Woman Can't Say No After Start Of Sex

[Tigress]

It is a hard call, I agree. I also agree that it won't help matters--at least not for those who've said stop, but were not met with compliance. It doesn't matter if it rarely happens, or even if it would be reported when it did--what matters is that if it does happen, and it is reported, that the victim isn't shrugged off, with no justice being had.

 

[lilithu]

If you understood what it is to be raped, you would understand the point i am making.

If you understood what it is to be raped, you would object to any law or ruling that makes it even harder for the victim to seek justice.

 

[Bishka]

If you understood what it is to be raped, you would understand the point i am making.

If you've been raped you would also understand why this is so important to the women and/or men out there.

Sometimes you agree and then realize at that last second that it is the worst thing you could be doing and you need to get out of that situation FAST.

 

[Mike182]

Mod post

i would like to ask that no more sentances that start off with "if you've ben raped...." be posted, this is an emotional topic so please stay away from the personal, and while i sincerely hope no one here has or does suffer sexual abuse, you never know if you might be upsetting someone with your statement.... please bear this in mind?

thanks all
​

 

[eudaimonia]

Like I said, once he or she says stop, you stop. If you continue on, making little to no effort to stop, then I believe that should be considered rape. If such a thing has to work on a case to case basis, so be it.

Morally, I agree with you 100%. But how does one prove beyond a reasonable doubt that someone made "little to no effort to stop" in a court of law? I can see why judges don't want to touch this.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Mike182]

i too agree totally with "no" means no, and "stop" means stop - but if it's one word against another, how does one prove that one said stop?

sadly it is impossible to judge, and i don't feel we are justified in giving out false sentances in order to punish real rapists...

 

[Hema]

So let's see, if I go to the grocery and I put stuff in my cart I won't be able to put it back before I hand over my cash. That ruling is ridiculous. It makes me really angry too! :verymad: Why can't people put themselves in the victim's shoes?

 

[Fluffy]

I would oppose any law that attempts to make rape a retroactive crime. As long as it is made explicitly clear that saying no half way through does not make the first half rape then I don't think this law should stand.

I really don't think there is any room for an abuse of current rape laws (excluding minimum age laws) and so I see no need for this. To say that a woman might deliberately engineer such a situation is absurd and to assume that consent equates to a legal contract of some sorts is stupid (in other words it does not guarantee you a specific amount of time with a person).

If you are worried that a partner might accuse you of rape or that you would be unable to stop in such a situation then you probably should not be having sex until you sort your own issues out.

If you are unsure about whether you want to have sex then for god's sake don't consent to it. Sit down, think about it, reach a decision and continue with your life. I'm not blaming the victim by a long shot (the rapist is always wrong) but I just think that focusing on preventing the rape is more productive than dealing with the aftermath.

I also hope very much that this gender double standard only appears in the media circuit and is not a part of the offical court ruling. To suggest that only a woman can't say no and therefore by implication a man might be able to is absurd along with the more common idea that only women get raped.

 

[Jaymes]

i too agree totally with "no" means no, and "stop" means stop - but if it's one word against another, how does one prove that one said stop?

That's already the issue with a great deal of rape cases. If no signs of physical violence are left behind, it becomes an issue if "he said/she said".

 

[lilithu]

Morally, I agree with you 100%. But how does one prove beyond a reasonable doubt that someone made "little to no effort to stop" in a court of law? I can see why judges don't want to touch this.

i too agree totally with "no" means no, and "stop" means stop - but if it's one word against another, how does one prove that one said stop?

That dilemma is already there. Agreeing that no means no and stop means stop does not add to it.

What if two people are in a private space that they both consented to go to, like an apartment. They both consented to kissing, etc. But one never consents to sex and the other forces it. Would yall agree that this is rape? In terms of being able to prove it, we have to rely on testimony corroborated by physical evidence. That doesn't change just because the couple have gone a step further.

 

[CDRaider]

Heres my take on this situation. This does not come from me being a woman so please try to see this from the perspective of me being a sociologist.

Rape is a very important issue to me for reason that I do not feel comfortable disclosing on this forum. As a result, it is one of the many things that I consider myself to be knowledgeable about so forgive any know-it-all additude.

The situation that occours more often then you think is the woman goes out with the man and then there is a mutal unspoken understanding that sex is to follow. The guy is a nice guy and then they start getting in to it and things change. He may become more violent or demanding and make her uncomfortable. The point is also that this may happen the fifth or sixth time when the man feels that he has control. In that way, if they had been having sex previously, the courts will not consider it rape.

Unfortunately, one spoils it for everyone. There are a lot of women that cry wolf with rape because it is an easy thing to claim. Where as I cannot honestly say whether she did or did not get raped, I just wanted to put out there what one of the most common forms of rape are.

In 100% honesty, the majority (and i can't remember the statistic) of rapes are done by significant others married or unmarried. That is why many get thrown out because it is hard to decide whether its rape or revenge for something the girl despises about the guy.

I would still like everyone to just consider the situation I said before. There are many women that tell of that. There are also men that use the scare tactic. There are men that say "I will have sex with you by such and such a date" and they constantly remind the woman. If the woman has low self esteem, or has been socialized to think that sex is an OBLIGATION to the man, she will eventually feel like she has to. He can also use this a extortion. When she slips to a friend that this happened, she might get the support and confidence needed to bring it to light. Rape is remarkably similar to domestic abuse because the motives are about 98% the same.

 

[Mike182]

To say that a woman might deliberately engineer such a situation is absurd

why is it absurd?

 

[evearael]

It is true that many women and girls who are raped, sexually assaulted, molested, and so on, do not come forward. Of all the women I've known who have been through it, I was the only one who went to the police. It never went to court.

I was repeatedly sexually assaulted and raped between the ages of 14 and 18. It was by someone I knew. I was terrified of the guy so I didn't come forward until five years later, after he drove six hours to show up on my parent's doorstep looking for me. A bit later, I learned there was another victim who was in elementary school. She is terrified and refuses to come forward. The attorney general will not pursue it unless the second victim comes forward... and I understand why: if the other victim fails to come forward, it is he said, she said at this point. There is no physical evidence left at this point and my body has healed by now.

No means no and stop means stop, regardless of whether you are strangers, dating or married. Saying no does not withdraw consent for whatever was already done, but it does withdraw consent from anything from that point on. As far as women who falsely cry rape against men, I have the same amount of hate for them as I do any who rape, assault or molest, because they make it very difficult to successfully prosecute actual criminals so they wind up back on the streets preying again and again and again...

 

[Faint]

Look, when a woman agrees to have sex with a man, it is like getting a ticket to Disneyland. Sure, you get entrance into the "happiest place on earth", but you have to follow the rules once you're inside...and if you don't, well it's private property and they (she) reserve the right to ask you to leave at anytime. If you get out of hand, they can press charges.

A woman may change her mind at anytime, and if she does...you STOP. Period. You don't say, "wait, let me finish" or pretend you didn't hear her and keep going. Maybe she's getting sore, maybe you're not hitting her buttons, maybe she heard her husband's car pulling up, or maybe she has reasons that you'll never understand. The point is consent is an ONGOING thing as far as sex is concerned. Both parties must be into it, otherwise there's really no point at all.

As evearael says:

No means no and stop means stop, regardless of whether you are strangers, dating or married. Saying no does not withdraw consent for whatever was already done, but it does withdraw consent from anything from that point on.

Exactly.

 

[Pardus]

If you understood what it is to be raped, you would object to any law or ruling that makes it even harder for the victim to seek justice.

Which is why i object to this law being repealed, really who gets themselves into such a situation as to stop half way thru? i find it obsenely difficult to think of such a situation.

And any chance for more false accusations makes it harder for cases to get justice.

I just fail to see what repealing this law will achieve, maybe as a male i don't understand the concept, maybe it is because the females i know would not consider changing their mind halfway thru as an intelligent move and they would think before acting in the first place.

 

[Fluffy]

why is it absurd?

Why would a woman decide to manipulate a man into sexual relations with the motive of then accusing him of rape? Do we suggest that the bank clerk lures the robber to the point of temptation just to get him convicted of robbery?

I suppose it is a possibility and there may be people out there who would wish to do something like that but they would constitute an exception rather than a rule. When I say it is absurd, I mean that it is an absurd argument to use to justify why sex was consensual and not rape. We should not be making laws just in case.

 

[Pardus]

Do you have any idea of how scary it is to be falsely accused of any sexual assault?

Innocent until proven guilty doesn't hold, you are treated as guilty.

 

[Mike182]

Why would a woman decide to manipulate a man into sexual relations with the motive of then accusing him of rape? Do we suggest that the bank clerk lures the robber to the point of temptation just to get him convicted of robbery?

I suppose it is a possibility and there may be people out there who would wish to do something like that but they would constitute an exception rather than a rule. When I say it is absurd, I mean that it is an absurd argument to use to justify why sex was consensual and not rape. We should not be making laws just in case.

ok, thanks for clarifying that one

 

[evearael]

Do you have any idea of how scary it is to be falsely accused of any sexual assault?

Innocent until proven guilty doesn't hold, you are treated as guilty.

As far as I'm concerned, justice needs to be done. Period. If a man is falsely accused, we need to ensure he isn't convicted. If a man is rightly accused, we need to ensure his conviction. We shouldn't neglect to legislate against a crime because the justice system needs work. We should legislate against the crime and work on the system... as well as do everything we can to prevent rape (and so on) from happening in the first place.

 

[koan]

No means No