When is it rape?

[ECVZZ 0]

Quote

Thank God I don't live in California, and God save us if the California mentality spreads this far east.

Thank you...and very well said!!!

Greg

[jumperconway 0]

If you look at the other news posts(and believe them), There was more to it than the 1st story stated! But the answers to the the first story problem really bite! Did the woman ever say "S T O P" no, she said "I have to go home", if this were said after beginning consentual sex, I for one would assume she meant hurry up and finish! If she said "S T O P", I would assume she meant STOP! This is all circumstantial because the other stories paint a dif picture! Rape is as cruel and unusual punishment as can be. Re: my exwife/ sexually abused by 2 parents (both father and stepfather). As men we should not assumed to be fucking brain surgeons, if you say N O and mean it, it's my fault! If you say "I have to go home", YOU, assume that I will understand your presumed meaning of S T O P
I would be lacking to say that in my 43 years of existence that I have never heard, "stop" or "don't" with a mate and known that it was not what she really meant, but that was with a known partner. It is obvious that even given the first story. only in California would this man have been convicted. Given the subsiquent information, that is a mute point if correct.

I happen to be a very respectful individual of all women in my life. I would be the first to hang the rope from the tree if need be under the right curcumstances, but the first story was no where near clear to anyone!

my .02

[Skitzo 0]

Yes=Go
No=Stop
"I should go home"=Hurry up, I'm running late.

"How do you keep your feet on the ground when you know you were born to fly?"

[rhino 0]

You must be someone's lurking Ex..

Do you have a real name??

[kmcguffee 0]

The ruling by California seems to be extremely weird. When you compare this with other laws it makes no sense. For Example: If a police officer is interrogating a suspected criminal in custody (Miranda rights apply here) the suspect must explicitely say he requests a lawyer or that he invokes his right to silence. IOW he can't just say "I should probably get a lawyer" or "I probably shouldn't say this". He has to say "I want a lawyer" or "I don't want to say anything else". The statement must be unambiguous. The California Supreme Court made this ruling.

It seems like they are holding these supposed rape cases to an entirely different standard. The guy must be able to read the girl's mind. BTW, I don't believe for a second this story would be the same if the roles were reversed ie the male was getting raped and said "I should go home".

"Any fool can criticize, condemn and complain and most fools do." Ben Franklin

[jumperconway 0]

http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/nation/1732032

http://www.metnews.com/articles/john010703.htm

[Jessica 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?

Right on, Val. Thanks for the reality check. People are so quick to make knee-jerk reactions. We have no idea what really happened.

Skydiving is for cool people only

[quade 3]

Quote

We have no idea what really happened.

Agreed -- in either direction.
All we do know is what the reports of the testimony are.
Based on the reports of the testimony, the entire case does sound fishy though.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[TomAiello 25]

Quote

We have no idea what really happened.

Actually, her testimony in court gives us a pretty good idea of what the most that could have happened was.
While the actual facts probably lie somewhere between her testimony and the testimony of the two boys, we can safely assume that they are no worse than her actual testimony.
Laura T. testified that:
She consented to having her clothing removed.
She consented to having sex with the defendant (John Z).
She withdrew consent sometime during sexual intercourse, post-penetration, with the second defendant (John Z).
Intercourse continued for 90 seconds (note that this is her testimony, his allows for a lesser period of continuation) after she said she "needed to go home."

Quote

Who knows?

We don't know. However, from the testimony offered at trial, we can surmise that the actual facts lie within a range of possibilities. The limits of that range are defined by the points of conflict in the testimony given.
More interesting, really, is the doctrine this case establishes. It is now law, in California, that withdrawal of consent must lead to immediate cessation of sexual intercourse regardless of whether or not such withdrawal is understood by the other party. The male must know immediately (90 seconds has been ruled as an overlong interval) when she changes her mind.
As an aside, did anyone but me notice that she was on top for the first four or five minutes of intercourse?
Link to the decision can be found in the first paragraph of this discussion. I know you've all read it closely already, but just in case you haven't...

-- Tom Aiello

[email protected]
SnakeRiverBASE.com

[TomAiello 25]

Quote

...since she didn't prosecute the first guy...

Ahem. The facts of the case clearly indicate that the first defendant (Juan G) was prosecuted. I believe he struck a plea bargain, and his case was separated from the appeal and resolved.

-- Tom Aiello

[email protected]
SnakeRiverBASE.com

[billvon 2,467]

> It doesn't say she has to say "no" or "stop" by law. She gave the best words
> she could to take back her previous consent.

"I have to go home" does not reasonably equate to "stop what you're doing." Any time one party has an obligation to respect another's wishes, the second party has an obligation to reasonably explain those wishes if they want those wishes followed.

Take the opposite case. Two people are having sex. The man says "Whoa!" The woman does not stop what she's doing. Is she then guilty of rape? "Whoa!" is a much clearer 'stop' message than "I have to go home."

>As I've said before, if no answer means no, shouldn't any suggestion of no
>also mean no?

No. A refusal, not just a vauge feeling of indecision, is neccesary before it's rape. If any suggestion of reluctance equates to rape, much of the now-consensual sex in the US would be considered rape.

[Deleted 0]

First off, some of you need to think before you speak
Sex should be an open agreement. It should be talked about...not just assumed.
If a female takes certain actions , it does not mean that you take that as a "yes".
Any male in this day and age needs to stop and think before he whips his thing out.
This is where verbal communication comes into play.
And I will be damned and gone to hell if I tell you that I need to stop, even if it is to answer the phone, pet the dog or go home, YOU BEST STOP!
I don't care how hard it is for you.
Don't have sex unless you are able to handle ANY outcome.

[billvon 2,467]

>Sex should be an open agreement. It should be talked about...not just assumed.

Well, right. But the result of this case seems to be that even if you talk about it beforehand and both parties decide to do it, if either party decides halfway through that they no longer want to do it, the other party has to stop - even if they do not communicate it clearly. Whatever you talk about beforehand is immaterial.

>This is where verbal communication comes into play.

Exactly. Clear communication is essential and is the responsibility of both parties.

>And I will be damned and gone to hell if I tell you that I need to stop,
>even if it is to answer the phone, pet the dog or go home, YOU BEST STOP!

Agreed. In this case, she never said she needed to stop. Therein lies the problem. If one person says to another "Whoah!" during sex, that doesn't mean "stop." "Stop" or "no" does mean stop.

>Don't have sex unless you are able to handle ANY outcome.

And don't have sex unless you can say the word "no" when you need to.

[Deleted 0]

Have you ever been scared out of your mind, to find yourself ina situation that you are not sure how it got so out of control? To be afraid that these two boys may have been drinking, and could easily mess you up, becuase they are stronger, and not knowing how to get out, just afriad of saying the wrong thing. Becuase if you by chanced made one of them angry,they could beat you to a pulp? maybe she was afraid?

[blewaway5 0]

while this would have to be a possibility, wouldn't it be possible that had she said "No, stop" then the guy would have stopped? There's no real point arguing the what if (just my opinion), it seems the point would have to be how much can one person know without having it told to them?

Truman Sparks for President

[quade 3]

Quote

Any male in this day and age needs to stop and think before he whips his thing out.

I'm thinking that most men today do understand that "No, means no." At least, I would certainly hope so.
However, that's certainly not what's being discussed in this case.
It's not a matter of not respecting someone's wishes or diminishing the heinous crime of a predator forcing sex on someone that doesn't wish it, but rather the correct and timely interpretation of something that could be fairly ambiguous at a time when most men's mental faculties aren't exactly working at their best, especially on the verbal level.
No. I'm not trying to make any sort of excuses, but remember that this is a very odd case -- that's why it's news.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[blewaway5 0]

Thanks, I think you said that quite a bit better than I just managed.

Truman Sparks for President

[PLFXpert 0]

Quote

You knew this and kept quiet about it??

Yes and no. They questioned all the employees and only wanted to know our personal experiences with the said guy. I said I'd NEVER had any issues with him. I also said I was present for one of the issues the girl's were claiming and it didn't happen that way. But they claimed several other things and unfortunately it was three girls against one and I wasn't there full-time.

Paint me in a corner, but my color comes back.

[mac266 0]

OK Situation - you are having sex with a girl and there is no contraception - you start to feel vinigar strokes and YOU say "Get off & NO to her" because sense has just told you - she may catch babies. She continues to ride you on top and you ejactulate. She ends up catching babies - Now did SHE rape YOU??? cause you said no part way through? according to the US courts she did!

BE Safe........... be scared of women out to trap you and 15% of your gross salary!!

[jfields 0]

Quote

this is a very odd case -- that's why it's news

True. It will be interesting to see what the final outcome is after all the various appeals. The legal ramifications are pretty substantial.

From the initial post, this case really has nothing to do with whether males had premeditated the act of rape. By her own account, she was a willing participant for quite awhile. Using the traditional dictionary definitions of rape, it didn't even happen. Where was the force? Where was the clearly withdrawn consent?

I'm not condoning rape, or in any way slighting womens' right to choose with whom and how they have sex. But it is not reasonable that a man must be a psychic to know at all times whether consent has been withdrawn, even after being explicitly given? Does "Oooh, baby, deeper" mean "Oooh, baby, you'll get in deeper trouble if you don't stop right now."? I don't think so. After giving, and reaffirming, her consent through all the previous acts, it does take something unambiguous to rescind all that. As mentioned by others in the thread, "no", "stop", "I don't want to have sex with you" or "get off me now, I changed my mind" would be fine. Then it is the guys responsibility to do just that, promptly and without arguement. The guy has to be 100% sure of her wishes, then disregard them, for it to be rape. If any guy has sex with a woman that he isn't 100% sure does want him there, he is an idiot. Who wants to have sex with an ambivalent partner?

But nobody can be required to be a psychic. Nobody, man or woman. This case isn't about rape. It is about the broader issue of equality. Men can't be held to a higher standard of responsibility than women. That is unfair to both men and women. If this verdict holds up, it is no triumph of women's rights. It does huge damage to the concept of women's equality. It says that women aren't smart enough to clearly express their wishes and aren't responsible for their own actions. That would be tragic. Women deserve better.

[ChasingBlueSky 0]

(this is rather long winded)

First off - I have been trained in HR and been taught to teach about Sexual Harrasment. In college I was a counselor and gave advice to guys on how to avoid these situations (ie, not to put themselves into the precarious position of being known to have a woman in their rooms alone after drinking activities to prevent them from being accused).

Since I am a guy - I have a very limited understanding on how rape emotionally effects a woman. I have been taught the basics on how to counsel a woman after she has been attacked. That class didn't really prepare me for handling the situation and I was dumbfounded the first time someone very close to me was raped.

That being said - I think one detail is being left from this story. Why did the girl feel she was raped? It isn't reported here that she actually expressed a true desire to have the guy stop. We have a very stripped down version of the details in that story. Why did she feel that a very ambiguous "I need/want to go home" constitued as a "NO, or stop right now." The guy could have thought, "Ok, she needs to go home after we finish instead of spending the night."

I feel that if she had said "no"or "stop" or even used a pre-defined safeword to indicated the guy to stop, and the guy still continued - then she would have had a case to take to court. No argument there. No excuse that "once a guy starts, its unfair to not let him finish" (it may be cruel, but if she changes her mind and voiced it - then you have to stop).

The fact that the court didn't give a guidline is a mistake on their part. I'm not asking for the judicial branch to give a definition of all the words and phrases in our venacular that a woman may use to indicate a guy to stop what he is doing - but a basic guidline would help. In reality, with this ruling, almost anything a woman says during the act of sex that doesn't directly correspond to the act could be used against the guy (ie, I want to go to the beach, your ceiling is on fire, I want to be in the kitchen, etc). This sort of open-ended interpretation of a law is currently used when deciding what is considered "indecent by community standards" in radio and TV broadcasts (re:people taking CBS to court for the Victoria Secret show). In other words, a woman could argue in court after the act that anything she said during that time showed that revoked her consent.

It's good to see that the court is not throwing rape cases out like they used to in the past, and helping defend women. But this seems a bit extreme. Do you feel that in this scenario, a guy could take a woman to court for rape: Girl on top, guy says "I want to go home" and the woman keeps riding the guy for a given amount of time (say the 4 minutes in this case). Or what about in a sex-game where the only way to stop someone is by using a safe-word but the person doesn't use the safe word but keeps saying "no, stop."

I'm sure this case can serve some good, and scare some guys into behaving better, and really listening to what a woman says. In fact, the judges probably wanted this on file to show that a woman has the legal right to revoke her consent even once the act has started (an idea that is as important to have on file much like the verdict that a husband is capable of being convited for rape of his wife). I've seen the damage that rape does to a woman, and I have seen the stats of how ofteen it happens. Anything to help prevent that is a good thing. I'm just worried that the precendence of this case will be taken advantage of.

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

[PhillyKev 0]

Rape is an emotionally damaging and cruel thing to happen to someone. I don't understand how a girl who is willingly having sex with someone (actually 2 someones) and then it continues for 90 more seconds after she wants to stop (her words) could be construed as rape. Even if she clearly said stop at that point, yes, I would personally stop...but how is that rape? All this does is weaken the definition of rape.

It's kind of like the argument about drugs. Some people think that since marijuana and heroin are both illegal, and they've smoked pot, than doing heroin isn't that big a leap. That's a mistaken assumption, but people make it all the time because of where the line is drawn.

If you start lowering the line where you define rape, than people who have crossed that lower threshold may start to view a TRUE rape as not being any worse.

[TomAiello 25]

Quote

We have a very stripped down version of the details in that story.

Full facts, as found by the juvenile court, are given in the opinion. In fact, there is much discussion of them, particularly in the dissent. We have nearly as much information as the appellate court did when they ruled. Unfortunately, the .pdf of the ruling is too large to be posted to this board, but a link the the file is given in my last posting.

Quote

...what about in a sex-game where the only way to stop someone is by using a safe-word but the person doesn't use the safe word but keeps saying "no, stop."

Interesting point. I'd be curious to see the court take a whack at that question. They'd probably revert to "understood meaning", which would just re-open the whole post-penetration debate again. Fortunately, most people participating in games advanced enough to use safe words are a bit more mature than the participants in this sordid little drama.

Quote

In fact, the judges probably wanted this on file to show that a woman has the legal right to revoke her consent even once the act has started.

I doubt it. That legal precedent (post-penetration rape) is already well established in California. There was no need to decide this case, if that was the primary consideration. If that were the situation, the Supremes would have just let the appellate decision stand, and denied review altogether.

Quote

I'm just worried that the precendence of this case will be taken advantage of.

Aren't we all. I'm definitely troubled by the 90 second rule implicit in this ruling. As the dissent points out, there needs to be some better enumeration. What about a 10 second rule? Is sex like food? Less than three seconds on the floor and it's ok to eat?

-- Tom Aiello

[email protected]
SnakeRiverBASE.com

[billvon 2,467]

>Interesting point. I'd be curious to see the court take a whack at that
> question. They'd probably revert to "understood meaning", which
> would just re-open the whole post-penetration debate again.
> Fortunately, most people participating in games advanced enough
> to use safe words are a bit more mature than the participants in this
> sordid little drama.

I don't think it's an issue of maturity, it's just that they've actually considered the question before and are prepared for the consequences. Had this woman thought about it beforehand, she would probably have realized that saying no would be an effective way to stop him. Since people playing those kind of games have to consider that question (i.e. what if one person can't speak?) they're more prepared for that eventuality.

[ChasingBlueSky 0]

Quote

I agree that there are WAY more real cases than false ones (talking about sexual harrasment, not rape), but I do think recently there has been a surge in women being overly sensitive to harmless banter in the workplace and getting people fired over it. That is opinion, however. I have no statistics to back me up. But the behavior I saw the three women who work w/ me really made me ashamed for them. They simply did not like the guy and he was fired.

I have a friend that defines harrasment like this:
"Being hit on, at work, by someone you do not find attractive."

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