YES YES YES YES YES no

[acropolis]

here's the link

Here's the question:

At what point does a girl no longer have the right to call it a rape?


when you've both gotten undressed, once you start, once you've finished, or the next morning when she decides she didn't want to sleep with you?

oi. men have no rights in this country anymore.

PS: and how immediate is immediate?

Offcourse, either party should be able to stop such activities on request of the partner. It would still be hard to prove tho.

[Embroglio]

Originally posted by BarbieKen
Offcourse, either party should be able to stop such activities on request of the partner. It would still be hard to prove tho.

Well, there's hardly going to be any witnesses, so it would just end up as one person's word against another's. Which counts for **** all.

[W]

wtf you on about?

[sayonara]

Not much different to the law it's replacing in that respect then.

[Leshy]

Excellent. So now a girl can get any man convicted by consenting to have sex with him, and just a second before the moment supreme she says no. Instant rape ahoy!

Originally posted by Embroglio
Well, there's hardly going to be any witnesses, so it would just end up as one person's word against another's. Which counts for **** all.

I've already said it would be hard to prove.

[sayonara]

Originally posted by BarbieKen
I've already said it would be hard to prove.

He expanded the point and agreed with you. It's called 'discussion'.

Originally posted by sayonara
He expanded the point and agreed with you. It's called 'discussion'.

Well, hardly any need for me to reply that I've already said it when he said it. It really counts for **** all.

?

[Aryn]

that is the most retarded thing i've ever read in my life (well maybe not.. )

whoever decided to change those laws should be shot.
and the girl who claimed rape during the act should be raped shot as well.

you can't say no after you've reached the point of no return :\

[ChubbyChecker]

Seems pretty reasonable to me.

Not that it matters, cos as already stated it boils down to one person's word against another's and men rarely get found guilty, or even taken to court.

[Vermillion]

Originally posted by Aryn
whoever decided to change those laws should be shot.
and the girl who claimed rape during the act should be raped shot as well.

you can't say no after you've reached the point of no return :\

That is simply wrong. There is no such thing as the point of no return.

Proof: You are imagining how difficult it would be to 'stop' if the girl changed her mind at the last second and said no. You maintain at that point it is impossible to dtop.

Imagine instead that at the last moment, the girl actually said "I lied, I'm not on the pill". How fast could you pull out then?

Either person involved in a sexual act, male or female, has the right to call it off at any point they choose except for retroactively.

[Aryn]

what i meant is that it shouldn't be allowed to be called rape if she's already in the middle of the act then thought 'oh no wait.. i don't want this'

it's a bit late to say in court 'i didn't want to have sex' when you've consented that far.

[Vermillion]

Originally posted by Aryn

it's a bit late to say in court 'i didn't want to have sex' when you've consented that far.

Not at all. Rape is not about a specific act, it is about sexual activity without the consent of one of the participants. It is also a point in time law. If someone does not give consent and makes this clear to the other partner, their past behaviour is irrelevant.

The fact that they consented half an hour ago, or the night before, or consented to a different act, or whatever, is irrelevant.

Rape laws say that no sexual act can transpire without the informed consent of both participants. That consent can change, and must be respected.

I loan you my car to drive somewhere. After a while I ask for it back. You say, no, you gave me consent to use that car, and I feel that original consent is unlimited. You just went from borrowing to thef even though you are doing nothing different. Consent is a point-in-time law, and that is never more important than in the case of sexual assault.


Now a Rape law I DO NOT like, is that women cannot give informed consent if incredibly drunk, but men cannot use intoxication as a defence. That binary law essentially states that women bear no responsability for what happens to them while they are drunk, but men bear full responsability for what happens when THEY are drunk.

IE: If a drunk man and women consent to have sex, he is guilty of rape, because in his drunker stupor he should have known she could not make reasoned decisions in her drunken stupor and thus made those same reasoned decisions for her. Thus the courts thus state that alcohol does impair the decision making ability of a woman, but does not impair the decision making ability of a man.

[queball]

What jurisdictions have such a binary law, Vermillion?

[Aryn]

then perhaps it's just me who hates guys who say 'is it ok if i do this' every two seconds.

i agree that drunk law is just as retarded. so is the 'silence means no' one. i mean it is a good one, but it's been abused so badly you'd think they could change it a bit. basically i can go have sex with someone and afterwards claim it as rape because i didn't say anything.

i've seen girls abuse that rule. it's really sad :\

[Vermillion]

Thats a new one one me. In Canada you have to clearly say no, unless you are in a situation where you cannot give informed consent (Drunk, High, Asleep, too young, etc) or if you can prove coersion (Blackmail, ect)

Failing those, in a neutral situation, if you have the capacity to say no but do not, then no crime has been comitted.

Queball, obviously, the example I stated is extreme, but there are two laws, one that consent cannot be given while heavily inebriated, and another that inebriation cannot be used as a defence. I am sure cases come up where these two laws clash.

In th end, you are not required to like or approve of Rape laws. They exist to deal with a significant societal problem which has not been dealt with in any other way. In the end, thats why there is a judge, so that if the letter of the law is invoked in a manner that does not reflect the spirit of the law, the judge can dismiss.

[Aryn]

Originally posted by Vermillion
Thats a new one one me. In Canada you have to clearly say no, unless you are in a situation where you cannot give informed consent (Drunk, High, Asleep, too young, etc) or if you can prove coersion (Blackmail, ect)

Failing those, in a neutral situation, if you have the capacity to say no but do not, then no crime has been comitted.

but if you don't say 'yes' it's not consent right?
and for your last point.. that's easily overcome with a 'i was too scared he'd hurt me if i said no'

i agree that most rape laws are great.. and i'm glad they catch rapists, etc... i just wish it was easier to prevent innocent men from being charged.

[Nicole]

Why would this law be a bad thing? If someone asks you to stop doing something, then stop doing it. No one is entitled to an orgasm. If a woman for whatever reason changed her mind then why should a guy be allowed to go on ****ing her when it's now against her will? What kind of sick person would keep on ****ing someone when they clearly wanted them to stop?

[Ebany]

Rape cases such as these laws are intended for are very hard to prove one way or the other, as they (usually) have no witnesses and there wouldnt usually be any kind of injuries or the like to suggest any major force (as there probably would be if, for example, a girl had been attacked in an alley or something). I agree it is wrong for anyone, male or female, to be forced into any sexual activity without their consent, but the indications of consent are hard to define. I dont think a person should have to constantly be asking if everything they do is OK (I'm with you there Aryn), but its usually obvious enough if someone is enjoying themselves. If someone is lying motionless (be it through fear or inebriation) then thats clearly not showing they want whatever is going on, whereas writhing in pleasure, even if not moaning 'Yes, yes, YES!!!' is clearly an indication theyre enjoying themselves. The question is how do you prove one way or the other. These cases will almost always come to one persons word against anothers, and this makes it very hard to establish who is telling the truth. Some girls (or guys) could use this as a technique to either try to absolve them from having a one night stand they regret the next morning, some may even use it as a means to get revenge on someone who has spurned them (all those guys who dont call???). Clearly in these situations the other person isnt guilty of rape, but how can the court tell? While real rapists do need to be caught and locked up (and repeat offenders should be castrated imo) they have to be sure they are listening to the real story.

So overall, its an evil thing to deal with, and I hope to god I never have to, cause it would be hell trying to decide who was lying.

[JonnyBGood]

This is legal pedantry taken to new levels.


Yes, yes, yes, NO, yes, yes, no, NO, YES, YES, NO.......







PS What about if she says no in the middle of the "climax" of the evening? I'd agree with billy connolly at this point in saying that a herd of wild horses couldn't make my arse go in the other direction.

[Oingy Boingy]

Originally posted by Vermillion
Not at all. Rape is not about a specific act, it is about sexual activity without the consent of one of the participants. It is also a point in time law. If someone does not give consent and makes this clear to the other partner, their past behaviour is irrelevant.

The fact that they consented half an hour ago, or the night before, or consented to a different act, or whatever, is irrelevant.

Rape laws say that no sexual act can transpire without the informed consent of both participants. That consent can change, and must be respected.

I loan you my car to drive somewhere. After a while I ask for it back. You say, no, you gave me consent to use that car, and I feel that original consent is unlimited. You just went from borrowing to thef even though you are doing nothing different. Consent is a point-in-time law, and that is never more important than in the case of sexual assault.


Now a Rape law I DO NOT like, is that women cannot give informed consent if incredibly drunk, but men cannot use intoxication as a defence. That binary law essentially states that women bear no responsability for what happens to them while they are drunk, but men bear full responsability for what happens when THEY are drunk.

IE: If a drunk man and women consent to have sex, he is guilty of rape, because in his drunker stupor he should have known she could not make reasoned decisions in her drunken stupor and thus made those same reasoned decisions for her. Thus the courts thus state that alcohol does impair the decision making ability of a woman, but does not impair the decision making ability of a man.

Oingy Boingy

[Leshy]

Originally posted by Nicole
Why would this law be a bad thing? If someone asks you to stop doing something, then stop doing it. No one is entitled to an orgasm. If a woman for whatever reason changed her mind then why should a guy be allowed to go on ****ing her when it's now against her will? What kind of sick person would keep on ****ing someone when they clearly wanted them to stop?

The issue with this law isn't it's intention. I couldn't agree with you more when you say that if someone halfway through realizes that they don't want to have sex, that it should end.

My main gripe is that this law opens up a lot of room for abuse by women who will fully consent to having sex then claiming to have said 'no' halfway through, when there were obviously no witnesses about.

[Vermillion]

Originally posted by Ebany
If someone is lying motionless (be it through fear or inebriation) then thats clearly not showing they want whatever is going on, whereas writhing in pleasure, even if not moaning 'Yes, yes, YES!!!' is clearly an indication theyre enjoying themselves.

Actually (going back to my second year criminoloy courses way back in my Undrgrad) a study of rape victims demonstrates that those women who have the greatest difficulty getting over the assault are those who feel sexual pleasure or even orgasm during the assault. This tends to lead to feelings of guilt or paranoia. You have to remember that, while there is a much larger psychological component to pleasure in women then in men, pleasure and orgasm is still largely a phyisical response, and it is possible that this can occur even in the most unwilling of attacks.

I keep hearing people terrified that women will use rape laws to get back at evil no-call men, that innocent men will be accused and convived beacuse some malicious girl decides to pervert the laws.

Some people even know a friend of a friend whose cousin was charged like this.


Did you know that not once, in any police report or investigation in North America, not ONCE has a razor blade ever been found in a halloween apple? Its called an urban myth for a reason.

Yes, in theory, there could be women who try to abuse the system. But the system is pretty careful about these things, and even if a false charge could slip through, I rather suspect no girl would toss around a rape charge just for a lark, or because she just saw the movie 'Swimfan'. Being raped still carries with it a kind of social stigma, sad but true. That is after all why the majority of sexual assaults are not reported to the authorities.

If a woman charges someone with rape with no evidence whatsoever, she has to know that she will be on trial as much as the man. Ignore CSI, Law and Order and assorted other cops and lawyers shows. The system is pretty effective at sorting out the real from the fraudulent.

[Lord Talon]

clearly this calls for extraordinary measures to protect us from ourselves, therefore we must build govt sanctioned f*cking stations where all sex acts may be videotaped and preserved as future evidence of consent/non consent. anyone f*cking outside these centers shall be shot

[acropolis]

Originally posted by Vermillion
Actually (going back to my second year criminoloy courses way back in my Undrgrad) a study of rape victims demonstrates that those women who have the greatest difficulty getting over the assault are those who feel sexual pleasure or even orgasm during the assault. This tends to lead to feelings of guilt or paranoia. You have to remember that, while there is a much larger psychological component to pleasure in women then in men, pleasure and orgasm is still largely a phyisical response, and it is possible that this can occur even in the most unwilling of attacks.

I've always tried to make sure my victims didn't enjoy it at all. Now I know I was right.

Originally posted by Vermillion
I keep hearing people terrified that women will use rape laws to get back at evil no-call men, that innocent men will be accused and convived beacuse some malicious girl decides to pervert the laws.

Some people even know a friend of a friend whose cousin was charged like this.


Did you know that not once, in any police report or investigation in North America, not ONCE has a razor blade ever been found in a halloween apple? Its called an urban myth for a reason.

I know a lawyer who makes a decent living (>1M a year) partially by arguing that his clients are victims of exactly this type of revenge rape lawsuit. In general, his clients are charged with statutory or something like that, but point remains.

[JamMak]

Originally posted by Vermillion
If a woman charges someone with rape with no evidence whatsoever, she has to know that she will be on trial as much as the man.

Ahh but if a genuine rape has taken place, isn't that a bit unfair on the women if she is emotionally distraught, to subject her to the same kind of questioning as her abuser? Even if it is necessary?

[Ebany]

Its not a case of whether she has an orgasm or not, I've known that to happen totally without my own mental involvement, I know its not necesarrily anything to do with whether you are actually enjoying yourself, that is a mainly physical thing. However, you arent likely to be wrapping your arms round the guy, thrusting your hips in response, and gazing into their eyes if youre hating it.

And as for the whole thing about girls dont do that.....what about that girl who claimed the Hamiltons had raped her. Yes it was finally proved false, but for the whole time it was going on they were looked at with deep suspicion, and I wouldnt be at all surprised if there are people around still who consider them ;a bit dodgy' for being accused of it.
Girls do. OK they might be wrong in the head, but they will. And it looks one hell of a lot worse for the guy involved than it does for the girl. I know that for those it actually happened to, rape is a horrible experience and they dont like to talk about it, but equally, almost every girl in the world say, before they event, if I get raped, I'll go straight to the police, I wont shower etc, I'll make sure they have all the evidence. The girls who are doing it for their own reasons will still be in that frame of mind. They wont be the ones feeling dirty and abused. They will be thinking 'Oh ****, I cant tell my parents I stayed out with a guy all night, my friends wil think its terrible, I'll say I was pissed and got raped.'
A sad state of affairs, but I know girls I could see doing it.

[Deffeh]

oh come on

most easily abused law ever.

[Scoot951]

If the girl says no at any time, the right thing to do is to stop. However, should a guy be threatened with jail time & potentially ruining his life because a girl says no a few seconds before it's over? That seems too harsh to me...specially since they didn't start it with the intention of rape, and it seems even the nicest guy would need a few moments to talk himself into stopping first, cause a girl going 'Oohhhh....Ohhhhh...no' would be damn confusing.

[Vermillion]

Originally posted by JamMak
Ahh but if a genuine rape has taken place, isn't that a bit unfair on the women if she is emotionally distraught, to subject her to the same kind of questioning as her abuser? Even if it is necessary?

Same as a man who has just been beaten up, or a woman whose home was broken into, or someone whose car was stolen.

If there is limited or no hard evidence of the crime, then the police will start asking hard questions of the 'victim'. Those hard questions will not necesarily be accusations of forgery, but they will try and determine the veracity of the claim.

Its unavoidable. yes, its not very 'Nice' to the victim, but thats not the point.

My (recently X) girlfriend is a psychiatrist. Often when someone is brought into the ER with an injury (very often in fact), they are refused any kind of painkiller for a while, as it is much easier to do a full diagnosis when the patient is not drugged up. This is terribly unpleasant for the patient, and is not nice at all, but it is a necessary requirement of the system.