When is it rape?

[rhino 0]

Quote

Been lurking for awhile now...just introducing myself...made 2 jumps so far AFF,and dislocated my left shoulder on my AFF level 2...cannot figure out for the life of me why...happened on opening,so I cannot jump until I get it sorted out....oh well...only have things to look forward too.Learning from almost every post I read in here.Great site and great folk.

Agreed... Simple...

[PhillyKev 0]

Quote

Quote

...Actually, that's not from the trial...

Ok, how about, from the California Supreme Court decision statement of facts?

Text of Decision

Facts of the case are stated on pages 2-5.

Maybe we all ought to have a look at the actual decision, rather than reading the media reports, then complaining that the media reports are innacurate/biased/misleading.

Ok, well, reading the facts from that document I'm actually swinging the opposite direction. I think it's pretty obvious from that accounting that she was not interested before it even started. Now I'm confused as why they're saying this was rescinding consent during the act, when in fact, to me, it seems to me she said no before it even started.

[TomAiello 26]

Quote

it seems to me she said no before it even started.

She testified to that. The boys testimony (last paragraph of facts) contradicted her, claiming it was consensual. In the first paragraph of the discussion, the court states that it will assume "for the sake of argument" that she did give consent pre-penetration, then rescinded it post-penetration.
Appellate courts do this a lot. The reason they're doing this is to decide a doctrine of law, rather than this particular case. Basically, what they are saying is that it doesn't matter if she initially consented (in fact, let's assume she did), because the failure to withdraw after consent was rescinded was, in itself, sufficent to lead the court to conclude that rape had occured.
It is interesting to read the dissent's take on the facts on page 14 (drawn from the same lower court transcripts). In part:
"She did not say anything and she was not fighting or resisting while the rest of her clothing was removed. The boys were "fingering" her and playing with her "boobs" and kissing her and "like just trying to keep me satisfied type of thing." She acknowledged that she enjoyed these activities, enjoyed it "because it was like a threesome"; she was laughing and liked being the center of attention."
Also note that she was on top of John Z. for four or five minutes at the beginning of their intercourse. The dissent points out that she claims to have been held there, but that it was done (by agreement from both testimonies, I believe) "with only one hand on her waist--not hard enough for her to feel the pressure or to create a bruise."
It sounds to me like she rode him for five minutes or so, then, when he rolled on top of her, she demurred (not terribly forcefully).
Didn't someone earlier in this thread point suggest that men should always be on the bottom, to head off rape charges?

-- Tom Aiello

Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com
SnakeRiverBASE.com

[lawrocket 3]

The opinion is a little fuzzy, for it does not state how much time a man has to withdraw.

but this is not the last thing to be heard from the Ca. Supreme Court on this issue. You'll hear more soon. One thing that should be noted here is that the Cal. Supreme Court deferred on the issue of force. They'll take that issue up in another matter.

In October, 2002, the California Supreme Court accepted a petition to review People v. Griffin S109734, which will deal with the issue of force. In Griffin an appeals court reversed a rape conviction since they were not convinced that the defendant, who held the victim's wrists after she consented to sex, was using any more force than was necessary to complete the act.

The issue apparently will be, "What amounts to force?" How much force is necessary for a rape?

This will be a tough issue, and I, for one, am glad that I won't be deciding that one.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[billvon 2,989]

>Didn't someone earlier in this thread point suggest that men should always be
> on the bottom, to head off rape charges?

Well, sorta. I said the woman should be the top (not _on_ top) - top is a slang term to mean the person "in charge." Sorry, shoulda made that clear. In any case I would think it pretty sad if it had to come to that.

[freeflir29 0]

When her mother walks in.........I'll swear it!!!

[jfields 0]

Tom,

Thanks for the link to a non-media accounting. As expected, it is very different.

I'll politely withdraw my earlier comments on notice and responsibility, though I still stand by them in relation to the initial post and "facts" it presented.

New facts, new opinions. As with any interesting court case, the details provide the real differentiation between the contrasting sides. The first media version and the court-cited facts are enough different that I'd probably support her case based on the information. Of course, I still think all three of them were totally irresponsible. That hasn't changed.

[SkydiverRick 0]

Quote

False sexual harassment claims are also incredibly low....I believe it was less than 3% or something.

How can these numbers be proven?

never pull low......unless you are

[JDBoston 0]

FWIW, I heard tonight from someone who has worked for the Boston Police Dept. for about 5 years that the false claim figure is actually 30-50% (for reported sexual assaults of all types, which covers harassment-type things such as grabbing as well as more serious incidents). He also mentioned that approximately 2-3% of the total cases in this category go to trial.

I have close female friends and ex-es who have been sexually assaulted, and I have VERY strong personal feelings on the subject. IMHO, it's an extreme affront to real victims that there are people out there making stuff up. And no means no, period. "Not being able to stop" is total BS. Like someone else said earlier, pick your knuckles up off the ground and act like a human.

Vallerina, I would be interested in hearing details on your sources, because I would rather not believe that the truth is what this guy said it is. But apparently that's his experience.

Joe

[RevJim 0]

Is it rape of the eyes when a drunken Reverend gets nude in the pub and streaks through a rape thread?

I hope not.......

Woo Hooo! Check this bbaaaaaby!

It's your life, live it!
Karma
RB#684 "Corcho", ASK#60, Muff#3520, NCB#398, NHDZ#4, C-33989, DG#1

[skycat 0]

Interesting how this Acexbox posted just this post and never posted again.....think someone was trying to stir up some shit?!?!?!

Fly it like you stole it!

[Tonto 1]

"I can kinda understand how a man would have trouble stopping after there is penetration. It would take incredible willpower. "

No, not really. I can stop when I'm having fun.
I can also stop turning points when my dytter goes.

It's the consequence of not stopping which we should consider, not how much fun we're having.

t

It's the year of the Pig.

[mr2mk1g 10]

It would be very difficult for this outcome to be replicated in the UK. You have to prove that the raper "knew" that the victim says no. Thats actual knowledge not presumed.

There are unfortunate cases where the guy honestly believes the woman is consenting even though its obvious to everyone else that she is not. Thats where the jury comes in and has to try to figure out exactly what he actuall thought.

If the jury thinks it was so damn obvious that he should have known she was not consenting, that doesnt meen he's guilty - it just means that they are more likely not to believe that he honestly thought she was consenting.

As for revoking permission, thats fine. If a woman says stop, you have to stop. Theres a nice case on the point where a man accidentally drives onto a parking warden's foot (accident so no crime). The parking warden (meter-maid in Amerenglish I think) obviously starts screeming at him to move. At this point the guy thinks "god I hate parking wardens" and doesnt move. At that point it becomes a crime. Point is that a legal act can become an illegal one if you are asked to stop and dont.

PS, I wouldnt have moved either, but I would stop if told to.

[peacefuljeffrey 0]

Quote

False sexual harassment claims are also incredibly low....I believe it was less than 3% or something.

I guess I don't understand how it is that one can claim to have a lock on how many claims were "false" and how many were true. Doesn't that presuppose that every finding of "true" or "false" is unerring? Well, it sounds from your statements as though there is some way to be unequivocally sure that once there's been a conviction, that was a "true" claim.

Also, people claim to somehow know how many unreported cases of something go unreported. (You mentioned "70%" earlier.) How can one arrive at a figure for that? If they're unreported and yet you know how many happened, isn't that a sort of paradox?

Besides, it seems like we're more-or-less in agreement that this CA case is one of "false conviction" i.e. it wasn't rape but got decided that it was. Which category would you drop THIS one into? Which stat goes up? The number of actual reported rapes w/convictions, or the number of falsely claimed rapes? In this case there was a conviction, but it seems that 6 idiot judges are about the only ones on the planet who seem to think this was really a case of rape.

-Jeffrey
"With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

[slug 1]

Quote

Interesting how this Acexbox posted just this post and never posted again.....think someone was trying to stir up some shit?!?!?!

Troll no jumps, no location, one post, etc.

Maybe before responding to "unusual threads" check out the posters profile.

[tunaplanet 0]

Quote

Men should have the option "if we are equal" to opt out of that responsability for life in the same way a woman can.

You do have that option. It's called DON'T HAVE SEX WITH WOMEN IF YOU AREN'T PREPARED TO BE A MAN AND OWN UP TO RESPONSIBILITIES!!!!!

Forty-two

[Douva 0]

I'll probably catch some flack for saying this, but I don't think the legal system should declare sex after consensual penetration rape, even if the woman changes her mind. It is simply too difficult to prove and opens up the door to too many highly questionable criminal prosecutions. If a woman says "stop," and then a man ejaculates before he can pull out, does that constitute rape? A better alternative might be to teach young women to be very careful about when and with whom they agree to have sex. And no, I don't think that is akin to saying women shouldn't dress provocatively or walk alone at night. Men are always told to use discretion about what they say to a woman, how they touch a woman, whether or not they have the woman's consent, etc. Is it too much to ask that women use a little discretion before letting men sexually penetrate them? Do we really need the standard to be "let them start fucking you, and then decide if you really want to do it or not?" I'm not saying there aren't scenarios where a woman might try to end a sex act and the man physically detain her and force her to let him finish, but I think these types of situations should be handled on a case-by-case basis, and possibly handled as sexual assaults, instead of rapes, without setting such a dangerous legal precedent. I understand that a history of abuse by bad men has made women more than a little defensive, but I don't think a lot of women understand exactly how lightly men are asked to tread these days. If this is the path we are headed down, perhaps "abstinence only" sex education really is the best plan. Instead of worrying about social diseases, maybe we should be warning our children against any sexual act for which mutual written consent and specific government sanction have not been issued. I also feel that this whole scenario is another case of people not understanding that men and women really think and function differently. Men are not nearly as intuitive as women. While a woman might hear, "I need to go home," and think, "he wants to stop," a guy would probably hear the same thing and think, "yeah, me too; we'd better hurry and finish." If you really want to stop having sex, say, "Please stop. I no longer wish to have sex with you." Don't start dropping hints and then accuse your partner of rape. It's crap like this that makes me glad nobody wants to have sex with me.

--Douva

I don't have an M.D. or a law degree. I have bachelor's in kicking ass and taking names.

[Skyrad 0]

I don't think this is really complicated. If a woman says no at any time in my books it means NO! I don't care if your about to blow your load, NO means NO! As for 'I should go home' if theres any doubt whatsoever, read NO! Rapists piss me off If a woman says no and ment maybe or yes, to bad, she just lost out. If people want to say no then have a safe word.

When an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy.
Lucius Annaeus Seneca

[diablopilot 2]

Quote

Maybe she thought "I have to go home" gave her an excuse.

Who cares what she thought? Someone is suposed to read her mind now?

To me it's simple, she contributed to starting it, then she wanted to stop.

She should have said "Stop."

And he should have stopped. Imediately!

----------------------------------------------
You're not as good as you think you are. Seriously.

[billvon 2,989]

>If a woman says no at any time in my books it means NO!

Agreed, but that's not the issue in this case. She said "I have to go home." Is that the same as no? What about "ow?" or "oohh?" or "hey!"

>If people want to say no then have a safe word.

Safewords can work but have to be agreed on beforehand. Unfortunately, I suspect that even if a safeword was agreed upon, uttering "no" would still turn consensual sex into rape in the current climate.

[Vallerina 2]

Quote

How can one arrive at a figure for that?

Easy. A survey that asks questions in an unbiased manner. It's similar to the method that statistics are pulled for many "legal activities." (ie % of high school students smoking weed, % of people who filed false battery charges, etc.)

Quote

I don't think the legal system should declare sex after consensual penetration rape, even if the woman changes her mind.

Really??? So, if I give consent to have sex with someone but I change my mind in the middle of it because they tell me that they stole all my money, they have a VD, they mess around with animals, or whatever other reasons I might have, I have to let them finish? That's disgusting.

Quote

It is simply too difficult to prove and opens up the door to too many highly questionable criminal prosecutions.

It's already difficult to prove. That's why there are so many unreported cases.

Quote

A better alternative might be to teach young women to be very careful about when and with whom they agree to have sex.

No, that education would be useless. The best education for women is how to prevent rape (ie, stay in groups, don't walk alone at night, never take a drink from a stranger.) How the heck can you teach a woman who to have sex with???? The best education for men is to teach them that forcing a woman to have sex does not make you a man, "no", "stop," and no answer means that you should not have sex, and report to the police if you hear one of your buddies talking about forcing a woman to have sex.

Quote

Men are always told to use discretion about what they say to a woman, how they touch a woman, whether or not they have the woman's consent, etc.

Many are not learning that lesson.

Quote

I understand that a history of abuse by bad men has made women more than a little defensive, but I don't think a lot of women understand exactly how lightly men are asked to tread these days.

#1 If a woman has a history of "bad men" she will be less defensive and more open to "bad men" in the future. No, I don't understand how lightly men are asked to tread these days, because I do not see most men treading lightly.

Quote

Men are not nearly as intuitive as women.

Then, you should wait until you hear a definite, "Yes, I want to have sex with you." The girl never gave consent (which, in some states, is already rape at that point), and she only spoke of not wanting to be there. Plus, I believe there were many facts in the case that were not told in the first post of the thread (ie, I'm pretty sure that she did say she no longer wanted to have sex....I think there's a link to that story somewhere in this thread...)

Sigh...when will guys realize that "crying rape" should be one of their least concerns???? You should be much more concerned about getting a vd (yes, even if you use a condom) rather than getting accused of rape.

There's a thin line between Saturday night and Sunday morning

[Douva 0]

Quote

Quote

I don't think the legal system should declare sex after consensual penetration rape, even if the woman changes her mind.

Really??? So, if I give consent to have sex with someone but I change my mind in the middle of it because they tell me that they stole all my money, they have a VD, they mess around with animals, or whatever other reasons I might have, I have to let them finish? That's disgusting.

I didn't say you had to let him finish. I just said you shouldn't be able to prosecute him for rape if he does finish. If he forcibly detains you, you should be able to prosecute him for sexual assault, but you agreed to let him put his penis inside your vagina, so in order to prosecute him for rape you would have to show that he both had reason to believe you no longer wanted his penis inside you and that he failed to remove it in a timely fashion. How exactly do you prove that? As you stated yourself, rape is already hard enough to prove. Shouldn't we set some sort of criteria at which point it is no longer "rape?" Should you be able to prosecute your boyfriend for rape because he doesn't "pull out" in time? For that matter, why is his responsibility to stop if you're the one who wants to end it? You're the empowered woman; if you want him to stop having sex with you, take your vagina someplace else. If he wants to remain in place and hump the air, that's his business. Why is it the man's responsibility to walk away? Like I said, if you're talking about a man pinning you and forcing you to let him finish, that's a different story. That should definitely be prosecuted, but it should probably be called sexual assault instead of rape, since you did consent to sexual intercourse.

Quote

Quote

A better alternative might be to teach young women to be very careful about when and with whom they agree to have sex.

No, that education would be useless. The best education for women is how to prevent rape (ie, stay in groups, don't walk alone at night, never take a drink from a stranger.) How the heck can you teach a woman who to have sex with???? The best education for men is to teach them that forcing a woman to have sex does not make you a man, "no", "stop," and no answer means that you should not have sex, and report to the police if you hear one of your buddies talking about forcing a woman to have sex.

So teaching women that there are consequences to agreeing to have sex with a man is useless? You're against teaching women to "think before you fuck?"

Quote

Men are always told to use discretion about what they say to a woman, how they touch a woman, whether or not they have the woman's consent, etc.

Many are not learning that lesson.

[billvon 2,989]

>I'm worried about living in a country where men are expected to
>behave more like women because that is what is socially acceptable.

What expectation makes "behaving like a woman" more socially acceptable? What behaviors do you think are inherently different between men and women?

[SkyDekker 1,465]

Quote

Then, you should wait until you hear a definite, "Yes, I want to have sex with you." The girl never gave consent (which, in some states, is already rape at that point),

So, lets say you meet this girl in a bar and you hit it off. Lets say we end up at her place and have a couple more drinks, at which point I relay that I just love it when a woman just kneels in front of me and gives me a BJ.

10 minutes later, she just kneels down, pulls down my zipper and gives me a BJ.

Does this mean I raped her? She never verbaly stated: yes I want to have sex with you.

[diablopilot 2]

Quote

I agree in that if she wanted to stop having sex, "I have to go home" was obviously not the best choice of words. However, I don't doubt that she wanted to stop having sex.

I don't think that is in dispute. I agree she appears to have wanted to stop having sex. However we comunicate through words. It's one of the things that makes us more than animals. She simply needed to say "Stop." for this to be a clear cut rape case.

Saying that "Stop." is a hard thing to say, or she was worried about what someone would think or do if she said it is not a consideration in this case.

No man should be legaly at fault simply because he's not a mind reader. Most people would probably picked up a stong hint at that point, but agin we're talking about teenagers, who are still learning the ways of adult life.

Again, if the girl wanted to play in an adult game she should act like one. If she wanted to stop, say "Stop." How is that "I have to get home" should be interperated any differently than "I need to go shopping"

----------------------------------------------
You're not as good as you think you are. Seriously.