[iWrite]

zigzag:

Don't apologize. You have a really good argument going regarding the points you made. There would be no discussion without opposing points of view and it would be much more boring.

[MikeM33]

Originally posted by nonsuch:
I think I agree with Ms. Murphy. Still, hardly the end of the world; if you're having sex and your partner says stop, you stop; that's how decent people behave. I'd think that would be apparent to most folks.

BullshiAt!! If someone proposes sex and the other party refuses, then fine. No does mean NO.

If both parties are in agreement and start having consentual sex then it becomes another issue.

You're giving all your civil rights away by posting the above nonsense. In the throes of passion you're not likely to just say "okay, sorry" and zip up your tool. If she's game so are you. that's the way it works.

This is exactly why our own intelligence as humans is going to be our downfall. The animals we evolved from just got nasty and there was none of this "rape" crap.

We're so smart, we're actually stupid. Think about that.

So let's paint a little picture here; You're having sex with some woman who agreed to have sex with you. You're into it and she seems like she is too. You're getting to the point of orgasm and she says "stop!" You're just supposed to stop?!? If you don't then it's "rape" ?!?

That's total bullshiAt.

There's something inherrantly wrong with that man.

I've known more women in my lifetime that fit the stereotype they so place on us men also. Stuff like "all men are pigs" or "all men are interrested in is sex" etc., etc.

Pretty soon it's going to boil down to needing a lawyer present while your humpin'

Someone stop the world. I want off.

MikeM

[iWrite]

I had a college professor (philosophy no less) who once said to us:

"Over-analysis leads to paralysis."

In this case, he could be right, as MikeM pointed out:

We're so smart, we're actually stupid. Think about that.

[zigzag]

Originally posted by iWrite:
This is a little known and almost obscure law that is not used often but in the hands of ignorant or uncaring people it is misused and abused and in this case it was the local police.

Absolutely. A friend of mine was pulled over for little reason other than that he had long hair (musician) and a cheap TV in his back seat. I was driving behind him. The reason he had a TV in his back seat is because he was moving. A rookie cop pulled him over thinking he had busted up a burglary ring, even though no crime had been reported and there was no other basis for pulling him over. He was jailed because he wasn't carrying his license (again, musician). It happens every day.

Unfortunately, in some jurisdictions the law allows what they call "investigative stops." A cop can pull you over if you look "suspicious," which to a cop means anything he doesn't like, including long hair.

It might interest you to know that I'm a former card-carrying member of the ACLU (I say former because they pissed me off about something). I agree with you completely that the laws are often abused and that innocent people suffer for it. My only point here is that there is not necessarily anything new or unusual about the Illinois rape statute.

[iWrite]

It seems like there are extremes wherever you go. That's why the ACLU is good because it acts as somewhat of a stop-gap. However, even the ACLU has rabid types.

This Illinois law is going to be interesting to watch unwind. They'd better not charge a black man with the first case they want to try because that'll turn into a race circus of Tom Wolfe proportions.

[Nonsuch]

Originally posted by MikeM33:
So let's paint a little picture here; You're having sex with some woman who agreed to have sex with you. You're into it and she seems like she is too. You're getting to the point of orgasm and she says "stop!" You're just supposed to stop?!? If you don't then it's "rape" ?!?

So you think your right to finish trumps her right to change her mind?

Yeah, having a girl change her mind on you mid-act would suck. A lot. That's how it goes. If your partner does that, finish yourself off and find a new partner. Someone who changes her mind in the middle of a sex act is, perhaps, not someone you want to stick with anyway.

In any event, I think this debate is much ado over very little. As Wendy Murphy points out in the article, it's not likely that a woman who clearly wanted her partner to stop, and whose partner did not, would have trouble convincing a jury that she was assaulted. I disagree with the law because it's unnecessary and redundant.

I would, I must admit, be curious to read the statute and see exactly how they define "no" in this case.

[Logic]

Originally posted by MikeM33:
You're giving all your civil rights away by posting the above nonsense. In the throes of passion you're not likely to just say "okay, sorry" and zip up your tool. If she's game so are you. that's the way it works.

Stop right there. Nonsuch was completly correct. You should stop if your partner says stop, no matter what. Anything else would be disrespectful. Yes it can be difficult to stop right away, but that does not mean that you shouldn't stop right away. That is not what is wrong with this law.

: trying to refrain from going all out here :

This is exactly why our own intelligence as humans is going to be our downfall. The animals we evolved from just got nasty and there was none of this "rape" crap.

"rape crap"????!?!? Rape is probably one of the worst offences one can commit. In all aspects and colours it is disgusting. There is nothing wrong with getting nasty, but as humans we bear the responsibility to respect our partners wishes. It almost sounds like you want to return to the "good old days" when a man could grab any woman he wanted and have his way with her. That is disgusting and I sincerely hope that isn't what you are implying.

So let's paint a little picture here; You're having sex with some woman who agreed to have sex with you. You're into it and she seems like she is too. You're getting to the point of orgasm and she says "stop!" You're just supposed to stop?!? If you don't then it's "rape" ?!?

That's total bullshiAt.

Yes, you are supposed to stop when your lady says so! The question isn't if you should stop, but if there should be a special law concerning this. I wouldn't say that you are a rapist if you continue for a few seconds, but you damn sure don't show your partner any respect if you continue.


edited to add:

People that talk like you just did is the reason I'm going to teach my daughter(if I ever have one) self-defence. Talk like that is exactly the reason I would want to make sure my daughter could wipe the floor with you however big you are!

[iWrite]

nonsuch said
I would, I must admit, be curious to read the statute and see exactly how they define "no" in this case.

Just as long as Bill Clinton didn't author it.

"It depends on what 'is' is."

[Phanguye]

Originally posted by MikeM33:
So let's paint a little picture here; You're having sex with some woman who agreed to have sex with you. You're into it and she seems like she is too. You're getting to the point of orgasm and she says "stop!" You're just supposed to stop?!? If you don't then it's "rape" ?!?

no you are supposed to pull out and dot the eyes if you know what i mean

sorry crude humor

[Axo1ot1]

blueballs is SO much worse than getting raped...

[Axo1ot1]

Originally posted by Logic:
In all aspects and colours it is disgusting.

Except for gang-rape. That's okay.

[Paco500]

This is astounding- I am amazed that there are those who would defend someones right to contiune a sexual act with someone who wants it to end. Perhaps if you read it quikly and don't think about it at all- the law may seem absurd- but the moment your barin engages, the only suprising thing about it would be the possiblity that this may not have been considered rape in the first place.

Let's look at this another way- you are having sex and your partner goes into cardiac arrest- not breathing- seconds from death. You just keep pumping cause it's so hard to stop once you've started?

[zigzag]

Originally posted by starman:
zig,
The flaw in your logic is that the person WAS consented to touch. Ever been f*cking some girl and just NOT hear anything around you? This law is DANGEROUS! It gives women the power to cry rape at ANY time during sex, and the WORST time could be at the end.

"What did you say, hun?".

SLAM!

Mike

No, no flaw in the logic. As the California Supreme Court held, the law of battery has always implied that a person can change their mind. Nothing new. That some people will abuse the law is unfortunate but it doesn't mean the law itself is invalid or illogical.

I agree that changing your mind right when a guy is (to be delicate about it) shooting his load would be unfair. Unfortunately it's one of those grey areas that the law is full of. But it doesn't invalidate the principle behind the law. What if a woman consents but the guy starts hurting her? She should have the right to stop.

I understand why people might be alarmed about this but I don't think it really changes the law. And woman who want to trap a guy can do it with or without this particular law.

[zigzag]

Originally posted by iWrite:
zigzag:

Don't apologize. You have a really good argument going regarding the points you made. There would be no discussion without opposing points of view and it would be much more boring.

No, I overdid it and don't mind saying so. I don't want to come off as a pompous, pedantic prig. I just wanted to remind people that, although phony charges are too often brought, rapes do happen and they are ugly acts.

[thunderous_funker]

Obviously you have to protect the right of poeple to change their mind. I think that much is pretty clear.

Unfortunately it creates so much of the grey area that makes rape cases horrible for everyone involved. Basically, it breaks down on human communication--how well, forcibly, clearly do we send signals.

Unless there is clear evidence of a physical struggle or violence, it gets really really murky to determine who said what and meant what and when. You might say "no" but did you mean it? How does one tell? When is resistance playful and when is it sincere effort to disengage? Where is the line between consensual rough sex and non-consensual sex?

Its a total quagmire. Moral of the story: don't hop into bed with people you don't know and never assume anything about people's intentions.

[FauxCaster]

Originally posted by Logic:
I really don't know what to say......

I understand that of course people should have the right to say stop while having sex, but isn't this a little over the edge? I would think that it would be difficult for especially young boys to just stop right at the moment the girl say so. And is there any time limit for the guys to stop? I mean, would you have to stop at once or would one more "push" be enough to be a rapist?

I think there is already enough cases where girls use this(rape charge) as a tool for revenge or keeping their "honour" and this can, and I dare say will, be used as another method for certain individuals to get revenge.

IMO rapists are among the worst people living in this world, but I don't think this will help much in getting rid of this plague.

As I said, of course people have the right to say stop but is this really the way to find and convict real rapists?

I agree.

This pretty much CHANGES the definition of rape. Anyone remember the old feminist charges that rape isn't about SEX it's about POWER. Now, clearly, they want rape to be about SEX.

I think it is an insult to true victims of rape -- the kind that are violent attacks.

[thunderous_funker]

Originally posted by FauxCaster:
I think it is an insult to true victims of rape -- the kind that are violent attacks.

Rape is always a violent act even if there isn't a bruise on her body.

[zigzag]

Originally posted by Phanguye:
no you are supposed to pull out and dot the eyes if you know what i mean

sorry crude humor

Besides, many women look good in a pearl necklace.

sorry, even cruder - trying to compensate for the boring legal stuff

[Logic]

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:
Obviously you have to protect the right of poeple to change their mind. I think that much is pretty clear.

Unfortunately it creates so much of the grey area that makes rape cases horrible for everyone involved. Basically, it breaks down on human communication--how well, forcibly, clearly do we send signals.

Unless there is clear evidence of a physical struggle or violence, it gets really really murky to determine who said what and meant what and when. You might say "no" but did you mean it? How does one tell? When is resistance playful and when is it sincere effort to disengage? Where is the line between consensual rough sex and non-consensual sex?

Its a total quagmire. Moral of the story: don't hop into bed with people you don't know and never assume anything about people's intentions.

[Logic]

Originally posted by FauxCaster:
I agree.

This pretty much CHANGES the definition of rape. Anyone remember the old feminist charges that rape isn't about SEX it's about POWER. Now, clearly, they want rape to be about SEX.

I think it is an insult to true victims of rape -- the kind that are violent attacks.

I really don't care if rape is about power, sex or the degradation of another human being. It is disgusting and should be considered one of the most horrific offences anyone can commit.

And as t_f said, rape is always a violent attack. I personally know a few girls that have been raped. Their soul dies for a long time.

What I find wrong with this is that it creates yet another grey area to be exploited. I'm not defending the guys that continue after being told to stop though. I'm criticising a law that IMHO creates more problems than it fixes.

That is the main problem I find with this.

[MikeM33]

No. Most of you are mis-reading what I posted. That's fine though. I don't advocate rape either. Sex against someones will is rape plain and simple.

When a couple start to have sex and one or the other decides that it isn't kosher half way through though, that's another issue. That's consentual sex. Nobody "forced" anyone into a role they didn't want.

The problem with this sort of thing is that now "rape" can mean 20,000 different things now thanks to rulings like this.. It's like laws against sexual harrassment. Some women in the military can easily say "well so and so looked at me funny" Instant sexual harrassment suit. So some poor dude gets booted out of the army for glancing at a female corporals ass.

This is exactly why we have de-volved.

This new ruling just means more rights for women. Let's be honest here. Men don't have many rights anymore. Women can still cry rape when some dude chips her fingernail by accident.

This is our sad and unfortunate REALITY

MikeM

[Axo1ot1]

Originally posted by MikeM33:
Some women in the military can easily say "well so and so looked at me funny" Instant sexual harrassment suit. So some poor dude gets booted out of the army for glancing at a female corporals ass.

Well he shouild have known better than to have blood pumping through his veins

[OAW]

I think some in this thread are missing the point. Certainly no one is advocating that someone has the right to continue having sex when the other party wishes to stop. The issue is that the law .... as written .... is pretty vague on the time frame that is allotted for the "activities" to cease. If a couple are having consensual sex and the woman all of a sudden decides she wants the man to stop ... what is a reasonable amount of time for him to stop before his actions constitute rape? If the law means he has to stop immediately, then my contention is that that is not a reasonable standard because it is utterly unrealistic to think that the average person can just "turn it off" in the heat of the moment. Is it 10 seconds? 15? 30?

Unfortunately, this is the problem with "rape" that is called an "act of violence" ... but no violence occurs. Personally, I am of the opinion that when it comes to the "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard for convicting a person in a criminal situation ... a "he said - she said" situation should generally go in favor of the accused. That is, if a woman cries "rape" ... and there is no weapon involved, and no physical evidence of injury .... so that all a jury has to consider is her word against his, then I would have a hard time voting to lock a man up in those circumstances. How could there not be reasonable doubt in such a circumstance?

Consequently, I feel the same way about this Kobe Bryant case. You have a woman that works at the front desk of the hotel, whose job description in no way calls for her to be in Kobe's hotel room in the middle of the night. She's not room service, or the cleaning lady, or the lady who turns down the bed and puts the chocolate on the pillow. She's up there for some time, and 24 hours pass before she calls the cops. OTOH, you have a multi-millionaire ball player. And it's a known fact that they encounter plenty of females who throw themselves at ball players on a daily basis. It's so bad that they hang out in the hotel lobbies after the games and the guys just come through and pick the ones they want out of the crowd to take up to the room. On top of being a ball player, Kobe is a good looking man and one of the "elite" in the NBA ... which only makes his appeal to the "groupie" set even greater.

Now do I know what happened that night for a fact? No I don't. All I know is that the complaint alleges that Kobe physically overpowered her and forced her to have sex. She didn't go with the "he was a such a big black man and I was so scared that he would hurt me so I just went along" type of rape charge. So if there is no physical evidence of injury then Kobe should walk IMO.

This Kobe situation is bad enough as it is given the "he said-she said" nature of it based upon what's been reported so far. Can you imagine the drama if it was a case of the woman changing her mind in the middle of the act situation?

OAW

[iWrite]

Wow, y'all have been busy analyzing this while I was gone.

Rape is very wrong and anyone who commits rape, knowing that it was against the woman's wishes from start to finish, is a pig and deserves to spend life in the "pen." No doubt about it. I don't care if it's Kobe Bryant or some nobody on the street (and if Kobe Bryant IS found guilty due to overwhelming evidence then he should almost be given a harsher sentence because he was supposedly a role model).

This is the thing: It's like a crime half-begun and half-finished. A consentual act begins and halfway through one person's mind changes and it's no longer consentual. If that person's mind is twisted or warped now sex has become a weapon against him or her because "rape" can be threatened.

The other issue is this: How WILL juries determine guilt or innocence? Seriously?

Old-fashioned women aren't going to buy it and men are always going to take the side of the man so the only peers that a woman crying "rape" are going to have to young girls of the same age and frame of mind and unfortunately, they aren't usually voting at that age so they aren't generally in the jury pool for selection.

Going to be interesting.

[thunderous_funker]

Originally posted by OAW:
I think some in this thread are missing the point. Certainly no one is advocating that someone has the right to continue having sex when the other party wishes to stop. The issue is that the law .... as written .... is pretty vague on the time frame that is allotted for the "activities" to cease. If a couple are having consensual sex and the woman all of a sudden decides she wants the man to stop ... what is a reasonable amount of time for him to stop before his actions constitute rape? If the law means he has to stop immediately, then my contention is that that is not a reasonable standard because it is utterly unrealistic to think that the average person can just "turn it off" in the heat of the moment. Is it 10 seconds? 15? 30?

Very good point.

Originally posted by OAW:
Unfortunately, this is the problem with "rape" that is called an "act of violence" ... but no violence occurs. Personally, I am of the opinion that when it comes to the "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard for convicting a person in a criminal situation ... a "he said - she said" situation should generally go in favor of the accused. That is, if a woman cries "rape" ... and there is no weapon involved, and no physical evidence of injury .... so that all a jury has to consider is her word against his, then I would have a hard time voting to lock a man up in those circumstances. How could there not be reasonable doubt in such a circumstance?

I just don't think that is realistic or reasonable. It suggests that every single rape victim faces the same fear of force and reacts the same way.

I'd love to think that every girl in America is taught to claw, scream, bite, kick and fight like hell when faced with a man who is trying to force her to have sex with him. That doesn't happen. Some men are capable of bullying a woman without such force. Some women simply freeze up and go into catatonic shock.

Absence of injury doesn't mean absence of violence. Coercion and intimidation are also rape.

Which leaves us with the ugly reality that there is no clear objective measure. There can't be. Sadly this leads to the kind of rape case trials that are the inspiration for made-for-TV dramas on A&E or Lifetime. They are cruel, humiliating ordeals for everyone involved.

Luckily, however, they are decided by juries rather than computers so we hope that the subjective nature of the crime will be measured and weighed carefully in the hearts and minds of 12 reasonable persons.

[iWrite]

Too bad polygraph tests generally aren't admissable in legal cases because they could be quite useful in situations like this: Polygraph the accused and see what the mindset of the person was when asked this question. I think polygraph tests are fairly reliable, actually.

[thunderous_funker]

Originally posted by iWrite:
Too bad polygraph tests generally aren't admissable in legal cases because they could be quite useful in situations like this: Polygraph the accused and see what the mindset of the person was when asked this question. I think polygraph tests are fairly reliable, actually.

I this is exactly the reason they are not admissable. It only measures your state of mind at the time of the test, not at the time of the alledged crime.

A woman could have blown the entire NY Yankees bullpen but spent the next fews days convincing herself she had done it against her will (for whatever reason she wants to latch onto to avoid the horrible realization that she just blew the entire NY Yankees bullpen) and pass a lie detector test with flying colors.

Of course, the same could be said for making police statements or answering questions on the witness stand.

I just don't think there is an objective way to deal with it. We just have to hope we can keep the subjective process as humane and equitable as possible. That would be a lot easier without people who make false accusation or defendants who never feel guilty about what they've done.

Our system relies on honesty and I don't think there is a way to get around that.

[iWrite]

No, I wouldn't polygraph the woman (or the victim), just the accused.

Why wouldn't that work? "Did you know that you were having sex against her wishes at the time in question?"

???

[thunderous_funker]

Originally posted by iWrite:
No, I wouldn't polygraph the woman (or the victim), just the accused.

Why wouldn't that work? "Did you know that you were having sex against her wishes at the time in question?"

???

Same thing. The polygraph only measures what he thinks at the time of the test, not at the time of the crime. So if he's convinced himself that she really really wanted to be tired to the radiator and beaten with a rubber hose while he urinated on her, he will pass the test just fine. Of course that is a diabolical example. More likely he will have convinced himself that when she was saying "no" an pushing against him (but not flailing, biting, kicking, screaming for whatever reason she didn't manage it), she was merely protesting at how good he was making her feel. She didn't really want him to stop. I mean, she would have never worn that outfit if that wasn't what she wanted.

Again. The test only measures that you believe yourself, not the objective Truth.

[capuchin]

This gives me the chills.

How many times have you heard "Oh no, don't do that" when it's perfectly obvious that "that" is *exactly* what your partner wants you to do more than anything else?

[thunderous_funker]

Originally posted by capuchin:
This gives me the chills.

How many times have you heard "Oh no, don't do that" when it's perfectly obvious that "that" is *exactly* what your partner wants you to do more than anything else?

Enough times to be very very happy that I'm no longer single and dating. Honestly.

Marriage is the best idea I ever had.

[Timo]

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:
Marriage is the best idea I ever had.

The wife agree?

[digimage]

If your partner does that, finish yourself off and find a new partner. [/B]

Would that mean bukkake is right out then?

[malvolio]

And what about gals who enjoy a little kinky fantasy role-playing, who get off on pretending they're being "ravished" by a hunky burglar or some such?
The mind boggles.

[Michael_Jackson]

you never hear about gay guys accusing someone of rape, do you?

[Patrick]

Let's see... just for the sake of argument, what if in the original story the girl was 18 and the guy was 17? Then they both could legally be found guilty of rape, in one form or another. That would be kinda weird.

[iWrite]

That's very funny, Patrick!

Forced intercourse and statutory rape...groove on!

[Axo1ot1]

Originally posted by Michael_Jackson:
you never hear about gay guys accusing someone of rape, do you?

I know a dude that got raped. This girl that was jocking him put some crazy drug in his 7-up and did him in a hot tub.

[iWrite]

Go visit prisontalk.com and you can read all about rapes over there.

[suprz]

i've said it before and i'll say it again,
"the most powerful weapon on earth is pu$$y"

now it's also become the most dangerous


"no"....uhh..."yes"....uhhh...."well maybe"....uhhh.....
MAKE UP YOUR F&*^G MIND BITCH!!!

[Link]

Well.. to put it simple enough..

I think it's fine. Sure there's a 'heat of the moment' but the woman has all the rights to say no.. and that's that.

What isn't fine is say.. a girl going out with a guy and then turning around a few days later and acusing rape for no reason. Unfortunately there's no way to prove this.

I agree.. it could be a good idea to make a contract .. and bring a tape recorder..

Geez I can see it now.

Contract:

Both parties understand that they are doing this at their own risk and any results are their own faults. No legal blame or prosecution may be done to either side.

[Captain Obvious]

Originally posted by Patrick:
Let's see... just for the sake of argument, what if in the original story the girl was 18 and the guy was 17? Then they both could legally be found guilty of rape, in one form or another. That would be kinda weird.

It depends where you are actually.
Michael M. v. Superior Court of Sonoma County

Originally posted by iWrite:
You're right. There is so much what we legal folks call "wiggle room" that it's alarming

Gee, you need to call the editors of Blacks because I can't seem to find it anywhere.

Seriously, what is with you and this issue of rape? You keep revisiting it more than a fat kid does a buffet table.

[Kenneth]

Stay you out of freaking jail time...

try masturbation...

[Cipher13]

This is truly ridiculous.

The sentiment is good, but making it a law is absolutely stupid.

How can this be a law? Surely, unless there was a video camera in the room... doesn't this simply come down to one persons word against the other?

"I said no halfway through"
"No she didn't"
"Yes I did!"
"Well, not loud enough then amidst all your other noise".

Honestly, it's common decency, I know; if I was with a girl and she wanted me to stop, I would. But there are places the law shouldn't go...

[Fyre4ce]

This may turn out to be longer than I expected.

Topic 1: This Law
------------

For the record, I DO NOT think this law should have been passed. It's NOT because I don't agree with what it says, but because it scares me with what it implies.

As has already been mentioned in here, the standing laws for rape would undoubtedly cover a case like this. If the woman changes her mind mid-act, says "stop", pushes the guy off, whatever, he SHOULD STOP. IMMEDIATELY. If he doesn't, it's rape. If a situation like that occured before this law was enacted, I don't think "Well, she said yes before we started" would hold up in court. I, for one, have the decency that if a partner of mine said that during the act, even if it were a one-night stand and I was close to climax, I would stop immediately. I HOPE everyone in here would do the same.

Now, I don't like it because it places the act of sex even further under the legal microscope.

Topic 2: Rape in General
-----------------

I am a 20 year old male college student. Like most college students I know, I enjoy going out on the weekends and socializing at parties (although I actually get the chance to quite infrequently). At many of these parties, alcohol is served. Most people there have a few drinks in their systems. It's not uncommon for people to hook up at these parties.

So suppose some girl there had some drinks, met a guy, and they had sex. Next day the guy doesn't call her back and she feels bad about it. Goes to the police, they charge him with rape.

She was drunk, she wasn't in a condition to give legal consent, blah blah blah. I'm sorry! I was raised to be accountable for my actions. If some girl goes to a party and knowingly gets drunk (no one was there pouring alhocol down her throat), she needs to be held responsible for any decisions she makes while intoxicated or buzzed. (As far as I'm concerned, that's a risk you take when you get drunk - which is why I don't do it.) You better believe if I got drunk at the same party and went outside and smashed some car windows, I'd be held legally accountable. So if a girl gets drunk and hooks up with some guy there, then regrets it later, he's a RAPIST and gets thrown in jail for the rest of his life. Never mind that he couldn't tell how many drinks she had, for she was coherent. Never mind that she showed no hesitation before or during the act. Never mind that the guy was studying for an engineering degree and had never done anything wrong in his life. Sorry, he's a rapist. Away to the jailhouse.

You may laugh at that story, but it's a very REAL danger which I (and most college students in the country) face. Everything I've worked so hard for up until this point could be thrown away in one night, by some girl making a decision she regrets.

Now, I understand completely the reasons for rape laws. REAL RAPE is a horrible crime, possibly the worst, and there NEED to be laws protecting women (and men) from rape. Even rape in the context of this law, not stopping when your partner asks you to, is horrible. But, the situation I described above is not "rape," yet the guy could be charged the same as if he had grabbed her, thrown her in the back of a car, and beaten the **** out of her while ****ing her. Is that justice?

Topic 3: Statutory Rape
-----------------

Well, someone was going to have to bring it up sooner or later...

I feel much the same way about statutory rape laws as I do about "normal" rape laws - good intentions, but the possibilities for abuse are scary.

It's not uncommon for girls from the local high school to show up at frat parties on campus. I can't tell the difference between a 17 year old girl and an 18 year old girl. (In fact I met a girl not long ago who looked to be about 16 or 17 and I found out she was 12 ) If a 17 year girl came onto me, and one thing led to another, I probably wouldn't kill the moment and ask, "oh wait, are you 18?" although I probably should!! The rest of the story is just like above - she gets pissed off about something afterward, goes to the cops, my ass is in jail for the rest of my life. I mean, what the ****? Isn't that taking it a bit too far. And this example doesn't even get into cases like, what if she lied to him and said she was 18? What if she had a fake ID that said she was 21?

The law was created to keep middle aged men from preying on 13 year old girls. But is there anything wrong with an 18 year old guy and a 16 year old girl having a loving, consentual relationship? I don't think so. The law disagrees.


------

Someone in here made a very good point, I thought. Feminists have always said that rape isn't about sex, it's about power. Well, now they want it to be about sex. It's about who said what when, who put what where. One misinterpreted word, he's a RAPIST, and he's going to jail where he'll be REALLY raped in the ass multiple times per day.

I just find the whole situation very scary. The line between a loving, caring experience and jail time grows ever more thin.

[mixin visuals]

i would either love... or hate to be mike tyson's lawyer now...

all of macnn forums would be locked up. or at least the decent ones...

[shanraghan]

The big problem with this new legislation... is that it draws such a fine line. Indeed, it would be respectful to stop if asked to, but this legislation leaves little room for understanding, or misunderstanding. While it's pretty clear that if a woman were to make it clear she wishes to cease intercourse, and a man FORCIBLY continues, it is a clear case of rape. However, there could be a miscommunication and thus what could be termed simply a bad youthful bungle can be brought to trial and prosecuted. Thus, while the law doesn't really seem all that unreasonable to me, I am rather uneasy with it. As I said, just too fine a line for comfort.

[qnxde]

Originally posted by iWrite:
starman:

What happens if a person's senses are affected by alcohol? A person drinking alcohol loses inhibitions and normally might not participate in sexual behavior. "I don't know if I should do this," might be remembered later as "I told him no and he did it anyway," especially when the effects of alcohol have worn off.

This I particularly find hypocritical in the eyes of the law.

If a person has been drink driving, or accidently causes another person harm or death while under the influence of alcohol, they are still held 100% responsible for their actions.

Contrast to a recent ruling (no linkage, sorry):

A girl being intoxicated while making the decision to have sex at a party resulted in the boy being charged with rape afterwards because, apparently, at the time she was unable to make a rational decision. If that was the case, theoretically, a signed contract with a client after a ritzy lunch and a few too many to drink could also be invalidated.

I wish the law wasn't so two faced.

[Captain Obvious]

Originally posted by Fyre4ce:


Well, someone was going to have to bring it up sooner or later...

I feel much the same way about statutory rape laws as I do about "normal" rape laws - good intentions, but the possibilities for abuse are scary.

...................

(In fact I met a girl not long ago who looked to be about 16 or 17 and I found out she was 12 )
.

OK, let's end the statutory rape discussion here because it will only cloud the rest of the thread. This is different that other rape charges because statutory rape is a strict liability crime. There is no defense for it. Not knowing her age, lying about her age, even a really great fake ID are not going to get you out of it. It does not matter if you didn't mean to do it or if you were looking to hookup with an underage girl.

This will never change. The people who make the laws all have children and grandchildren whom they want to protect. If they were horny 20 year old guys they may be more sympathetic but that is not the reality we live in. But 18 is not the age of consent in all states. It can dip down to 16 in some places.

On top of that there is a state interest in keeping the laws in this area as they are. The strictness of it serves to discourage sexual interaction with people who the laws deem as incapable of understanding the ramifications of sexual activity both physically and mentally. It serves to protect young girls and provides incentive to men over the age of 18 to be careful from the outset. This puts the responsibility on the older party and assumes they know there is a risk involved in the possibility of the female being underage. And since you said you take full responsibility for your actions you can at least see that the law agrees with you on this one.

It may all seem puritanical but it is the way it will be for the rest of your life. I do think though that there should be discriminative enforcement of these laws. I watched a trial in which an 18 year old male was tried for rape for having sex with her girlfriend of 4 years who was 16. The pair were planning on getting married and her parents were fully aware of the seriousness of the relationship. Against the wishes of her parents the boy was tried and convicted because the state's attorney's office wouldn't drop the charges. I don't believe there was any jail time though he did have to register as a sex offender. A much more intelligent justice system would have recognized that there was most likely a sexual relationship prior to the guy turning 18 and it continued. Some states allow for the parent's of the minor to consent to relationships with person's of age. This would be a wise addition to all state statutes and provide for some discretion on the part of DAs on whom they should be prosecuting.

So that's really it. You will never see more leeway given that what I said above. You can argue it but there is a 0% chance it will happen. You might not see it as fair since she "looked" 18 but if you have doubts don't do it. Jesus, I mean how hard is it to find a girl that puts out in college.

(Plus you lost all sympathy from me when you said 12. Where exactly do you hang out that 12 year olds are looking to hook up? And you are 20 what are you doing looking for 16-17 year olds??

[Captain Obvious]

Originally posted by qnxde:

A girl being intoxicated while making the decision to have sex at a party resulted in the boy being charged with rape afterwards because, apparently, at the time she was unable to make a rational decision. If that was the case, theoretically, a signed contract with a client after a ritzy lunch and a few too many to drink could also be invalidated.

Nope, self intoxication at the time they sign does not relieve someone of their contractual obligations unless of course you knew they were drunk and capitalized on the situation or they lacked the capacity to understand the consequences of the contract.

Which is pretty much what "sex under the influence" laws try to do. This is a really long and complicated part of ability to consent. I had to sit in on talks when Wisconsin was trying to get them on the books. It is a long long discussion and really all the fault of feminists. But that's for another time........

PS:{snip} wrong case cited