It's Not Rape If a Woman Changes Her Mind

BPSCG said:
I'm trying to figure out what theory of law says that a man may touch a woman even after she tells him to stop touching her. She's not allowed to change her mind? His right to have sex with her once he's started trumps her right to refuse?

I'd expect this in Iran - not the U.S.
Click to expand...

I believe that the issue here is based on the legal definition of rape as it appears in the books. It probably talks about “non-consensual penetration”, but the defense lawyer is arguing that the “penetration” was consensual, and that it became non-consensual in the middle of the sexual act. This means that he would not be guilty of “rape” as it is defined in the law. He would still be guilty of assault, but “assault” (or even “sexual assault”) looks a lot better than “rape” when you go out and apply for a job. Hooray for lawyers…
 
Random said:
I believe that the issue here is based on the legal definition of rape as it appears in the books. It probably talks about “non-consensual penetration”, but the defense lawyer is arguing that the “penetration” was consensual, and that it became non-consensual in the middle of the sexual act. This means that he would not be guilty of “rape” as it is defined in the law. He would still be guilty of assault, but “assault” (or even “sexual assault”) looks a lot better than “rape” when you go out and apply for a job. Hooray for lawyers…
Click to expand...

AFAIK, this is why the case was kicked back - the judge did not point out this portion of the existing state law to the jury.
 
Garrette said:
The last handful in the third scenario is technically theft, but would you place it in the same category as the first or even the second?
Click to expand...

I agree, it should definitely be put in a different category than rape. Consider, the initial act, including penetration (at least from how I read it) was consensual. It was only after penetration that she changed her mind. And yes, I agree that he should have stopped. I just don't think the crime he committed was as serious as rape.

Marc
 
So, if I give my friend my car keys and let him take my ride to the store, then after he gets halfway down the block I change my mind...I can put him in jail for grand theft auto?

Sweet.
 
EGarrett said:
So, if I give my friend my car keys and let him take my ride to the store, then after he gets halfway down the block I change my mind...I can put him in jail for grand theft auto?

Sweet.
Click to expand...

If you call him and phone him and tell him to come right back, and he doesn't, then yes you can.
 
brodski said:
If you call him and phone him and tell him to come right back, and he doesn't, then yes you can.
Click to expand...
I can always argue I didn't understand you due to traffic noise and the demands of driving.

Much as I could claim I couldn't really comprehend what the lady wanted when I was in the throes of, well, my throes...
 
Ok, lets take the penetration out of it, if they where engaging in a little BDSM, and one partner shouts out the "safe" word but their partner continues to beat them, then that's assault, if they stop beating them, then it's not. Or should they be allowed to give them an extra 40 lashes after hearing the "safe" word?
 
EGarrett said:
So, if I give my friend my car keys and let him take my ride to the store, then after he gets halfway down the block I change my mind...I can put him in jail for grand theft auto?

Sweet.
Click to expand...

It depends on what the wording for the laws surrounding grand theft auto are in your location. If it says the car must be "taken" without the consent of the owner in order to count as grand theft auto, you may be out of luck.
 
brodski said:
Ok, lets take the penetration out of it, if they where engaging in a little BDSM, and one partner shouts out the "safe" word but their partner continues to beat them, then that's assault, if they stop beating them, then it's not. Or should they be allowed to give them an extra 40 lashes after hearing the "safe" word?
Click to expand...
I'm ready to call "Uncle" on this for fear of being misperceived.

In general terms, I agree that consent must be given and can be withdrawn.

I do not think, however, that the line can be absolute.
 
Garrette said:
I can always argue I didn't understand you due to traffic noise and the demands of driving.

Much as I could claim I couldn't really comprehend what the lady wanted when I was in the throes of, well, my throes...
Click to expand...

That's true, and that would be a reasonable defense. That doesn't mean that if you DID understand the demand to return the car/ stop having sex- but ignored it , then it still wasn't theft/ rape.
 
Garrette said:
I'm ready to call "Uncle" on this for fear of being misperceived.

In general terms, I agree that consent must be given and can be withdrawn.

I do not think, however, that the line can be absolute.
Click to expand...

I agree.
 
brodski said:
That's true, and that would be a reasonable defense. That doesn't mean that if you DID understand the demand to return the car/ stop having sex- but ignored it , then it still wasn't theft/ rape.
Click to expand...
Sigh.... sometimes I'm too weak to just shut up.

Yes, but maybe only partly.

See my candy jar analogy above.

If I take the car without your knowledge, it is not--morally speaking--in the same category as if you call me after giving consent and I simply drive the car the long way home instead of the short way because I like the feel of it. The second is still wrong, but not as wrong as the first.

That's speaking only from a moral perspective. From a legal perspective, that's why we have lawyers, judges, and courtrooms.
 
brodski said:
It's been an (ineffective) staple of catholic contraception for centuries.
Click to expand...

I thought that was the withdrawal method - the man still ejaculates, just not inside the woman. He withdraws just before ejaculation, but with the rape scenario I was referring to any point after the initial penetration.
 
If I can quote "The Maxx"

"I mean, guys are saying that sometimes no means yes, and honestly, sometimes it does. But I don't think for one second that any guy who's pulled himself off a crying woman has been mistaken for one minute about what she wanted."
 
tkingdoll said:
I thought that was the withdrawal method - the man still ejaculates, just not inside the woman. He withdraws just before ejaculation, but with the rape scenario I was referring to any point after the initial penetration.
Click to expand...
Actually, the Catholic Church promoted the rythm method which referred to timing it with the monthly cycle.
 
brodski said:
Ok, lets take the penetration out of it, if they where engaging in a little BDSM, and one partner shouts out the "safe" word but their partner continues to beat them, then that's assault, if they stop beating them, then it's not. Or should they be allowed to give them an extra 40 lashes after hearing the "safe" word?
Click to expand...

Again, it depends on the wording of the law. The lawyer in the case we are talking about is trying to get the “Rape” charge thrown out based on the wording of the law. In the eyes of pretty much anyone who is not an absolute cretin, this woman was "Raped", but in the eyes of “The Law” she might not have been.

It’s a stupid problem with the way the law is written and the courts have to go by what the law says (unless they want to be branded as “activist”). It’s up to the legislature to fix the problem, but even if it does, it will not apply in this case due to that pesky post facto stuff in the Constitution.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom