full procedure start to finish?
How accurately do you want it described? I can't describe it perfectly, but I can describe it well enough.

debating on an internet forum and practicing law are two different things, if we are to say that you must be an expert in something to debate it, then atheists can't debate about religion, single persons about gay marriage, kids who went to school about homeschooling, etc.

As I said, there's a difference between debate and statements of fact. An atheist may know the bible backwards and forwards, may know every word of it, in the original text, may be able to comment on it with great authority.

However the atheist who has never read the bible, is unfamiliar with its contents, and does not know what it says would be unqualified to discuss its wording.

And to assume you are qualified in an area you are not is, in my opinion, the definition of arrogance.

So you admit now that your entire tirade is based on a fallacy. Good.

once again, I'd REALLY work on that reading comprehension if I were you. Reading is fundamental.

That depends on whether she files for criminal charges to be brought against you. And if she does, she is doing something that is almost as bad as rape itself - false accusation of rape.

what makes it false?

as long as what she says is TRUE isnt it up to the law to decide if that truth constitutes rape or not?

i certainly can come up with scenarios where it is undisputably rape but i can also come up with scenarios where its not reasonable to call it rape. at least not reasonable to send a man to prison.

what makes it false?

as long as what she says is TRUE isnt it up to the law to decide if that truth constitutes rape or not?

i certainly can come up with scenarios where it is undisputably rape but i can also come up with scenarios where its not reasonable to call it rape. at least not reasonable to send a man to prison.

It would have to do with the intent standard in the given jurisdiction. For instance, in many places, it's not rape unless the rapist INTENDED to rape the victim. In the scenario posed, if the woman says stop, and it takes the male some time to ascertain whether she was serious, to process that information, and to withdraw, he did not intend to force her into having sex, even though he inadvertantly continued for a time after consent was withdrawn.

It would have to do with the required state of mind, which we really don't know in this context.

As I said, there's a difference between debate and statements of fact. An atheist may know the bible backwards and forwards, may know every word of it, in the original text, may be able to comment on it with great authority.

However the atheist who has never read the bible, is unfamiliar with its contents, and does not know what it says would be unqualified to discuss its wording.

And to assume you are qualified in an area you are not is, in my opinion, the definition of arrogance.

And your definition is wrong. Since you are unqualified to use English properly, you, by your definition, are unqualified to discuss its use.

once again, I'd REALLY work on that reading comprehension if I were you. Reading is fundamental.

So you accepted that a logical fallacy has been pointed out by me then claim you're not using a fallacy.

You must be a lawyer.

So you accepted that a logical fallacy has been pointed out by me then claim you're not using a fallacy.

You must be a lawyer.

I accept that you pointed out what you believe to be a logical fallacy, only an idiot or a blind person couldn't make that acceptance.

I make no claims as to the veracity of your claim however.

And like I said, since you can't be arsed to actually make the effort to comprehend what you read, I can't be bothered to continue conversing with you.

It would have to do with the intent standard in the given jurisdiction. For instance, in many places, it's not rape unless the rapist INTENDED to rape the victim. In the scenario posed, if the woman says stop, and it takes the male some time to ascertain whether she was serious, to process that information, and to withdraw, he did not intend to force her into having sex, even though he inadvertantly continued for a time after consent was withdrawn.

It would have to do with the required state of mind, which we really don't know in this context.

we dont know any of the details of this case. no sense in speculating.

id hate to have to be the one who has to write up a law to reasonably cover changes of consent.

on the one hand once intercourse has begun that doesnt mean that a man is free to do anything to a woman that enters his head. she hasnt consented to every possible continuation of the sex act.

on the other hand if consent is suddenly withdrawn just as a man enters the orgasm zone, its not reasonable to convict him of rape if he takes the extra 15 seconds to finish.

and of course one has to also consider cases where the woman is the aggressor against a man and cases of same sex encounters.

its a tough law to make.

we dont know any of the details of this case. no sense in speculating.

id hate to have to be the one who has to write up a law to reasonably cover changes of consent.agreed, but does it need to be done? I say yes.

on the one hand once intercourse has begun that doesnt mean that a man is free to do anything to a woman that enters his head. she hasnt consented to every possible continuation of the sex act. then that would fall under other things, like Assault, Assault & Battery. but as long as the Sex is consentual...

on the other hand if consent is suddenly withdrawn just as a man enters the orgasm zone, its not reasonable to convict him of rape if he takes the extra 15 seconds to finish. which is why there needs to be a PoNR (Point of No Return)

and of course one has to also consider cases where the woman is the aggressor against a man and cases of same sex encounters. it would cover all contingencies.

its a tough law to make.
I can just see it now....
"Ok Sally, here's the contract that outlines what we just agreed will take place only on this night, please look over the activities, you will notice that I left the location open, since we can start on the bed, but we might move to the floor and such, but I did say it would be within the confines of the apartment, so as you wanted, nothing on the balcony... if you agree to everything, please sign at the bottom, next to my name.... thanks, now you call your witness to this sex contract and I'll call mine and we'll get this all finalized.... now then.. here's your copy, and I have mine.


wait... that strap-on was not part of the agreement. You have to put that away.

well, maybe next time you'll remember to mention that."
:D

agreed, but does it need to be done? I say yes.

then that would fall under other things, like Assault, Assault & Battery. but as long as the Sex is consentual...

which is why there needs to be a PoNR (Point of No Return)

it would cover all contingencies.


I can just see it now....
"Ok Sally, here's the contract that outlines what we just agreed will take place only on this night, please look over the activities, you will notice that I left the location open, since we can start on the bed, but we might move to the floor and such, but I did say it would be within the confines of the apartment, so as you wanted, nothing on the balcony... if you agree to everything, please sign at the bottom, next to my name.... thanks, now you call your witness to this sex contract and I'll call mine and we'll get this all finalized.... now then.. here's your copy, and I have mine.


wait... that strap-on was not part of the agreement. You have to put that away.

well, maybe next time you'll remember to mention that."
:D


theres the problem eh?

i just dont see it being rape if consent is withdrawn after "penis enters vagina" unless there is some other mitigating factor that enters into it. fraud, drug use (maybe), assault, physical damage, other stuff im sure. otherwise wasnt it more unwise and unpleasant sex? was the man wrong? yes. should he go to prison? no.

Well, its an ambigous but sensible ruling.

Ever had a woman turn around and accuse you of rape, the morning after, even if she was sober as a judge the night before when she said "yes"?

Thank you for highlighting exactly why the court is wrong.

It's like determining the start of life. There are different opinions. the "start of sex" means the start of "penetration".. the start of "intercourse"..

I cant see how can it be interpreted in any other way.

the "start of sex" means the start of "penetration".. the start of "intercourse"..

I cant see how can it be interpreted in any other way.

And sex without penetration?

theres the problem eh?

i just dont see it being rape if consent is withdrawn after "penis enters vagina" unless there is some other mitigating factor that enters into it. fraud, drug use (maybe), assault, physical damage, other stuff im sure. otherwise wasnt it more unwise and unpleasant sex? was the man wrong? yes. should he go to prison? no.ahh... but after... consentual penetration, then it can't be rape.

however, if say, one of em likes it rough and ends up giving the other a black eye, broken teeth and alot of other bruises/scratches, then that falls under assault. (and not necessarily the MAN's fault, it could be anyones.)

if judgement is dimminished due to willing drug use and/or alcohol, then it's also not anyone's fault but the person partaking of drugs and/or alcohol.

now if it was unwilling/unknowing drug use (Date Rape Drug) then it's Rape. Unfortunatly, the person has to show that she/he took the drug without knowing it was a drug (slipped a micky).

also, if consent was given under threat of violence... that's also rape.

And sex without penetration?

... that would be mutual masterbation. and if a woman (or man) screams rape, they are penetrating themselves...


Oral sex is still penetration. Penis IN mouth... Tongue/finger in Vagaina/Anus...

And sex without penetration?masturbating= not legal sex yet.


penetration/oral sex = sex started

... that would be mutual masterbation. and if a woman (or man) screams rape, they are penetrating themselves...


Oral sex is still penetration. Penis IN mouth... Tongue/finger in Vagaina/Anus...WTF? you agreed with me.. rigth there.. You cant deny it :D

... that would be mutual masterbation. and if a woman (or man) screams rape, they are penetrating themselves...


Oral sex is still penetration. Penis IN mouth... Tongue/finger in Vagaina/Anus...

Actually, I'm talking about tribadism.

Actually, I'm talking about tribadism.Is that like -cyber- with bivrating mouses or something ??? :D

WTF? you agreed with me.. rigth there.. You cant deny it :D

what... you mean we can't agree with anything?

*re-reads NSG contract*

is that what this crayon smudge says? :D

the "start of sex" means the start of "penetration".. the start of "intercourse"..

I cant see how can it be interpreted in any other way.

so two lesbians can never have sex? They after all lack the requisite biology.

Is that like -cyber- with bivrating mouses or something ??? :D

....

No. Look it up.

Actually, I'm talking about tribadism.

it's still penetration. Phallis penetration. now if you're talking about tribadism without penetration...

that will still be rape if one of them is being forced to participate. if both are willing but one backs out at the start, it would still be the same as if it was with one man and one woman.

so in that case, it would be when sexual organs touch another person.

so two lesbians can never have sex? They after all lack the requisite biology.Hmmm Lesbian sex.. *Homer-Simpsom-face*

I say Lesbians girls can have all the sex they want.. without breaking any Maryland stupid Law.. ever.

so two lesbians can never have sex? They after all lack the requisite biology.
well, according to some fundies... no, Two Lesbians don't engage in Sex... they are SINNING!!! :eek:

to the rest of the world...







































sorry... what was the question again?

http://www.desipio.com/images/furtherreview.jpg
so two lesbians can never have sex? They after all lack the requisite biology.even if I consider oral sex to be "sex"..

I must now admit that definition for "the start of sex" is not 100% clear.

I now retract all my arrogant (over confident) posts concerning this particular matter.

Ever had a woman turn around and accuse you of rape, the morning after, even if she was sober as a judge the night before when she said "yes"?

no

ahh... but after... consentual penetration, then it can't be rape.

Ugh. This attitute bothers me immensely.

So, let's make up a scenario. Mr. Man and Ms. Woman are having a nice evening, and they start having sex. A few seconds in, Mr. Man says, "You know, this is almost as great as that time a few years ago when I raped and murdered your little sister." Ms. Woman says, "Oh my God. I had no idea that was you! Get off of me right now!" You are honestly asserting that, at this point, he would be well within his rights to say, "Sucks to be you, bitch!" and continue what he was doing?

Ugh. This attitute bothers me immensely.

So, let's make up a scenario. Mr. Man and Ms. Woman are having a nice evening, and they start having sex. A few seconds in, Mr. Man says, "You know, this is almost as great as that time a few years ago when I raped and murdered your little sister." Ms. Woman says, "Oh my God. I had no idea that was you! Get off of me right now!" You are honestly asserting that, at this point, he would be well within his rights to say, "Sucks to be you, bitch!" and continue what he was doing? yes. however, should she live, she can now ID that person... Murder has no Statue of Limitation.

now this situation doesn't mean she cannot fight him off. and should all be said and done, Him raping her will be minor considering the Child Abuse/Rape and Murder he confessed to... and since now, there is someone he "confesssed" to it's evidence, not hearsay. However, this is still a special circumstance... thus an execption can still be made.

yes. however, should she live, she can now ID that person... Murder has no Statue of Limitation.

now this situation doesn't mean she cannot fight him off. and should all be said and done, Him raping her will be minor considering the Child Abuse/Rape and Murder he confessed to... and since now, there is someone he "confesssed" to it's evidence, not hearsay. However, this is still a special circumstance... thus an execption can still be made.

The fact that you say "yes" to that just kind of leaves me speechless, to be honest. I...can't imagine how you can justify that position. Frankly, I'm kind of terrified that anyone could imagine that position to be justifiable. Forcibly having sex with someone who has made it unambiguously clear that they do not want to be having sex with you is obviously rape, regardless of whether they said "yes" a few minutes earlier. It's just not okay to have sex with someone who doesn't want you to be doing so, and if you don't get that, then I really don't know what else to say.

The fact that you say "yes" to that just kind of leaves me speechless, to be honest. I...can't imagine how you can justify that position. Frankly, I'm kind of terrified that anyone could imagine that position to be justifiable. Forcibly having sex with someone who has made it unambiguously clear that they do not want to be having sex with you is obviously rape, regardless of whether they said "yes" a few minutes earlier. It's just not okay to have sex with someone who doesn't want you to be doing so, and if you don't get that, then I really don't know what else to say.to be honest, it wasn't easy, but in your scenario, if she's charging him with rape, while he did confess to raping a murdering her little sister, her priorities are screwed.

usually the lawyers will drop her rape charge and go for the Murder/Rape of her younger sister and show that he's a sadistic bastard that should be put away for life. (Murder does carry a longer term than rape, and trying to prove rape when she did give consent is harder.)

however, no law can cover all contingencies, hence why we have lawyers.

now, how can you "force" sex when the sex has already started with consent (your situation already had them doing the deed)? How would you argue that in court?

"your honor, I changed my mind during sex?"

I believe there are cases where Rape was successfully tried and convicted after consent was given, but again, that's when the man forces himself on her in a manner she didn't consent to (anal instead of Vagainal.) or when the woman was diagnosed with MPD. (I remember a case in the mid 80's, where a woman gave consent... but her other personalities didn't, and he was found guilty of Rape... yes they put each personality on the stand.) where does the line get drawn? Responsibility for consentual sex has to be by both parties. not just on the male.

to be honest, it wasn't easy, but in your scenario, if she's charging him with rape, while he did confess to raping a murdering her little sister, her priorities are screwed.

usually the lawyers will drop her rape charge and go for the Murder/Rape of her younger sister and show that he's a sadistic bastard that should be put away for life. (Murder does carry a longer term than rape, and trying to prove rape when she did give consent is harder.)

however, no law can cover all contingencies, hence why we have lawyers.

now, how can you "force" sex when the sex has already started with consent (your situation already had them doing the deed)? How would you argue that in court?

"your honor, I changed my mind during sex?"

I believe there are cases where Rape was successfully tried and convicted after consent was given, but again, that's when the man forces himself on her in a manner she didn't consent to (anal instead of Vagainal.) or when the woman was diagnosed with MPD. (I remember a case in the mid 80's, where a woman gave consent... but her other personalities didn't, and he was found guilty of Rape... yes they put each personality on the stand.) where does the line get drawn? Responsibility for consentual sex has to be by both parties. not just on the male.

Rather than worrying about the victim's priorities or what a DA would pursue in this fictitious example, I'll offer a different fictitious example - in the middle of sex, he admits that he tortured her dog to death before she came home, or that he cheated on her with fifteen of her friends, or that sometimes, when they're having sex, he likes to imagine that she's actually his mother. Okay? 'Cause, see, why she no longer wants to be having sex with the guy is irrelevant. The absolute only thing that's relevant is that she doesn't, and if she is saying, "No, stop it right now, get off of me, NO!" she darn well is taking responsibility. Unless the man is somehow literally physically incapable of removing his penis from her vagina upon request, why on earth should the fact that they started having sex matter? And what sort of man would actually want to keep having sex with a partner who was begging him to stop?

yes.

holy fuck!

yes.

:eek: Wow, just...wow. I think I finally figured out why you're still a virgin. Women can say "no" or "stop" at any point. If you don't stop, it's rape. No one has any right to force someone to do something or to continue with something they don't want to.

Rather than worrying about the victim's priorities or what a DA would pursue in this fictitious example, I'll offer a different fictitious example - let me break it down for easier reading.

in the middle of sex, he admits that he tortured her dog to death before she came home, or that he cheated on her with fifteen of her friends, or that sometimes, when they're having sex, he likes to imagine that she's actually his mother. Okay? 'Cause, see, why she no longer wants to be having sex with the guy is irrelevant.actually, it is. in this case, it's the man being STUPID. so yes, it's viable reason to say stop. Now what if the reason she wants to stop is because he he hurt a friend of hers, so she's out to tease him and to torture him by leaveing him "hanging"? is that also an irrelivant reason? Maybe she's a cruel and sadistic person who loves the feel of control saying "No" and knows that if he continues, she can sue for Rape. Men are not the only ones who can use sex as a weapon.

The absolute only thing that's relevant is that she doesn't, and if she is saying, "No, stop it right now, get off of me, NO!" she darn well is taking responsibility.if she sues for Rape, then NO, she's not taking responsibility for her actions. now if he turns her over for some Backdoor action and she says no but he does so anyway, then that can be argued as rape since it can be argued that she agreed for normal sex and nothing else.

Unless the man is somehow literally physically incapable of removing his penis from her vagina upon request, why on earth should the fact that they started having sex matter? because consent was given. then once the deed was done (initial penetration) to say no and expect a withdrawl is unreasonable (note, not impossible.)

And what sort of man would actually want to keep having sex with a partner who was begging him to stop?*shrugs* not the point. the point is there should be a level where saying no is too late. if a person is not sure wether or not to have sex with a person, then they shouldn't have sex.

instead of trying to find the right scenario to make me say no. I offer this.

A high school girl (18 yrs) brings a friend home knowing her parents are out. they proceed to have sex (full penetration) when she hears her parent's coming home. Knowing they will be caught by her parents (who insist that their daughter is the sweet, Innocent Girl,) she starts screaming "no! Rape!" and has the boy arrested for Rape. During the trial she admits that she gave consent but "changed her mind" while the deed was being done. Should the boy (also 18 yrs old) be found guilty?

...

holy fuck! dude, seek help

holy fuck!

:eek: Wow, just...wow. I think I finally figured out why you're still a virgin. Women can say "no" or "stop" at any point. If you don't stop, it's rape. No one has any right to force someone to do something or to continue with something they don't want to.
read the scenario she presents. wrong scenario for the situation.

let me break it down for easier reading.

actually, it is. in this case, it's the man being STUPID. so yes, it's viable reason to say stop. Now what if the reason she wants to stop is because he he hurt a friend of hers, so she's out to tease him and to torture him by leaveing him "hanging"? is that also an irrelivant reason?

Yup, that's also an irrelevant reason. See, it's not okay to rape "teases" or mean, nasty women either. It's kind of like how it's still murder when the person you've killed was a real jerk. You don't get to commit crimes against someone, even if you feel they deserve it.

if she sues for Rape, then NO, she's not taking responsibility for her actions. now if he turns her over for some Backdoor action and she says no but he does so anyway, then that can be argued as rape since it can be argued that she agreed for normal sex and nothing else.

And it can't be argued that she agreed to sex with a guy who hadn't tortured her dog, but not sex with dog-torturing guys, or sex with a guy who was faithful to her, but not sex with cheats, and on and on and on? It really doesn't matter whether you see her reason for saying no as being valid - all that matters is that she said no. Period.

because consent was given. then once the deed was done (initial penetration) to say no and expect a withdrawl is unreasonable.

Why? Seriously, why? Assuming the man in question is not physically incapable of removing his dick from her person, why on earth is it unreasonable of someone to expect him to do so upon request or demand?

A high school girl (18 yrs) brings a friend home knowing her parents are out. they proceed to have sex (full penetration) when she hears her parent's coming home. Knowing they will be caught by her parents (who insist that their daughter is the sweet, Innocent Girl,) she starts screaming "no! Rape!" and has the boy arrested for Rape. During the trial she admits that she gave consent but "changed her mind" while the deed was being done. Should the boy (also 18 yrs old) be found guilty?

I don't know; did he stop having sex with her once she started screaming "no! Rape!"? If he did not, then yes, he most definitely should be.

Now what if the reason she wants to stop is because he he hurt a friend of hers, so she's out to tease him and to torture him by leaveing him "hanging"? is that also an irrelivant reason? Maybe she's a cruel and sadistic person who loves the feel of control saying "No" and knows that if he continues, she can sue for Rape.

Simple. He pulls out and stops. Period. It doesn't matter what her reason is. If she is doing it just to be a bitch, he still has to stop. And if he is sane, have nothing else to do with her again.


because consent was given. then once the deed was done (initial penetration) to say no and expect a withdrawl is unreasonable.

Really? So if your decide to give a friend a ride in your new car across country, and around Indiana said friend cusses you out and spits his soda on your seats, you are still obligated to finish giving him the ride to California? After all you just said you have no right to say no and kick him out once you have consented. He can do anything he wants and you still have to "finish the job" because you said yes at the beginning? No. You always have a right to change your mind be it sex, a car ride, a roommate situation, or whatever.

Yup, that's also an irrelevant reason. See, it's not okay to rape "teases" or mean, nasty women either. It's kind of like how it's still murder when the person you've killed was a real jerk. You don't get to commit crimes against someone, even if you feel they deserve it. but it's ok to lead men on? especially in a crime where men are most likely convicted?

And it can't be argued that she agreed to sex with a guy who hadn't tortured her dog, but not sex with dog-torturing guys, or sex with a guy who was faihtful to her, but not sex with cheats, and on and on and on? It really doesn't matter whether you see her reason for saying no as being valid - all that matters is that she said no. Period.and as long as he stops, then it's not rape. the point is tho, when she say stop and when he actually stops can be nitpicked. and because there will be no one watching (unless they were taping it.) it's back to he says she says.

Why? Seriously, why? Assuming the man in question is not physically incapable of removing his dick from her person, why on earth is it unreasonable of someone to expect him to do so upon request or demand? simple, during sex, it's difficult to determine when the "no" is a comand to stop or a vocal reaction to the act of sex. The time ti take the man to realize what she really means, may be seconds or even a minute later. Does she still have grounds for calling rape if the man still stops?

I don't know; did he stop having sex with her once she started screaming "no! Rape!"? If he did not, then yes, he most definitely should be.did he stop? she says "no", he says "yes".

Now remember, the deed would have been interrupted since the parents would've tackled him.

Simple. He pulls out and stops. Period. It doesn't matter what her reason is. If she is doing it just to be a bitch, he still has to stop. And if he is sane, have nothing else to do with her again. now here is the Point. Just because HE stops, doesn't mean she cannot charge him with Rape.

Really? So if your decide to give a friend a ride in your new car across country, and around Indiana said friend cusses you out and spits his soda on your seats, you are still obligated to finish giving him the ride to California? After all you just said you have no right to say no and kick him out once you have consented. He can do anything he wants and you still have to "finish the job" because you said yes at the beginning? No. You always have a right to change your mind be it sex, a car ride, a roommate situation, or whatever.you control the car. control over "urges" are not so complete. especially when they are at the point of being released.

so here is this point. you get on a train, it leaves the station and you realize you got on the wrong train. so are you justified in pulling the emergency stop? you can. but I believe pulling the stop outside of an emergency (and getting on the wrong train isn't an emergency) is against the law.

but it's ok to lead men on? especially in a crime where men are most likely convicted?
No, it's not ok. But there is a major difference between being a tease and raping someone. In all the examples you've presented, I cannot see anything that would say the guy should have the right to keep going once she says no.

now here is the Point. Just because HE stops, doesn't mean she cannot charge him with Rape.
I do not see how. She says no, he stops. It's no different from someone saying no to a come-on (pardon the pun) and the guy stopping and moving on. It only becomes harrasment if he continues.

you control the car. control over "urges" are not so complete. especially when they are at the point of being released.

so here is this point. you get on a train, it leaves the station and you realize you got on the wrong train. so are you justified in pulling the emergency stop? you can. but I believe pulling the stop outside of an emergency (and getting on the wrong train isn't an emergency) is against the law.
I would say rape qualifies as an emergency.

No, it's not ok. But there is a major difference between being a tease and raping someone. In all the examples you've presented, I cannot see anything that would say the guy should have the right to keep going once she says no.the point is not "keep going" but charging with rape.

Woman A can say "stop" and Man A stops.

Because time perception varies from person to person however, to woman A's perception, he didn't stop for a long time while Man A says he stopped the moment she said stop.

Without a "point of no return" woman A can still charge and can convict Man A with Rape. now without some record of showing when man A actually stopped, it boils back down to "she said, he said"

but it's ok to lead men on? especially in a crime where men are most likely convicted?

I'm not really sure what would constitute "leading men on" - I've heard many men on this very forum claim that things like dressing sexily are "leading men on," after all. However, regardless of what you mean by this, and regardless of whether or not "leading men on" is particularly nice, it's certainly not illegal. Raping someone, however, is entirely illegal, and "but she made me think she wanted it before she made it perfectly freaking clear that she didn't want it anymore" is definitely not an excuse.

and as long as he stops, then it's not rape. the point is tho, when she say stop and when he actually stops can be nitpicked. and because there will be no one watching (unless they were taping it.) it's back to he says she says.

Well, yes, but a great many rape cases are essentially "he says, she says." That doesn't make rape cease to be rape or the expectation that people will not rape you "unreasonable." The presence or absence of eyewitnesses has nothing to do with the determination of what is and is not a crime.

simple, during sex, it's difficult to determine when the "no" is a comand to stop or a vocal reaction to the act of sex. The time ti take the man to realize what she really means, may be seconds or even a minute later. Does she still have grounds for calling rape if the man still stops?

Dude, have you ever had sex? Because, seriously, there's no plausible way to confuse "ohmygod ohmyGOD oh don't stop OHMYGOD YES YES!" with "NO! I DON'T WANT TO HAVE SEX WITH YOU! GET THE HELL OFF ME, YOU SON OF A BITCH!" (or, alternatively, with "please...no...please stop...*sob*") If you genuinely cannot tell the difference between a woman enjoying a sex act and a woman pleading or yelling at you to stop, then there is something deeply and frighteningly wrong with you.

Besides, you know what happens if somehow you guess wrong, and it turns out she didn't want you to stop? She says, "Hey, don't stop!" and you go right back to having sex. You know what happens if you guess wrong, and she DID want you to stop? You just raped someone. It seems to me like that brief pause to be sure is kinda worth it, given the relative costs of both actions.

now here is the Point. Just because HE stops, doesn't mean she cannot charge him with Rape.

True. But she can also charge him with rape even if he never touched her. Or he can even charge her. But that's not what we're discussing here. We are discussing if it is rape when she says stop and he doesn't stop. It is.

you control the car. control over "urges" are not so complete. especially when they are at the point of being released.

Yes, they are. I've had no problem slowing down or stopping when it was desired by either me or my partner. I see no reason why any other man can't. The whole "I can't control my urges" line is bunk.

so here is this point. you get on a train, it leaves the station and you realize you got on the wrong train. so are you justified in pulling the emergency stop? you can. but I believe pulling the stop outside of an emergency (and getting on the wrong train isn't an emergency) is against the law.

If it is an emergency, yes, I would pull the cord. And in sex, if someone screams "stop, I don't want this," that is an emergency. That is the equivalent of the train being on fire and filling up with smoke. Get out before it's too late.

Dude, have you ever had sex?

no, he's a 40 year old virgin. surprising, huh?

the point is not "keep going" but charging with rape.

Woman A can say "stop" and Man A stops.

Because time perception varies from person to person however, to woman A's perception, he didn't stop for a long time while Man A says he stopped the moment she said stop.

Without a "point of no return" woman A can still charge and can convict Man A with Rape. now without some record of showing when man A actually stopped, it boils back down to "she said, he said"
If memeory serves, the usual threshold is saying stop twice. Now, if a woman is screaming STOP! STOP! NO! STOP! That counts as something that would likely get my attention, even during sex and I would stop imediately.

However, leaving that line of thought, the reason there is no threshhold to cross is because a woman cannot sign away her rights to her own body as it were. That is what this breaks down as, if a woman can give up her rights to control of her body to another person just because of a sexual encounter. This doesn't make any sense, any more than it could be said she gives up those rights when getting a tattoo and decides to change her mind once the artist starts.

you control the car. control over "urges" are not so complete. especially when they are at the point of being released.


Yeesh. Me, I give guys credit for being human beings who are capable of deciding not to rape people, even if they're sexually aroused. I'm sorry to hear you have such an incredibly low opinion of men that you honestly believe that they have no control over where their penises go.

True. But she can also charge him with rape even if he never touched her. Or he can even charge her. But that's not what we're discussing here. We are discussing if it is rape when she says stop and he doesn't stop. It is.except biological evidence of rape will be present because he did touch her.

Yes, they are. I've had no problem slowing down or stopping when it was desired by either me or my partner. I see no reason why any other man can't. The whole "I can't control my urges" line is bunk.and how LONG did it take you to stop? a second? two? what would she say?

If it is an emergency, yes, I would pull the cord. And in sex, if someone screams "stop, I don't want this," that is an emergency. That is the equivalent of the train being on fire and filling up with smoke. Get out before it's too late.so getting on the wrong train is enough of an emergency to pull the emergency break? nice to know.

I'm sorry to hear you have such an incredibly low opinion of men that you honestly believe that they have no control over where their penises go.
Must... resist... urge... to make... bad... joke... :p

except biological evidence of rape will be present because he did touch her.
I'm not sure your point here, especially since when such evidence is, well, evident, the usual defence is "She wanted to".

and how LONG did it take you to stop? a second? two? what would she say?
Major difference between taking a second, and continuing till you finish.

so getting on the wrong train is enough of an emergency to pull the emergency break? nice to know.
Your analogy doesn't really work because, as pointed out, rape is far more serious than getting on the wrong train.

I'm not really sure what would constitute "leading men on" - I've heard many men on this very forum claim that things like dressing sexily are "leading men on," after all. However, regardless of what you mean by this, and regardless of whether or not "leading men on" is particularly nice, it's certainly not illegal. Raping someone, however, is entirely illegal, and "but she made me think she wanted it before she made it perfectly freaking clear that she didn't want it anymore" is definitely not an excuse.which is why I've put forth in my earlier posts the "getting naked and in bed" stage and not dress nor percieved "willingness."

Well, yes, but a great many rape cases are essentially "he says, she says." That doesn't make rape cease to be rape or the expectation that people will not rape you "unreasonable." The presence or absence of eyewitnesses has nothing to do with the determination of what is and is not a crime. and that's the problem. She can still charge for Rape even if she admits to consenting to sex reason for "Changing her mind" is never examined or brought up.

Dude, have you ever had sex? Because, seriously, there's no plausible way to confuse "ohmygod ohmyGOD oh don't stop OHMYGOD YES YES!" with "NO! I DON'T WANT TO HAVE SEX WITH YOU! GET THE HELL OFF ME, YOU SON OF A BITCH!" (or, alternatively, with "please...no...please stop...*sob*") If you genuinely cannot tell the difference between a woman enjoying a sex act and a woman pleading or yelling at you to stop, then there is something deeply and frighteningly wrong with you. no I've never had sex. but (assuming you've had more experience than me) can you honestly say that during sex comments like "hey bitch, this reminds me of the time I raped and killed your little sister." or "wow, you remind me of my mother." actually comes out while the deed is still being done?

Besides, you know what happens if somehow you guess wrong, and it turns out she didn't want you to stop? She says, "Hey, don't stop!" and you go right back to having sex. You know what happens if you guess wrong, and she DID want you to stop? You just raped someone. It seems to me like that brief pause to be sure is kinda worth it, given the relative costs of both actions.and again, if he stops, what's stopping her from still charging rape?

and back to my scenario... should the boy be charged with rape?

so getting on the wrong train is enough of an emergency to pull the emergency break? nice to know.

No, but it being on fire is. You seem to have an irrational fear/distrust of women. Yes, on rare occasions, a woman or two might have wrongly accused a man of rape. But that doesn't excuse men of any responsibility for their actions. If she says stop, stop.

I'm not sure your point here, especially since when such evidence is, well, evident, the usual defence is "She wanted to".the point is, even if she consented to have sex, then changes her mind during the deed, she can still call Rape. Reguardless whether or not the man stops.

Major difference between taking a second, and continuing till you finish. The point isn't "finishing" but the fact that she can still call rape, even if he stops before the first word finishes leaving her lips.


Your analogy doesn't really work because, as pointed out, rape is far more serious than getting on the wrong train.well, rape isn't a car ride either.

Yeesh. Me, I give guys credit for being human beings who are capable of deciding not to rape people, even if they're sexually aroused. I'm sorry to hear you have such an incredibly low opinion of men that you honestly believe that they have no control over where their penises go.

some men don't. if all men could control that, there wouldn't be Rapes would there?

the point is, even if she consented to have sex, then changes her mind during the deed, she can still call Rape. Reguardless whether or not the man stops.
Then we all have a bit of a problem because unless I'm at a REALLY wild party, I have yet to hear a woman suddenly proclaim to a room at large, "Hey everyone! I'm going off with this guy and consenting to getting my brains fucked out! Just an FYI for y'all."

Since there is no witnesses for orginal consent, ANY woman can claim rape at ANY time (and no doubt a few have). However that does not a good argument about giving a line that once crossed removes any and all chances for her to change her mind make.

The point isn't "finishing" but the fact that she can still call rape, even if he stops before the first word finishes leaving her lips.
And you see this, how?

well, rape isn't a car ride either.
No, but the analogy about permission granted and then revoked holds up better than getting on the wrong train, since you didn't have to ask the train's permission first.

and that's the problem. She can still charge for Rape even if she admits to consenting to sex reason for "Changing her mind" is never examined or brought up.

Actually, I can't imagine a case where her reason wouldn't be examined and brought up, seeing as most rape cases feature all sorts of charming investigations into things like whether or not the victim was a "slut." But, indeed, her motives for changing her mind certainly need not be brought up in court, as they are completely immaterial.

no I've never had sex. but (assuming you've had more experience than me) can you honestly say that during sex comments like "hey bitch, this reminds me of the time I raped and killed your little sister." or "wow, you remind me of my mother." actually comes out while the deed is still being done?

No, I've never had a guy I was dating say anything like that to me, which is why they were fictional examples - which shouldn't really matter, since, as I've stated several times, the victim's motives for stopping the sex act are entirely irrelevant. I have, however, changed my mind about engaging in some sex acts after getting into bed naked before - and, strangely enough, the guys I was with had no problem understanding that that was their cue to stop. Somehow, the mere presence of my exposed flesh did not cause them to lose all control of their behavior.

and again, if he stops, what's stopping her from still charging rape?

I dunno, the fact that filing a false police report is a crime, and she doesn't want to go to jail? The fact that she's a normal human being who has no particular interest in persecuting innocent men for fun? Those would seem like a couple of very obvious things that might stop her...

Then we all have a bit of a problem because unless I'm at a REALLY wild party, I have yet to hear a woman suddenly proclaim to a room at large, "Hey everyone! I'm going off with this guy and consenting to getting my brains fucked out! Just an FYI for y'all."

Since there is no witnesses for orginal consent, ANY woman can claim rape at ANY time (and no doubt a few have). However that does not a good argument about giving a line that once crossed removes any and all chances for her to change her mind make.except biology does not lie. Forced entry without consent does leave certain marks on the body that police look for. Consentual sex leaves different marks. so consent can be proven. however the timetable to get that evidence is small (24 hours I believe.)

And you see this, how?the definition of Rape, and past cases.

No, but the analogy about permission granted and then revoked holds up better than getting on the wrong train, since you didn't have to ask the train's permission first.Well, it can be argued that buying a pass/ticket is obtaining permission.

some men don't. if all men could control that, there wouldn't be Rapes would there?

Yes, there would. I'm not letting rapists off that easy; I'm not going to absolve them of responsibility for their behavior and say, "oh, they couldn't help it, they couldn't control themselves." That's crap. Rapists choose of their own free will to rape people, and they deserve every bit of blame they get for making such a disgusting and evil choice.

except biology does not lie. Forced entry without consent does leave certain marks on the body that police look for. Consentual sex leaves different marks. so consent can be proven. however the timetable to get that evidence is small (24 hours I believe.)
Not always, and if she's fighting once she says stop, the same marks would be there, ne? But, once again, you're attempting to make a line of thought where all women lie and would willingly entrap an innocent man as an excuse for removing the right of control a woman has over her own body. You have yet to address this very important point.

Well, it can be argued that buying a pass/ticket is obtaining permission.
Then it becomes prostituion, which is a different kettle of fish. However, the milage on this particular analogy has long since been exausted.

Actually, I can't imagine a case where her reason wouldn't be examined and brought up, seeing as most rape cases feature all sorts of charming investigations into things like whether or not the victim was a "slut." But, indeed, her motives for changing her mind certainly need not be brought up in court, as they are completely immaterial.exactly, the reason is'nt examined. and don't forget, while the defense is portraying the victim as a slut, the prosecution is portraying the accused as a sexual monster.

No, I've never had a guy I was dating say anything like that to me, which is why they were fictional examples - which shouldn't really matter, since, as I've stated several times, the victim's motives for stopping the sex act are entirely irrelevant. I have, however, changed my mind about engaging in some sex acts after getting into bed naked before - and, strangely enough, the guys I was with had no problem understanding that that was their cue to stop. Somehow, the mere presence of my exposed flesh did not cause them to lose all control of their behavior.which is why such examples really doesn't work. we can tailor scenes to fit whatever guidelines but the question is, if she gives consent and then changes her mind midway, can she still call "Rape" even if the man stops when she says stop?

I dunno, the fact that filing a false police report is a crime, and she doesn't want to go to jail? The fact that she's a normal human being who has no particular interest in persecuting innocent men for fun? Those would seem like a couple of very obvious things that might stop her...but who's to say what is a false report? evidence will point to her having sex. If consent was given... are you now saying that it's not rape?

but who's to say what is a false report? evidence will point to her having sex. If consent was given... are you now saying that it's not rape?

I'm saying the exact same thing I've said all along. If she says stop, and he doesn't stop, it's rape. If she says stop, and he stops, it's not rape.

This seems pretty straightforward.

Not always, and if she's fighting once she says stop, the same marks would be there, ne? But, once again, you're attempting to make a line of thought where all women lie and would willingly entrap an innocent man as an excuse for removing the right of control a woman has over her own body. You have yet to address this very important point.actually no, the marks would still indicate consentual sex. and are you saying that there are no women out there that can and do use their bodies to entrap others?

I'm not saying all women do that, just like I am saying not all men have control over themselves like everyone on these boards do.

Then it becomes prostituion, which is a different kettle of fish. However, the milage on this particular analogy has long since been exausted.agreed.

I'm saying the exact same thing I've said all along. If she says stop, and he doesn't stop, it's rape. If she says stop, and he stops, it's not rape.

This seems pretty straightforward.

seriously, i cannot believe this conversation is happening. it's just too insane to actually exist.

I'm saying the exact same thing I've said all along. If she says stop, and he doesn't stop, it's rape. If she says stop, and he stops, it's not rape.

This seems pretty straightforward.

and back to my scenario.

she says stop.

she charges rape and says he continued after she said stop.

he says he did stop when she said to stop.

but both agree that the sex was consentual until the point she said stop.
She honestly believes that he didn't stop, he honestly believes he did.
So because he stopped (or was stopped in her viewpoint). does that make her claim of rape invalid and the case dropped?

seriously, i cannot believe this conversation is happening. it's just too insane to actually exist.

it's a serious topic. rape is a serious crime. however some people say Consentual sex invalidates a charge of rape. others say no it doesn't. who (outside of the judges, and even then people will dissagree) can say if it does or doesn't?

it's a serious topic. rape is a serious crime.

says the guy who thinks there is wiggle room enough to continue fucking someone who says "stop and get the fuck off me!"

and back to my scenario.

she says stop.

she charges rape and says he continued after she said stop.

he says he did stop when she said to stop.

but both agree that the sex was consentual until the point she said stop.
She honestly believes that he didn't stop, he honestly believes he did.
So because he stopped (or was stopped in her viewpoint). does that make her claim of rape invalid and the case dropped?

Well, given the absolutely pathetic ratio of rape accusations to actual rape convictions, yes, it probably does get the case dropped. Does that make her claim of rape invalid? How should I know? I wasn't there watching your fictional people have sex, and I have no way of knowing which one is telling the truth. (I'm also unsure of how one could be confused about whether or not one has stopped having sex. Either your penis is currently in her vagina, or it isn't. It's fairly easy to determine which is the case, unless you have some sort of sentient penis which can painlessly detach itself from your body at will and continue screwing people without your knowledge.)

Well, given the absolutely pathetic ratio of rape accusations to actual rape convictions, yes, it probably does get the case dropped. Does that make her claim of rape invalid? How should I know? I wasn't there watching your fictional people have sex, and I have no way of knowing which one is telling the truth. (I'm also unsure of how one could be confused about whether or not one has stopped having sex. Either your penis is currently in her vagina, or it isn't. It's fairly easy to determine which is the case, unless you have some sort of sentient penis which can painlessly detach itself from your body at will and continue screwing people without your knowledge.)time perception varies from person to person. to say "as long as he stops even if consent was given" leaves too much of a "wiggle" room that can allow the guilty to go free and the innocent to be jailed. next time you have sex, hide the clocks. then compare how long you think the sex was vs how long your partner thought it was. I bet you will have different times.

so who's correct when one says he stopped while the other says he didn't?
earlier you said what... 5-10 second grace period? for some that can be an eternety while others it can be too short because personal time perception gets screwed (pardon the pun) when concentration is on other things.

Seeing as rape is only really illegal on a technically with around 1 in 400 rapes ending in successful prosecution this does not really do to much to make it any less illegal.

Wow this is about as (Some discriptive word) as the 'Can't rape a woman wearing tight Jeans' case.

Wow this is about as (Some discriptive word) as the 'Can't rape a woman wearing tight Jeans' case.

I don't see why they don't just include a requirement that you need four male witnesses to prove a rape. Would barely impact on the conviction rate.

I don't see why they don't just include a requirement that you need four male witnesses to prove a rape. Would barely impact on the conviction rate.
Two-fifths of Australians surveyed believed men who rape do so because they are unable to control their urges.

Useless fact.

Two-fifths of Australians surveyed believed men who rape do so because they are unable to control their urges.

Useless fact.

And I call bullshit on them.

They seem perfectly capeable of controling their urges when they were in public and there are other people about.

If a man even implies that reasoning in his defence, or if we accept that is the reason men rape then we should therefore assume that rapists have not evolved the capeability of reason and restraint and are therefore animals, and should be neutered accordingly

Two-fifths of Australians surveyed believed men who rape do so because they are unable to control their urges.

Useless fact.

Wow, Aussies* are teh stoopid. Well, that's what you get when a country gets founded by the criminals of another country.

EDIT:
*Well two-fifths of them.

Wow, Aussies are teh stoopid. Well, that's what you get when a country gets founded by the criminals of another country.

Which country are you from?

Which country are you from?

Ireland, why?

Ireland, why?

Well - partly I was wondering which sort of country produces people who believe the sins of the father are passed onto the son for seven generations.

And partly I wanted to see if you were from a country that is such a safehaven from sex crimes that you gain sufficient justification to condem others.

Linkey (http://www.rcni.ie/Churches.htm)

“What is disturbing about Irish conviction rates is the fluctuation year on year and the extremely low rate of 1 – 2 per cent from 1993 – 2000. The overall trends are that whilst prosecutions have risen alongside reporting, convictions have fallen in both percentages and absolute terms. Ireland has the lowest conviction rate amongst countries providing data.” (Emphasis added. pg 8).


EDIT: 40% of Aussies may be stupid in regards to their attitude towards rape, but that has nothing to do with transportation.

Well - partly I was wondering which sort of country produces people who believe the sins of the father are passed onto the son for seven generations.

And partly I wanted to see if you were from a country that is such a safehaven from sex crimes that you gain sufficient justification to condem others.

Linkey (http://www.rcni.ie/Churches.htm)




EDIT: 40% of Aussies may be stupid in regards to their attitude towards rape, but that has nothing to do with transportation.

It appears I fail at humour. No matter.

It appears I fail at humour. No matter.

Ah... It came across much more that you were having a go at Australians on the basis that the first lot there were petty theives. If you were joking then I think it came out wrong, forums are not great at transfering more stuble humor - particulary in topics about things like rape.

Sorry for having a go back at ya.

One has to wonder what kind of fucked-up scenario had to come up in Maryland for the legislative to enact such a law. Was there a mass rape-accusing woman who convicted many guys with false rape claims for Maryland to feel justified to specify this very clause?

Oh, and for the record, I know a girl who claims she was raped because she was sorry for the act the next morning. So rape claims and motive for changing one's mind has to be looked into in a rape claim, no matter how difficult it is for the victim.

One has to wonder what kind of fucked-up scenario had to come up in Maryland for the legislative to enact such a law. Was there a mass rape-accusing woman who convicted many guys with false rape claims for Maryland to feel justified to specify this very clause?

Oh, and for the record, I know a girl who claims she was raped because she was sorry for the act the next morning. So rape claims and motive for changing one's mind has to be looked into in a rape claim, no matter how difficult it is for the victim.

And some states have laws about using past history as well.

And some states have laws about using past history as well.

Doesn't this normally apply with regards to things like alcohol consumption and the like:

e.g. It is considered date rape if a womans blood alcohol level is above X%, but if the man and woman have a history together where they have sex while drunk then rather than being statutory the burden of proof shifts to the woman to prove that THIS time she consented due to the influence of alcohol when she would not have otherwise?

yes, its very easy to come up with a scenario where its obviously rape.

but this is the LAW. where and HOW do you want the line drawn. if you are really in the middle of "penis in vagina" sex and one person says "you know, this isnt a good idea afterall, i think we should stop, yeah STOP" ...

how long do you have to stop before its rape? if you take 15 seconds to try to change her mind, is it rape? if is so far along that you orgasm before you really have a chance to process her request, is it rape?

if the MAN changes his mind but the WOMAN wants to keep going and his body cooperates even though his mind is changed, did she rape him?

would a WOMAN be comfortable with being charged with rape in that circumstance where SHE takes the extra 30 seconds to try to change HIS mind? would you put a woman in prison for that?

there is a spectrum from "oops i didnt realize i was having sex with a serial killer" to "did i just hear my parents car pull up?"

im really not comfortable with the idea that not jumping up immediately and withrawing from the situation the minute someone says "we shouldnt be doing this" constitutes rape. not every case of "god i shouldnt have had sex with that jerk" should be punished by the law. some should.