It's Not Rape If a Woman Changes Her Mind

[tkingdoll]

Actually, the Catholic Church promoted the rythm method which referred to timing it with the monthly cycle.

Q. What do you call a couple who use the rhythm method?

A. Parents.

[/old joke]

 

[brodski]

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 this kid had stopped when to, but still ejaculated I don't think this woman would have a legitimate complaint. If he's not built up to the point where he's going to ejaculate no matter what, then he could stop without discomfort.

 

[brodski]

Actually, the Catholic Church promoted the rythm method which referred to timing it with the monthly cycle.

The Chruch did yes, but "being careful" has long been a popular method amoungst young lovers in areas where contraception is not readily available (usually for religious reasons). It's especially useful for those young lovers who have difficulty counting.

 

[tkingdoll]

If this kid had stopped when to, but still ejaculated I don't think this woman would have a legitimate complaint. If he's not built up to the point where he's going to ejaculate no matter what, then he could stop without discomfort.

Ah, that's the distinction I was looking for. If he can't claim discomfort, then it's hard (ahem) to see what his defence is. The 'heat of passion' argument is a poor one in that case.

 

[Hagrok]

See my candy jar analogy above.

Lets try another analogy.

Lets say you tell me you give really good backrubs, and in fact I just saw you give a friend of mine a great backrub. So I say "that sounds great, give me one!".

As it turns out, for whatever reason, your backrubs are extremely painful to me. I start screaming and tell you to stop; you force me to the ground and continue.

Not as fun as candy stealing, I'll admit.

 

[ponderingturtle]

If this kid had stopped when to, but still ejaculated I don't think this woman would have a legitimate complaint. If he's not built up to the point where he's going to ejaculate no matter what, then he could stop without discomfort.

The real issue is how long did the act continue form the point of with drawn consent, and how was the withdrawal of consent expressed.

What bugs me is the idea that when someone drinks if they have sex with someone it can be rape of that person, so they are not responsible for their actions. But if intentionally imbibed alcohol can remove responsibility why is there all this fervor about drunk driving, yes it is wrong but they are drunk so why are they responsible for their actions?

 

[Garrette]

If this kid had stopped when to, but still ejaculated I don't think this woman would have a legitimate complaint. If he's not built up to the point where he's going to ejaculate no matter what, then he could stop without discomfort.

Which is what a few of us have been attempting to say. This is, imo, the moral line.

Where the legal line is I do not know. And proving where in the act the young man actually was would be a highly problematic matter, unless he continued on for a couple of minutes after being told to stop.

 

[ClintonHammond]

"If he's not built up to the point where he's going to ejaculate no matter what"

If a man IS 'built up' the point where he's gonna ejaculate, he's going to ejaculate, no matter what anyone does. (Unless he's really tantric and can dump his swimmers back into his own bladder... but that's a whole different 'ball' of 'wax', if you'll pardon the puns.... )

 

[brodski]

Ah, that's the distinction I was looking for. If he can't claim discomfort, then it's hard (ahem) to see what his defence is. The 'heat of passion' argument is a poor one in that case.

I just realized how he understood that that was what this woman wanted. It's just that he may have ended up ejaculating anyway.

 

[Garrette]

What bugs me is the idea that when someone drinks if they have sex with someone it can be rape of that person, so they are not responsible for their actions. But if intentionally imbibed alcohol can remove responsibility why is there all this fervor about drunk driving, yes it is wrong but they are drunk so why are they responsible for their actions?

It should also apply to the rapist, too, then, I suppose.

If both I and the lady get drunk, am I the only one still responsible for my actions?

But it need not be argued that way. It could become one of passive lack of responsibility versus active responsibility.

As the rapist, I am doing something. The lady, arguably, is not.

Mind you, I think that line of reasoning is fraught with huge pitfalls, but it is a possible tack to explain the apparent discrepancy.

 

[El Greco]

There could be more to it: Who can verify that she actually said to him to stop and she didn't invent this story afterwards as a revenge for something else ? What if she told him to stop not because she was in pain but just to laugh at him ? I'm not saying it happened that way, but it's a very strange situation: One day you agree to have sex with someone and the next day you sue him.

 

[Beerina]

No. No pain and no injury.

Extreme discomfort, and I think there exists a "point of no return" which probably varies from male to male and which is likely impossible (or at least impractical) to measure or define.

But "hurt?" Nope.

I wouldn't even call it discomfort, except in a psychological sense. "Blue balls" is largely a lie -- even if you get to the pre-ejaculatory state where your body releases sperm to mix with the bulk of the ejaculate in the staging area (roughly 30 seconds before normal ejaculation) I wouldn't even call that discomfortable, much less anything extreme or painful.

Nah, unless it's about 5 seconds before ejaculation (in which things are getting started), or during, he should have stopped.

 

[American]

Romance.


It's good to be a normal person and look down on people who have these pathetic kind of problems.

 

[ponderingturtle]

It should also apply to the rapist, too, then, I suppose.

If both I and the lady get drunk, am I the only one still responsible for my actions?

But it needed be argued that way. It could become one of passive lack of responsibility versus active responsibility.

As the rapist, I am doing something. The lady, arguably, is not.

Mind you, I think that line of reasoning is fraught with huge pitfalls, but it is a possible tack to explain the apparent discrepancy.

The situation is two people go to a party get drunk and sleep together, in the morning they think it was a bad idea, I have heard people say that the man raped the woman in this situation, so we get retro active revoking of consent.

That is the case I am argueing. One of consentual but altered mental sex, is that rape? Can it become rape?

 

[Random]

What bugs me is the idea that when someone drinks if they have sex with someone it can be rape of that person, so they are not responsible for their actions. But if intentionally imbibed alcohol can remove responsibility why is there all this fervor about drunk driving, yes it is wrong but they are drunk so why are they responsible for their actions?

Because in the case of drunk driving (or drunk flying, drunken surgery, etc.), being intoxicated is part of the offense. You are free to go in front of the judge and say that you would not have gotten behind the wheel of a car if you were not intoxicated, and the judge might even be sympathetic, but you still got behind the wheel of a car while intoxicated.

Your drunkeness may help you mitigate responsibilty for your actions, but it is also what puts you in violation of the law in the first place.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Unless he's really tantric and can dump
his swimmers back into his own bladder

Can't doing that cause problems and pain?

 

[Garrette]

The situation is two people go to a party get drunk and sleep together, in the morning they think it was a bad idea, I have heard people say that the man raped the woman in this situation, so we get retro active revoking of consent.

That is the case I am argueing. One of consentual but altered mental sex, is that rape? Can it become rape?

I recall this, and I think it actual went to court. Or at least grand jury, though I could be remembering incorrectly.

Personally, no, I do not think it was rape or anything legally or morally wrong given there is no compounding information we are not given. (e.g., the woman was of a diminished mental capacity even prior to the party and the male knew it).

 

[Beerina]

Wait. What I meant to say was Yes! Yes it does! Immensely!

Are you busy at the moment?

Uh...oh yeah! Yeah!

Once we get as far as holding hands, if anything interrupts the natural progression, we men will die. It's just awful agony and they'll never recover.

 

[Garrette]

I wouldn't even call it discomfort, except in a psychological sense. "Blue balls" is largely a lie -- even if you get to the pre-ejaculatory state where your body releases sperm to mix with the bulk of the ejaculate in the staging area (roughly 30 seconds before normal ejaculation) I wouldn't even call that discomfortable, much less anything extreme or painful.

Nah, unless it's about 5 seconds before ejaculation (in which things are getting started), or during, he should have stopped.

I'll agree there is no medical condition to which blue balls really refers, but I'll disagree on how easily you dismiss it.

Without going into details except to say the act began as and remained consensual, I can say from experience that there is discomfort and my personal point of no return (short of extreme willpower and physical control which I sorely lack) that your five second window is far too short.

 

[Beerina]

Heh, as I posted that it occured to me that my belief that a man 'must finish' might say more about my ex-boyfriends than I realised

On the one hand, it's bad form to crush the groove of another dude who "had a good thing going". On the other hand, I feel good about messing up any future guy's attempt with a girl.