It's Not Rape If a Woman Changes Her Mind

[Hagrok]

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.

*shrug* There's no way of knowing what happened from that article.

We can assume that the first court had enough evidence to believe that the girl did, indeed, tell him to stop because she was in pain. The 2nd court also didn't dispute this fact... only that it didn't meet the legal definition of "rape".

 

[ClintonHammond]

"Can't doing that cause problems and pain?"

Not from what I understand, but I've never even really tried. Nor can I think of a way to bring it up in comversation with any of the people I know. LOL (I'm not sure I'd WANT to!)

 

[El Greco]

I wouldn't even call it discomfort, except in a psychological sense.

Well, sometimes it was discomfort, at least for me. To the point that I had to curl up to feel comfortable. Nothing too dramatic, of course. I'd compare the severity to indigestion.

 

[Garrette]

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.

I think that's the point.

In the one instance (retroactively withdrawing consent due to being intoxicated), the law is saying that "X can remove you from responsibility."

In the other (DUI), the law is saying that "you are responsible BECAUSE of X."

Further, in the first instance, it places the burden of precognition on the defendant, who is also X, such that he must know that tomorrow she will say "no."

 

[ClintonHammond]

If you Wiki "Retrograde Ejaculation" you'll find some information on the tantric thing.... Don't forget your grain of salt



(One more post and I can include URLS!! yay!)

 

[Garrette]

If you Wiki "Retrograde Ejaculation" you'll find some information on the tantric thing.... Don't forget your grain of salt



(One more post and I can include URLS!! yay!)

I once knew a lady who swore by "the tantric thing." I thought it BS and occasionally told her so, but I never tired of her trying to convince me otherwise.

 

[Kerberos]

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.

Doesn't "drug rape" or whatever it's called, require the victim to be more or less unconcious?

 

[Garrette]

Doesn't "drug rape" or whatever it's called, require the victim to be more or less unconcious?

Roofies? I'm unsure, but that's not the scenario under discussion.

We're talking about two people who drink together, get drunk together, have consensual sex together, and wake up together. Then the female says "Wait. I was drunk. I didn't mean to give consent. He raped me."

 

[fuelair]

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

Actually, reading the bible carefully, (fun and gives you lots of interesting talking points, BID) re: withdrawal method. That is Onanism, (Onan was struck down by Dog for withdrawing to avoid fathering a child w/his dead brothers' wife (see, there was this old law....BID)). Humorously, large numbers of persons with little enough to do took the Onanism word and decided to use it for masturbation instead of the withdrawal method. Interestingly enough, I haven't heard of anyone getting blasted for masturbation or withdrawal in a really long time but I wish they wouldn't play games with the terms.

 

[fuelair]

I once knew a lady who swore by "the tantric thing." I thought it BS and occasionally told her so, but I never tired of her trying to convince me otherwise.

And your failure at the retrograde part........was regrettable and I am sure you appropriately regretted it. In her presence anyway.

 

[punchdrunk]

If I may bring up a completely fictional analogy, let's say one person uses another's words but doesn't get explicit permission, but afterwards the second person confirms the permission. . .

 

[CaptainManacles]

At risk of being labeled some very bad things I'm going to try a very bad analogy.

Suppose you break into my house (through a window) and take a handful of candy out of the jar I keep on my coffee table.

Now suppose you're a friend and you know where I hide my spare key under a rock, but you've been told only to use it in an emergency. Then you use it because you really really want candy and the only candy available is in the jar on my coffee table.

Now suppose you're my friend and I've invited you in the house and we're sitting on the couch talking, eating candy from the jar, until you say something that offends me deeply and I tell you to leave immediately. You do so, but as you stand up you rape my sister.


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?

FIXED

But seriously, blue laws were bad enough, now we have blue balls laws?

But seriously, I can see where this is a gray area, and this case is more about being really really technical then what is morally sound. This thread is a good example of how reason, intuition, and debate can be used to set moral standards without calling on god.

And I don't know if maybe I'm just defective, but if I stop having sex in the middle of it and don't finish, it feels like someone kicked me in the junk, unless I just started. Of course, unless you believe that masterbation and oral sex are deadly sins I don't see the "I had no other choice" arguement holding much water.

 

[luchog]

No, hardly defective. Only had it happen a couple of times, but it felt like someone attached a pair of Vice-Grips(tm) to them. And when you're in that much pain, it's not like you can take care of the problem with a little fast fingerwork.

 

[WildCat]

It doesn't hurt you to withhold ejaculation?

You fell for that one, huh?

 

[ponderingturtle]

I think that's the point.

In the one instance (retroactively withdrawing consent due to being intoxicated), the law is saying that "X can remove you from responsibility."

In the other (DUI), the law is saying that "you are responsible BECAUSE of X."

Further, in the first instance, it places the burden of precognition on the defendant, who is also X, such that he must know that tomorrow she will say "no."

THere is that, but is being drunk a defense in a murder case?

 

[Polaris]

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."

Yes, you can. And kudos for such an obscure reference - the most underrated and unexpected thing to ever air on MTV.

 

[Polaris]

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.

To explain the point of no return to the women present, imagine you're going to throw up. Now imagine trying to stop it seconds before you heave. Theoretically it's possible, but realistically it's like a Sea World trainer telling Shamu to stop jumping in mid-air. "No" should be said before the orca is going to jump, so to speak.

 

[Dark Jaguar]

To explain the point of no return to the women present, imagine you're going to throw up. Now imagine trying to stop it seconds before you heave. Theoretically it's possible, but realistically it's like a Sea World trainer telling Shamu to stop jumping in mid-air. "No" should be said before the orca is going to jump, so to speak.

But you can at least dash to a toilet before you throw up. I'm pretty sure that's analogous in that fasion as well, so no dice.

 

[casebro]

But you can at least dash to a toilet before you throw up. I'm pretty sure that's analogous in that fasion as well, so no dice.

I think a lot of people have not made it in time.

And in response to some other posts:

a) even traffic lights have a yellow.

b) re: the car theft analogy: No, it is not grand theft auto, it is embezzlement of you let your friend borrow it.

So I guess I agree with the concept of needing a 'manslaughter' for rape. But would raping a prostitute be shoplifting?

And another hypothetical: If a 14 year old male rapes his female History teacher, is she a statutory rapist? or did he rape himself?

 

[steverino]

It's been an (ineffective) staple of catholic contraception for centuries.

Um, can you please not use the word "staple" in the same sentence as "contraception?"