Court: Woman Can't Say No After Start Of Sex

A definite positive step. Many miles to go, but that is a great thing to read an appealent court rule. To many women decide it's rape when they decide they are not really that into it half way through and get away with it. This ruling will hopefully make at least a few women think twice before doing that to an innocent man. And hopefully it will save a few innocent men who women try to pull that trick on a man anyway.

The way things have been going, I'm surprised to see that a court is actually going to have common sense enforced!

--axolotl

A great relief that things have taken a step in the right direction.

Otherwise, we're forgetting why rape carries a long sentence. The reason rape is serious is because of any long-term mental trauma it might cause.

But what trauma will it cause a woman who had already willingly entered into sex with her man, and in most cases is already in an intimate relationship with him? It will, at worst, create a minor irritation.

And that is to say nothing of whether it might have been she who'd begun any nastiness or ill-feeling.

There's a case out in California where a boy was convicted of rape because the girl said "I need to go home". She never said stop, she never asked him to quit, she just said, during sex, that she needed to go home. That isn't right. He never should of been convicted.

However, to say that women can't ask a man to stop once sex has started doesn't quite seem right to me either. No, I don't feel it should be a case of immiediate withdraw or face rape charges, and in NO WAY should a woman be allowed to change her mind after the fact. I'm talking of cases where a woman starts to have sex, changes her mind, and asks her partner to quit. It is something that should be available in both directions (man wanting to stop and woman wanting to stop).

The article referenced doesn't provide a link to the origional case, nor even good clues to look it up. Does anyone else know what case this was an appeal of? I'd like to know the particulars of it.

It's a fair point that a refusal to stop might in some cases be a misdemeanor of sorts. However, the court ruling is that it is not rape.

A woman should indeed be allowed to change her mind, just like a man should be allowed to change his mind. But does this scenario really warrant sending a man to prison? Does it warrant branding him a rapist, and having him live with the stigma for the rest of his life?

In some cases it would be a minor crime. It some cases it might be a little more serious. In other cases it wouldn't be a crime at all. It would depend on the case. But, either way, it just isn't rape.

But do we really need a handbook to define what is and is not a crime when some one changes their minds? Some situations might be serious, some might not, and some might not be crimes at all? We'd have to write a book to cover everything and even then it would not be complete.

I agree with the judge on this one, our government has absolutely no place getting involved at all in situations like that. If it's all good at first and things get going, and then one person changes their mind, sure they have that right, but if the other person does not stop it should not be a criminal matter at all. Let the two people sort it out. There should be no arrests or court dates involved. We need less government intervention not more. Especially in our sex lives. Adults who are having consensual sex can be adult enough to deal with disagreements without needless intervention by authorities.

In the majority of states, a woman can file a charge of rape up to 30 days after a sexual act involving penetration. ("Marital rape" laws are identical.)

Her subjective recall of whether she did or did not consent is all that matters to file the charge.

Good discussion of the Maryland case at -

http://forums.titansgo.net/viewtopic.php?p=326926&sid=33e99e58f436055b495f5c9309ed1418

One poster wrote --

"I wonder how many rapists are gonna claim they started having sex before she said no?"

If we re-define rape to mean what pretty much all of us (feminists excluded) think when we hear the word (a violent sexual act forced upon an genuinely non contenting person), then the answer would be none because if there is a question of consent that is admitted by both parties (she admits she started the whole thing then changed her mind half way through) no one would call that rape anymore and she'd be forced (like any adult human being is) to deal with her poorly made conscious choices. Women are adults to, and as such should be accountable for the choices they make. She should expect that if she changes her mind right in the middle that decision may meet with some objection and resistance from her partner.

When domestic violence is legally defined as "ignoring her needs" (and it is) and when workplace sexual harassment is defined as "a hostile glance" (and it is), then why should there be any dispute about broadening the definitions of rape to include any sexual act SHE LATER REGRETS?

This is entirely logical in FemAmerika.

"I wonder how many rapists are gonna claim they started having sex before she said no?"

Some offenders might indeed make this claim. But then it would be upto their prosecutors to prove them wrong in front of a jury. This is how it's done with other crimes. Rape should not be special.

The problem with the logic of this question is its implicit presumption of guilt.

To me, failing to stop and pull out if the woman wants you to stop should be some kind of crime, though perhaps not “rape.” If I invite you into my home but then change my mind and ask you to leave and you don’t, at some point that becomes trespass. I should have to make it clear I want you out now and you should have time to grab your coat, but if you’re of the attitude that you’ll leave when you’re dammed good and ready to leave I should be able to call the cops and have you arrested. On the other hand the traditional definition of rape has been more like breaking and entering, gaining entry by force, threat, or treachery, rather than overstaying your welcome.

My concern with a “I wanted you to stop and you didn’t” rape law, aside from the usual who’s version of what happened do you believe issue, is that I don’t trust our legislators and judges to establish reasonable criteria for such a crime. I’m not a mind reader, I’m likely to be a bit distracted, and I’m going to need a little while to figure out what’s going on and respond. Is 30 seconds enough? Who takes a stop watch to bed with them?

I'm also cynical about such a law being applied in a gender blind manner. If the woman were on top and the man asked her to stop and get off, I’d be astonished if there was even an arrest, much less a rape conviction for the woman.

For a copy of the Maouloud Baby v. State of Maryland appellant decision see here: http://www.courts.state.md.us/opinions/cosa/2006/225s05.pdf
It’s a difficult case; my recollection is there has been one hung jury already (can’t remember/find the *&^%$#@! Link) and now the retrial conviction has been overturned on appeal.
For an example of how an Australian judge estimated how long was too long see IBBS v. THE QUEEN [1987] HCA 46; (1987) 163 CLR 447 F.C. 87/042 (6 October 1987) at http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/HCA/1987/46.html
To see how this case turned out to be a false accusation calculated to get the man thrown out of his home and into prison see
IBBS -v- THE QUEEN [2001] WASCA 129 at http://decisions.justice.wa.gov.au/supreme/supdcsn.nsf
The link won’t take you there direct, you’ll have to search for the case.

If I am having sex with a woman and she says "no" at some point, then I damn well better stop - the law doesn't say you can keep going, and have it not be rape!! It says that if AFTER saying no, the woman then 'changes her mind' and willingly consents to continuing the sex until completion, she can't later claim it was rape based on her having said "no" AT SOME POINT.

That is a big difference!!!!

-Axolotl