When is it rape?

[rhino 0]

Quote

You know, what about men? All these laws protect women, what about men? Why can't we be protected from crazy bitches that marry us, wait for us to accumulate some money, then divorce us and take everything: money, kids, even our rigs (and they don't even skydive)? Just ask Rhino, eh?

Without getting in a rant about how many ways you are correct I will simply say I agree.

Rhino

[ChasingBlueSky 0]

Quote

I guess it's just sad that everyone is SO quick to say "whore" "slut" "liar." Maybe she screamed "I have to go home!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!" Maybe she tried to squirm (that's not really force) away. Who knows?

Not everyone is saying that. I think what most of us guys are doing are thinking about how it could happen to us. We see ourself as a man that would respect a woman if she revoked her consent. But in this case we are thinking: How do you defend yourself in court? By saying "I didn't realize she wanted me to stop?" A guy has almost no defense against this - there is the physical proof that intercourse happened, but nothing that he can use to protect himself (esp if this is with a woman he just met - therefore, he wouldn't know the subtlty in her vocabulary). How does a guy prove that she didn't imply "this has to stop now," or better yet, how does a woman prove that she did want the guy to stop by what she said.

No one is disputing that a woman has the right to prosecute someone that violates her, and yes, the laws in some states are not fully in the woman's favor.

Usually in a rape case, it is one word against another. The reason the rape-kit was created was to provided hard-core physical proof in the woman's favor agains the guy that attacked her.

In this scenario - consent has already been given, and a very subjective withdrawl of consent happened as well. We are taught in school over and over that "no means no." Most guys will respect that.

All three people in this act share the blame - all three were consenting to the original act. I can see why you are defending the girl in this - but can you see why we are arguing the other side as well?

_________________________________________
you can burn the land and boil the sea, but you can't take the sky from me....
I WILL fly again.....

[Vallerina 2]

Quote

I can see why you are defending the girl in this - but can you see why we are arguing the other side as well?

Glad you posted that! Something of value to reply to now!

I can see from the other side, actually. I agree that she did not use the best choice of words. However, that doesn't mean she didn't want to continue having sex. It also doesn't mean that he didn't understand her intent.

Here's (hopefully) some insight to my side:
I've made out with guys before at frat parties and such (okay, yeah...sure you're all shocked.) I've often changed my mind while messing around (also, another big shock there.) I've never said "stop" or "no." By my stopping to kiss them and saying something like "Oh! I think (random name here) wanted to dance with me at the party," guys should (and have) backed off. I guess I figured that if force or "NO!" is being used, he's already gone too far. I will use force to get myself out of a situation that I don't want to be in; however, I can't say the same about a girl who may be fearful of an aggressive guy.

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

[jfields 0]

Quote

I guess I figured that if force or "NO!" is being used, he's already gone too far.

This is the part that scares many guys. There has to be a point where a woman that has previously consented can let a guy know to stop where he hasn't "already gone to far". Otherwise, we are getting to the point where all sexual acts leave men liable as rapists, even if they didn't know it.

There has to be a window of opportunity during which a guy can stop and not be considered a rapist. Perhaps the more clearly she articulates her wishes, the shorter it should be, but it can't be a retroactive line that men can cross without even knowing it.

I'm not saying the guys in this case were faultless. If nothing else, they exhibited really poor judgement. So did she, but she isn't the one facing jail time.

Quote

By my stopping to kiss them and saying something like "Oh! I think (random name here) wanted to dance with me at the party," guys should (and have) backed off.

A sober considerate guy certainly should at least think about it. If they hadn't stopped immediately, but they picked up on it and stopped when you said something firmer, would that have been rape? Add into the mix drunken guys, multiple guys, entire acts already completed with consent, and maybe something a little less subtle would have been appropriate before considering it rape.

[mouth 0]

Not responding to anyone in particular....

Maybe I'm from the old school or whatever, but what happened to getting to know the guy, developing a friendship, then moving on to having sex? I realize there is a lot of casual sex going on, but it seems to me even casual sex should stay between friends and not people who don't know me well enough to understand that when I say NO, I mean NO, and I when I say I should go home you better hurry before I am late for curfew.

--
Hot Mama
At least you know where you stand even if it is in a pile of shit.

[Vallerina 2]

Quote

There has to be a point where a woman that has previously consented can let a guy know to stop where he hasn't "already gone to far

I figured by discontinuing things on my half and mentioning a desire to be somewhere else, my intent would be clear.

Quote

m not saying the guys in this case were faultless. If nothing else, they exhibited really poor judgement. So did she, but she isn't the one facing jail time.

I agree. The government should hand out chastity belts to those who need them.

Quote

A sober considerate guy certainly should at least think about it.

If he loses that much judgment from alcohol, he should reconsider involving himself with females at that time. EVERY guy should consider it.

Quote

If they hadn't stopped immediately, but they picked up on it and stopped when you said something firmer, would that have been rape?

No, I never had sex with any of them! So, it wouldn't have been rape.

Quote

Add into the mix drunken guys, multiple guys, entire acts already completed with consent, and maybe something a little less subtle would have been appropriate before considering it rape.

Them being drunk lessens their case, since judgment has been impaired.

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

[billvon 2,436]

>By my stopping to kiss them and saying something like "Oh! I think
> (random name here) wanted to dance with me at the party," guys
> should (and have) backed off. I guess I figured that if force
> or "NO!" is being used, he's already gone too far.

I would agree. However, he's not a criminal yet. A considerate person will pick up on your desire to stop. A rude or clueless person will ignore polite suggestions to leave, and you'll have to say "Stop kissing me!" or something equally clear. If he _then_ doesn't stop, it becomes criminal behavior, at least in my view of things.

>I will use force to
> get myself out of a situation that I don't want to be in; however, I
> can't say the same about a girl who may be fearful of an aggressive
> guy.

I also agree that force should not be required; simply stating that she doesn't want to do it should always be enough. The minimum requirement, I think, is that she state clearly that she doesn't want to do it.

[Vallerina 2]

Quote

and you'll have to say "Stop kissing me!" or something equally clear. If he _then_ doesn't stop, it becomes criminal behavior, at least in my view of things.

Not to debate whether it's right or wrong, some states will still convict a man of rape if she says nothing or uses no force at all. If she doesn't specifically say "yes," some will call that rape. So, I guess along that reasoning, if a "yes" is never given, and a woman only gives intent of not wanting to be there, by law he may be convicted, especially if he admits that she may not have wanted to have sex.

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

[jfields 0]

Vallerina,

I'm going to argue points, but please don't take it as either a criticism of your actions, or a specific defense of the guys in the article. And know that I'd never find myself in their particular shoes. It is just the "slippery slope" that bothers me, and the precident it sets for even innocent men to get slapped with rape charges, however infrequently...

Quote

I figured by discontinuing things on my half and mentioning a desire to be somewhere else, my intent would be clear.

Well, you you what they say about assuming... Maybe clear to you, but if subtle, maybe not clear to them.

Quote

If they hadn't stopped immediately, but they picked up on it and stopped when you said something firmer, would that have been rape?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No, I never had sex with any of them!

But she had, willingly. What if she had stated the same thing she did, but had followed it up with something clearer and they had stopped immediately. What would it have been then?

Quote

Them being drunk lessens their case, since judgment has been impaired.

I actually think the opposite. They were drunk. She was straight sober, and CHOSE to get frisky with both of them, have sex with one guy, then start to have sex with the second guy, KNOWING they were drunk and impaired.

I'm not saying drunkeness defends rape. It doesn't. But it does call into question how the single sober person who had agreed to the activities could think that a vague statement would be crystal clear to a drunk guy who just saw you have sex with another drunk guy then start on him. In those circumstances, I'd think after how far she took things willingly, it would be her responsibility to be pretty damned clear about her desire to withdraw her consent. After that, the responsibility would be on the man to stop immediately, drunk or not. In my eyes, she failed to give them that clear notice, which brings into question whether she effectively withdrew her consent or not.

[billvon 2,436]

>Not to debate whether it's right or wrong, some states will still convict
> a man of rape if she says nothing or uses no force at all. If she
> doesn't specifically say "yes," some will call that rape. So, I guess
> along that reasoning, if a "yes" is never given, and a woman only
> gives intent of not wanting to be there, by law he may be convicted,
> especially if he admits that she may not have wanted to have sex.

That's an odd line of reasoning. Do you think that's as it should be? And should it be applied equally to men and women? (i.e. if a man never explicitly says he wants to have sex, he can accuse the woman of rape.)

[Vallerina 2]

Quote

But she had, willingly.

But, I had willingly been kissing them, and I wanted to stop. Same thing, hers is just much much more extreme.

As for the drunkness thing....a girl feels forced into having sex. A drunk guy is less likely to have good judgment about forcing a girl into sex or not. A drunk guy is less likely to pick up on being pushed back, hearing no (the senses are weakened....if she used force, he's less likely to notice, hence more likely to continue having sex.)

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

[Vallerina 2]

Quote

That's an odd line of reasoning. Do you think that's as it should be? And should it be applied equally to men and women? (i.e. if a man never explicitly says he wants to have sex, he can accuse the woman of rape.)

I really don't know if it's a correct line of reasoning or not. In some cases, I could see how it would work. (ie, a girl afraid for her life so she doesn't fight back...rape kit doesn't show force, she never said no, etc). But, obviously, many cases where that line of reasoning is silly. (As in, I'm sure couples don't ask each other every single time before they have sex if they want to.) The whole gray area is where it gets all messed up!

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

[billvon 2,436]

>All these laws protect women, what about men? Why can't we be
> protected from crazy bitches that marry us, wait for us to accumulate
> some money, then divorce us and take everything: money, kids,
> even our rigs?

I've known at least as many crazy assholes who make a divorced woman's life hell as crazy bitches who make a divorced man's life hell. I don't know if there are separate laws that let them do that or not, but apparently both sexes are capable of it.

In any case, a better solution is to avoid marrying the crazy bitches.

[jfields 0]

Quote

But, I had willingly been kissing them, and I wanted to stop.

Fine. That is your right, but with that right, don't you also have the responsibility of letting them know that?

Quote

As for the drunkness thing....a girl feels forced into having sex.

That is a cop-out. Where is the fairness in a double-standard? Guys are responsible for their actions no matter what, yet women are legally able to place the sole blame for any bad judgements they have on the guys when it comes to sex?

The guys in this case were probably insensitive, using poor judgement, pretty tasteless (IMHO), and stupid; but does her failure to even tell them to stop turn their other faults into rape? We aren't talking about someone who was unconcious, or silent, or drugged. My guess is that she explicitly consented for a long time. Where is a shred of personal responsibility on her part?

[rhino 0]

Quote

I've known at least as many crazy assholes who make a divorced woman's life hell as crazy bitches who make a divorced man's life hell. I don't know if there are separate laws that let them do that or not, but apparently both sexes are capable of it.

In any case, a better solution is to avoid marrying the crazy bitches.

lol

I've been in family court for over 3 years now.. This "from my experience IN COURT" is no where close to accurate. The men are getting beat to hell for no other reason than they are men... Where are the battered men's shelters?

I'm sorry.. This is the way it is. The only way it will change is if the men stand up for themselves instead of running and taking the easy way out.

Are we equal in every aspect or not? Treatment in society and court needs to show that we are equal. There is a double standard running around..

Rhino

[jfields 0]

Quote

Are we equal in every aspect or not? Treatment in society and court needs to show that we are equal. There is a double standard running around..

Hell is totally freezing over right now. I agree with Rhino.

[wmw999 2,155]

I think one's experience depends on whom one hangs out with. I know more women who are effectively doing everything than I know men who are either effectively doing everything or paying child support. But that's just my experience, and doesn't generalize.

Very few people have a path that's automatically easy; just because they don't have the same problems doesn't mean their problems are insignificant.

Wendy W.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[billvon 2,436]

>The whole gray area is where it gets all messed up!

Yep. Maybe it's just as important to teach women "say no when you mean no" as it is to teach men "no means no."

[Vallerina 2]

Quote

>The whole gray area is where it gets all messed up!

Yep. Maybe it's just as important to teach women "say no when you mean no" as it is to teach men "no means no."

Maybe so! Gym in high school should be replaced with sexual assault prevention classes (no, it's not covered in Health and Safety.)

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

[wmw999 2,155]

Quote

Yep. Maybe it's just as important to teach women "say no when you mean no" as it is to teach men "no means no."

Quote

Maybe so!

All flipness aside, this is really key. Too many guys expect girls to play games; too many girls figure that out, too many guys want to make the girls happy, and too many girls want to make the guys happy.

It's scary to ask a girl out on a date; it's harder to say NO to someone that you just began making a mistake with, knowing it probably means they're going to hate you and talk bad about you.

That doesn't make it right to waffle; it just means that kids need to think ahead of time about what saying NO means, and why they don't want to get to the point of having to say it.

Wendy W.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[PhillyKev 0]

Quote

I figured by discontinuing things on my half and mentioning a desire to be somewhere else, my intent would be clear.

Not to stereotype, well, ok, I am. But it's common knowledge that women are known for expecting men to be able to read their minds, and men not being able to do it.

If I'm in the middle of a hot make out session, my mind is occupied with that. I may not be at my full psychic potential and able to interpret your ambiguous and unrelated statement about some third party having any relation to our continued kissing.

If you added the word, "Stop" at the beginning of that statement, it would be clear and their would be no confusion. What's so hard about that? And why should someone be punished for not being psychic?

And as for it being rape without an explicit affirmation of desire, I guess I've been raped many times. No one should have to be subjected to rape, but at the same time all passion and spontanaeity shouldn't be legislative removed from sex. There's a perfect way to balance this. No means no when it is stated and when it is heard. Mentioning a desire to be somewhere else means that you have a short attention span.

[jfields 0]

Kevin,

Thanks for more articulately stating what I've been trying to get across.

Also Bill, for the succinct restatement of "Maybe it's just as important to teach women 'say no when you mean no' as it is to teach men 'no means no.'".

When it comes to avoiding the peculiar junction where sex and crime meet, I don't want to be relying on my psychic powers. My wife says mine are horrible.

[billvon 2,436]

>Thanks for more articulately stating what I've been trying to get across.

Also, in general, thanks for all participants in this thread for discussing a potentially volatile issue with consideration and thoughtfulness. It's good to see that people can discuss things reasonably even on an internet forum.

[happythoughts 0]

Quote

It's scary to ask a girl out on a date; it's harder to say NO to someone that you just began making a mistake with, knowing it probably means they're going to hate you and talk bad about you.

Pardon my insensitivity, but "scary" ? How about going to jail? "harder to say NO..." Harder than ruining a persons future (consider jail and a felony prison record on any future job application)?

Just to get beyond all the opinions expressed here for a second and get back to the facts. A legal precedent has been set that women do not have to expressly do or say anything and men are responsible for understanding it. That is wrong.

It is not a discussion of what women/men should do/say. The law is the law. That law sucks.

Another example. A man and a woman have both been drinking and agree to consensual sex. The next morning, she regrets having sex with him, he can be charged with rape.

He is drunk and he is held responsible, she is drunk and he is held responsible. That is wrong. Retroactive consent changing? Wrong.

Law doesn't have crap to do with fair.

[billvon 2,436]

An interesting case that bears on this, I think:

http://www.accessatlanta.com/ajc/metro/0103/14fornicate.html

Basically it says that sex between two people in Georgia who aren't married is now legal. The applicable quotes:

"Our opinion simply affirms that . . . the government may not reach into the bedroom of a private residence and criminalize the private, noncommercial, consensual sexual acts of two persons legally capable of consenting to those acts," Chief Justice Norman Fletcher wrote.

. . .

Peachtree City lawyer Catherine Sanderson, who with the American Civil Liberties Union represented McClure, praised the court's decision. "This means that no longer does the state have any say in regulating private sexual activity between consenting persons of legal age."