A Time Limit On Rape

[MrsSpringsteen]

I can't believe that any man would say that a man doesn't have complete control over his ability to stop at any point at all-is there some unstoppable otherworldly force controlling it, like the Star Wars force or something? That is an insult to men, and a cop out. And his other comment is also offensive, as if there is some sort of "non rape" in which the woman consents but changes her mind but it isn't real rape because the guy just can't stop himself and it's not violent and brutal. The notion that a rape has to be violent and brutal in order to be rape certainly "weakens the whole concept of rape". I am confused as to what he thinks "male advocacy" is. What exactly is he advocating?


http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1584786-1,00.html

"If a woman consents to having sex with a man but then during intercourse says no, and the man continues, is it rape?

The answer depends on where you live. The highest courts of seven states, including Connecticut and Kansas, have ruled that a woman may withdraw her consent at any time, and if the man doesn't stop, he is committing rape. Illinois has become the first state to pass legislation giving a woman that right to change her mind. But in Maryland--as well as in North Carolina--when a woman says yes, she can't take it back once sex has begun--or, at least, she can't call the act rape.

That was the recent ruling by Maryland's Court of Special Appeals in a case that may soon make its way to the state's highest court and that has captured the attention of feminists and legal experts across the country.."

 

[Irvine511]

am a bit confused -- if they begin having sex, and then she says no, and then he stops, does that retroactively make the sex preceeding her saying "no" rape?

 

[MrPryck2U]

Here's the answer: As soon as she says no, you stop having sex. If you don't, it's rape.

 

[Angela Harlem]

Here's the answer: As soon as she says no, you stop having sex. If you don't, it's rape.

exactement. jesus christ. do people really need to ponder this?


(not you, irvine )

 

[BVS]

Here's the answer: As soon as she says no, you stop having sex. If you don't, it's rape.

Well of course, but how does this work in court? She now has the phyical evidence of rape...

Now it's he said, she said.

 

[Headache in a Suitcase]

what if you're mid, um, coitus and when the woman says no, you stop, but ejaculate anyway?

no is no and if the woman says no mid way and you forcibly continue your way through the act it's obviously rape, but if you're mid act, it's been 100% consentual the entire way and then all of a sudden there's a change of heart but the act finishes anyway, even at no will of the male, is that still rape?

 

[Vincent Vega]

I wonder what happens if he doesn't take it sincere the second she says it.
She says no, he didn't get it or thinks that wasn't meant as to "Stop now, I don't want it anymore!"
I mean, if she says no and repeats it or tries to push him aside, but he doesn't make any attempt to stop, okay, that's rape for sure.
But if he just doesn't immediately stop, for whatever reasons, but not that he wanted to force her on doing someithing she doesn't want, it wouldn't be rape.

 

[Liesje]

I'm not sure what I think about it yet; I still need to read all the posts. I thought the thread title was referring to the statue of limitations, but this is interesting indeed...

 

[deep]

Kind of like walking out of a movie half-way through?

I guess you better know what you are doing
or you might get a no.

 

[Harry Vest]

Here's the answer: As soon as she says no, you stop having sex. If you don't, it's rape.

Maybe...but it IS NOT the same as violent psychotic rape - not even close. The charges should not be the same. The violent psychotic rapist should get more time. This is the main problem with society today - they tend to classify something and there is no grey area - it's either rape or it's not. There's a huge difference and people should use sound judgement on a case by case basis.

 

[Liesje]

Maybe...but it IS NOT the same as violent psychotic rape - not even close. The charges should not be the same. The violent psychotic rapist should get more time. This is the main problem with society today - they tend to classify something and there is no grey area - it's either rape or it's not. There's a huge difference and people should use sound judgement on a case by case basis.

Well, rape is forcible penetration without consent. It either is, or it isn't.

I can't imagine ever being in a situation where I would change my mind halfway through, but a "no" is a "no."

There are women victims of "violent psychotic" rape who are treated and are able to move on, but there are victims of "grey area" rape who are emotionally scarred forever and never get back on their feet. Like other forms of sexual harassment, it's not really up to the perp to decide what is what.

 

[MadelynIris]

Hmmm... what if she finishes, but then says no half way through. What if he finishes before she has a chance to say no?

Ok, I'm just being silly. But yeah, these are some weird, rather micro rules here.

 

[anitram]

Maybe...but it IS NOT the same as violent psychotic rape - not even close. The charges should not be the same. The violent psychotic rapist should get more time. This is the main problem with society today - they tend to classify something and there is no grey area - it's either rape or it's not. There's a huge difference and people should use sound judgement on a case by case basis.

Well that's why judges have some discretion in sentencing. That doesn't make the crime any less a rape, however.

 

[hiphop]

what if all of a sudden he says no but she sits on top and doesn´t let him go?

 

[deep]

I can't imagine ever being in a situation where I would change my mind halfway through, but a "no" is a "no."

So you have never walked out on a movie.

or not finished a book you started?

 

[Liesje]

No, and no, and neither are even remotely comparable to forcible penetration. I don't know anyone that's put down a book only to be sexually assaulted by it.

 

[anitram]

I can't imagine ever being in a situation where I would change my mind halfway through, but a "no" is a "no."

You'd be surprised that there are a lot of these cases.

I just recently read a few where one party did not realize that the other party was not in fact their partner, halfway through. Sounds strange, but all sorts of weird things happen.

 

[Liesje]

Truth is stranger than fiction!

But I still maintain, rape is rape. If she says no and the partner doesn't stop, it doesn't make it not rape. A rape victim who "dressed like she was asking for it" is still a victim of rape.

 

[deep]

if I were ever in a situation where someone said stop or no

I would stop immediately

I can not ever remember that happening

I have gotten my share of nos

but they were always before anything began

 

[yolland]

This is probably the kind of thing where we'd almost need some detailed examples to consider, unfortunately the one provided in the article is not very helpful:

The murkiness surrounding what's reasonable has deepened further with the Maryland case, which was tried in 2004. The accuser and the defendant agree that after he began to penetrate her and she wanted him to stop, he did so within a matter of seconds and did not climax. Even so, during deliberations, the jury sent a note to the judge asking if it was rape if a female changed her mind during the sex to which she consented and the man continued until climax. The judge said it was for them to decide. They convicted the defendant of first-degree rape, among other sex offenses.

I have to assume there's quite a bit of context missing here ("other sex offenses"?) because based on this brief description alone, I'm having a hard time understanding where the nonconsensuality issue was. "A matter of seconds" sounds prompt, and the wording suggests she had consented to penetration initially. But maybe not.

 

[hiphop]

if I were ever in a situation where someone said stop or no

I would stop immediately

I can not ever remember that happening

I have gotten my share of nos

but they were always before anything began

Indeed.

Also, women should not be afraid to say no when they´re in a relationship. When they say it, it is clear what they mean. If they don´t, a man might be too stupid to realize she means "no" when he is hot.

 

[Vincent Vega]

The murkiness surrounding what's reasonable has deepened further with the Maryland case, which was tried in 2004. The accuser and the defendant agree that after he began to penetrate her and she wanted him to stop, he did so within a matter of seconds and did not climax. Even so, during deliberations, the jury sent a note to the judge asking if it was rape if a female changed her mind during the sex to which she consented and the man continued until climax. The judge said it was for them to decide. They convicted the defendant of first-degree rape, among other sex offenses.

I have some difficulties to understand this.
So they started, she said no after a while, he stopped, and didn't climax.
But then I don't understand the next part really.
The jury asks the judge, what would be, if hypothetically he didn't stop, and came to a climax, and they sentenced him for that?

Maybe I'm wrong, because in my opinion you can't be sentenced for something you didn't do.
So how long was this "matter of seconds" would be a good question as well.

 

[MrPryck2U]

Harry Vest, you brought up a great point over on page 1. People should read it again.

 

[Liesje]

I have some difficulties to understand this.
So they started, she said no after a while, he stopped, and didn't climax.
But then I don't understand the next part really.
The jury asks the judge, what would be, if hypothetically he didn't stop, and came to a climax, and they sentenced him for that?

Maybe I'm wrong, because in my opinion you can't be sentenced for something you didn't do.
So how long was this "matter of seconds" would be a good question as well.

I think I agree with what you're saying/being confused. I'm not sure what whether or not one or both parties has an orgasm has to do with rape? Theoretically, a woman who's being raped can climax and guess what, it's still rape. A rapist who doesn't climax is still a rapist.

 

[Vincent Vega]

Yes, that's right.

I'm still confused with this article.
It states that the guy stopped "in a matter of seconds". So it is important to know how long this was.
If he stopped about five seconds after she said no, you can't blame him on rape. It just took awhile until his brain realized the meaning of the information, and to stop.
So you couldn't make him a rapist because of that.
If the matter of seconds was more than, say, ten seconds, it is much harder, because he should have gotten to realize that what she said by then. Even five to ten seconds is hard to justify.

But you can't expect a manto stop by the second she says no.

 

[yolland]

Harry Vest, you brought up a great point over on page 1. People should read it again.

Well, anitram and Liesje already responded to that. The definition of rape isn't predicated on the specifics of the perpetrator's mindset (or the victim's precise degree of psychological trauma), and this isn't some unique quirk of rape law; it's characteristic of other violent crimes as well. As anitram mentioned, this is part of why judges have discretion in sentencing. Perhaps what Harry had in mind was a distinction analogous to that between murder and manslaughter; however, the problem with drawing a distinction like that is that then you'd have to establish that the fact of a woman initially consenting to penetration somehow means a hypothetical reasonable man would be unable to stop himself from proceeding if she changed her mind. But as one of the people quoted in the article points out, men don't have difficulty stopping immediately when their small child suddenly walks in; presumably you'd have no difficulty stopping if your girlfriend suddenly screamed "Stop! Something's wrong, oh my God it hurts" either. And obviously that's true regardless of how turned on the man initially was, or how receptive the woman seemed initially, so it's not really a very credible argument. The bottom line is, you've got no right to be inside someone else's body if they're telling you they don't want you there, and that's just as true with your wife or girlfriend as it is of some random woman you might hunt down on the street.

Now there may be reasonable disputes to be had about how long is too long to take to stop or the like, but those are beside the main point.

 

[MrsSpringsteen]

The bottom line is, you've got no right to be inside someone else's body if they're telling you they don't want you there, and that's just as true with your wife or girlfriend as it is of some random woman you might hunt down on the street.

Now there may be reasonable disputes to be had about how long is too long to take to stop or the like, but those are beside the main point.

Absolutely-and those are beside the main point. A violent rape is more horrible physically, if you are beaten and threatened with a weapon, etc. But if you think the psychological effects are any less potent if you are with someone you chose to be with and have sex without your consent (and that includes saying no after it has started), then you are wrong. Possibly in some cases even more so than a stranger rape, if it's someone you know and trust. How can you ever truly trust your own trust and judgment (and others) again? If and when you do, it's after much torturous emotional difficulty.

Brutal isn't always just physical brutality-and rape is rape under the law. Rape is already by definition brutal.