MD Court-New Rape Ruling: Women CAN'T SAY NO After Sex Has Started

[kpete]

Women can’t say no after sex has started, according to a ruling on a rape law by a Maryland court.


MARYLAND COURT'S INTERPRETATION OF RAPE LAW IS PREDICATED ON THE NOTION OF WOMEN AS CHATTEL
Yesterday a mid-level state appellate court in Maryland interpreted Maryland's common law in such a way as to preclude women from withdrawing consent to sex after penetration has occurred. The court itself admits that this ruling is predicated on ancient views of women as chattel whose value is lost upon penetration, rather than independent human beings whose suffering matters. The court took the position, however, that under the law of stare decisis (the obligation of a court to follow precedent), only the Maryland Supreme Court or the legislature could alter this outcome.

The case is Baby v. Maryland, __ A.2d ___ (Md.App. 2006). According to the young woman's testimony, the defendant asked to have sex with her and she consented on the condition that he would stop when she told him to. She testified that the penetration hurt "so I said stop and that's when he kept pushing it in and I was pushing his knees to get off me." After she told him to stop, he continued to "keep pushing it in" for about "five or so seconds."

For reasons that I won't get into in this post, the prosecution's theory in this case was that the whole situation was coerced and that her consent was not freely given in the first place. The jury, however, asked this question during their deliberations: "If a female consents to sex initially and during the course of the sex act to which she consented, for whatever reason, she changes her mind and the man continues until climax, does the result constitute rape?"

more at:
http://happyfeminist.typepad.com/happyfeminist/2006/10/maryland_court_.html

[jpgray]

1. I think performing sex acts at any time against the explicit wishes of another

has to be considered assault/rape.

[Name removed]

73. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Xithras]

82. Except for the point of climax, that's BS.

I've stopped in the middle of sex countless times for various reasons. It may be a disappointment, but it's not impossible or even difficult. If a woman says stop, he has to stop.

The only exception I make to that is at the point of climax. Once climax begins there are certain physiological responses that come into play which rob most men of voluntary muscle control. If she waits until that point to withdraw consent, she's out of luck unless she can force the guy off her.

[NMMNG]

206. Oh Jesus Christ

Maybe the woman could then beat him upside the head with a bat, claiming that she was acting under physiological responses that came into play, robbing her of voluntary muscle control.

[Xithras]

257. Sure, if she can show research supporting her argument.

Both the Kinsey Institute and other Uni research has proven what I'm saying, so I'm not giving anyone a pass here. Men, at climax, are operating with a lower part of their brain and lose much of our voluntary muscle control for a period of 4-10 seconds. Most of the physical response during climax is autonomic, from movement to ejaculation, and can only be controlled through extensive practice. It's not an excuse, it's a biological fact.

If a woman waits until a man is IN CLIMAX to withdraw consent, she's screwed (literally and figuratively). If a woman does not want a consensual sexual encounter to end in climax, she needs to inform her partner of her wishes before he reaches that point.

on edit---

By the way, my post was intended to refute a now deleted post upthread that claimed it was "impossible" for men to stop having sex once penetration occurred. My POINT was that he was full of **it, and that men are capable of stopping sexual activity right up to the point of climax. My exception was intended for that very short period as climax is occurring, and wasn't meant as an excuse for men to continue sex when they could otherwise stop.

[Change has come]

96. Did you forget the sarcasm thingy?

[XanaDUer]

130. I'm with you.

Jeez.

[davidinalameda]

99. how difficult?

oh my god

I can't believe that anyone would actually post a defense of a rapist on here

[Iris]

103. Fortunately,

I've never been with a man as callous as that - young or not young (whatever your definition of young is).

I can remember some really heavy petting during college but whenever I wanted to stop, the guys I was with always managed to restrain themselves. I think you do disservice to men by suggesting they can't control themselves.

[bilgewaterbill]

211. Heavy petting is one thing.

This is about intercourse. If you changed your mind in the middle of intercourse, I would have to stop. When is your decision final?

[bobbolink]

124. oh, boohoo...

if it's so damned difficult, then just don't start.

solved.

[morgan2]

131. ya a woman stopping during sex

is like the male equivalent of getting raped.

[LostinVA]

133. Whatever -- some of the men on here disagree with you

As do my BIL and two of my male friends I just called.

Why are you making up excuses?

[Iris]

157. yep!

Acting like men can't control themselves is actually a bit of reverse sexism!

[Skittles]

140. JAYSUS

you sound like a f***ing DOG - WTF

[lies and propaganda]

147. that is asinine.

and slightly offensive.

[etherealtruth]

149. Right ...

... if she is being hurt or simply doesn't like what you are doing, by God, she sure as hell is entitled to stop you.

... if she realizes that she has made a terrible mistake in agreeing to have sex with you (I am inclined to believe this is true when she finds that she is with someone that sees no reason to allow HER to make decisions about her body), again she is entitled to stop you.

[stepnw1f]

150. Really? You Might Want to Get That Checked Out...

I'm a man and I have plenty of control. If a female says no, or stop, I fucking stop!

[Iris]

156. Thanks!

This is exactly what we need decent men to say when someone makes a statement like this!

:loveya:

[bobbolink]

189. Fucking stop, or stop fucking?

:rofl:

Pretty good humor for an old lady, eh? :hi:

[stepnw1f]

254. lol (nt)

[endarkenment]

2. Uh, so 5-10 years for this?

'he continued to "keep pushing it in" for about "five or so seconds."'

is that what you are advocating?

[Greyhound]

7. I guess the judge thinks as long as it's quick, it's OK. Outrageous. n/t

[ThomCat]

36. So if she realizes after they've started having sex

that's he's getting violent and/or only in it for his own gratification she has no right to stop everything and say no?

That's total B.S.!

Hell, Yes, he should get 5-10 years if he uses her body after she tells him to stop!

[okieinpain]

43. that is exactly what will happen next. some guy will go totally nuts

and he will turn around and point at this law and say he didn't do anything wrong.

[ThomCat]

47. This law authorizes the abuse of women

as long as the guy doesn't start the abuse until after they have started having sex.
x(

[LostinVA]

63. My thoughts exactly...

[bobbolink]

258. Of course. We knew this was coming.

Look, just start tallying all the abusive comments made about women right here on DU.

It doesn't take a genius to figure out which way the wind is blowing in this society, and it ain't in favor of women.

[knitter4democracy]

159. Thank you.

I thought the exact same thing.

[bobbieinok]

3. ????????? "women as chattel whose value is lost upon penetration"

We are sure rushing backwards at an incredible rate.

[Deep13]

15. I think the court was recognizing that the law was already backwards...

...and needs to be changed by the legislature or the highest state court to keep it in line with modern views.

[Jacobin]

4. Ok then. Can she change her mind afterward and claim rape?

[ThomCat]

37. Apparently not.

Because that would be after penetration. The implication seems to be that once she gives consent it's permanent. She's no longer valuable and he's no longer constrained by any consideration of her wishes.

[Greyhound]

5. Where can I find a resource that tracks the names of judges that make

these kinds of rulings? I voted a few days ago and there was no info available outside a non-published survey of anonymous lawyers and other judges as to whether they are qualified or not. Nothing about rulings, cases judged, history, nothing.

[Deep13]

22. See if there is a reporting service...

...on the state supreme court website. The names on the panel will be listed in the opinion.

[Greyhound]

28. That's what I'm saying, I don't have the time, knowledge, nor the desire

to spend the effort required to acquire the knowledge, to sift through the hundreds of cases which I know nothing about to find if a particular judge is worthy of retention or not. I know that there are dozens of advocacy groups that do track this stuff, I just want to know how to get the info.

[Deep13]

29. Well, in Ohio the most recent is posted on the internet first.

So today's decisions are on the front page of the website. One can then select either Supreme Court of Ohio or any of the twelve appellate districts. Same deal, most recent is first.

[cally]

84. feministing.com has a link to the court case..nt

[angstlessk]

6. Perhaps if she FREELY consented and then changed her mind it should

be assult and not rape? If she wants him to stop and he does not he is assulting her, not raping her in my mind. PS I am a woman and was raped when 11 years old, so this opinion is not about being anti woman or pro rape.

[Deep13]

21. I like to think no one here is either anti-woman or pro-rape.

The men on this board have wives, girlfriends, some have boyfriends, mothers, sisters and aunts.

[ThomCat]

38. You would be terribly surprised and disappointed

at some of the posts that always crop up immediately defending any man and attacking any woman involved in a rape.
x(

[Donald Ian Rankin]

8. Using this as a test case is possibly misleading, I think.

I think that a) this case doesn't constitute rape either morally or legally, and b) there could well be cases in which a woman consented to sex and then changed her mind after penetration which did. The verdict is clearly the correct one, but the reasoning is regrettable.

[Double T]

9. NO, definitely DOES NOT constitute rape............

in my opinion.

[Deep13]

12. In this state it might be sexual battery.

"Rape" requires force, coercion or reduced mental capacity in this state. Whether or not what the article describes is "force" is a jury question. Rape of an able-bodied adult is an F-1, max. 10 years. By force or with certain other specifications it is life. Sexual battery (lack of consent) is an F-2, max. 8 years. There is no time off for good behavior here.

[Double T]

20. The problem HERE is that consent was originally granted..........

issues become very weak after that regarding a rape.

[Deep13]

24. Yes and then withdrawn.

Now granted, he might not understand instantly, but within a few seconds he ought to know what is going on. At that point if he continues it is a pretty good argument that it is by force.

[Double T]

27. "continued..... for about five or so seconds."...........

sure does not sound like rape AFTER consent.

[Deep13]

31. Maybe not. That's for the jury.

I don't see how any of us can have an informed opinion on the facts of this case without reading the entire trial transcript as the court in question did.

If it is not be force, what is preventing her from just getting up and leaving?

[LostinVA]

34. Whatever.... welcome to Ignore

[Double T]

55. Interesting that a person can NOT have an opinion.........

HERE without getting put on IGNORE or called a troll and the like. Time to take a vacation from DU, this environment has become very hostile.

[TahitiNut]

111. The longest ignore list on DU, I think.

You're in good company. :shrug:

[Sapphocrat]

71. Well, let's see...

If I invite you to take a knife and make tribal tattoos across my chest, and I tell you you're cutting me deeper than I want you to cut, and I tell you to stop, but you continue pushing the knife blade into my chest "for about five or so seconds," is it my fault when you kill me?

[davidinalameda]

191. is there some sort of time limit before it becomes rape

:shrug:

[Deep13]

255. I think the dude needs to realize that she changed her mind.

That may not be instantly under the circumstances.

[davidinalameda]

259. what circumstances

if someone tells me no, I stop

[Deep13]

260. circumstances = fucking

[ThomCat]

40. If she tries to end the contact and he refused to get off of her

then how is that not using force?

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

46. But he did end contact.

:shrug:

[ThomCat]

48. If you tell me to stop hitting you

and I keep hitting you for another 10 seconds before I stop, am I not guilty of assault?

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

51. If we're in a boxing match...

which you agreed too, and you say stop hitting you, and I stop hitting you, am I guilty of assault?

Of course not.

btw, why'd you change "five seconds or so" to ten seconds?

[nofurylike]

178. no, you agree to a massage and i start slamming your balls.

you say stop and i slam your balls five more seconds.

your balls are pulp.

do i go to jail?

[kiahzero]

199. No.

It'd even be difficult to sustain a lawsuit.

[nofurylike]

203. yeah, right, not assault and battery. mash a man's balls and NOT

be prosecuted for it?
(well, if you live through it, that is - though another MAN might get away with doing it, it's true)

what world you in?

get the point or don't. your prerogative.

bye.

[kiahzero]

207. I'm sorry, I forgot we left logic behind 100 posts ago.

I'll endeavor not to use it again.

[nofurylike]

212. why not try actually following it? eom

[kiahzero]

216. That's my question

I guess it's easier to just assume that everyone's just trying to keep women down. :shrug:

[nofurylike]

225. follow carefully: it does not compare to consenting to box, then

wanting to stop. though, in that case, a ref stops it the moment the hands drop, and boxers know that. five more seconds of pounding after that - count the seconds out loud, and *think* about it! - and the boxer's manager would call foul and very likely file a complaint or even charges.

got that?

can you seriously suggest that having someone you trusted to massage you instead slam your balls for "only five seconds" is NOT severe and criminal assault and battery? count five slams to your balls.
not quite the same as to your face, either, or don't you get that either?

or is the problem that it's not logic coming FROM you - the only logic that is valid to you? - but someone expecting you to step outside your own head and follow theirs?

and perhaps you are just too predisposed to seeing it as us blaming you, the way so many men (can not) deal with us trying to communicate such things to you?

too bad. men need for men to take it to other men...

too bad.

anyway, i'm not on here to discuss with you or anyone else so caught up in simply winning an argument; or, perhaps, just so defensive.

as i said before, try to get it, or don't. your prerogative....

i'm off again, but for the night now. bye.

[kiahzero]

228. If, for some reason, I trusted someone to massage my balls

And doing so caused me pain, and I told you to stop, and it took you "five seconds or so" to stop, I'd likely be upset. But I wouldn't expect to win a criminal case. Doing so would require at the very least "gross deviation from an ordinary standard of care," if the mens rea standard was negligence. More likely, the standard would be recklessness ("knowledge of an unjustifiable risk") or knowledge, which would be even harder to sustain.

In responding so, you claimed that the whole criminal justice system was discriminating on the basis of sex: "mash a man's balls and NOT be prosecuted for it? (well, if you live through it, that is - though another MAN might get away with doing it, it's true)." Given that you didn't provide any evidence whatsoever for this rather extraordinary proposition, I responded disparagingly. It has nothing to do with your sex.

can you seriously suggest that having someone you trusted to massage you instead slam your balls for "only five seconds" is NOT severe and criminal assault and battery?

Yes... as I said, I have my doubts that you could even sustain a civil lawsuit on the matter. If you have cases that would indicate these doubts are misplaced, I'd be very interested to see them.

[nofurylike]

231. read. your avatar is literal, isn't it? sorry i didn't heed. g'night. eom

[kiahzero]

233. Yes, I can be sarcastic, hence the avatar.

That doesn't diminish my argument.

Good night.

[endarkenment]

58. You doubled the time.

But regardless, if you step into a boxing ring, start boxing and then decide in the middle of it all that you don't want to box anymore, but get hit for another 5-10 seconds I really don't think your opponent ought to go to jail for assault and battery. In fact I don't see that a crime has been committed. Yes your opponent should stop hitting you, 5 seconds is probably too long for her to process that the situation has changed, to change from boxing mode to non-boxing mode, but not way too long. She should not go to jail. You contracted to hit and get hit, within the rules, when you stepped into the ring. Yes of course you can terminate that contract, but don't expect the termination to be immediate.

By the way, there really is 'boxing mode', it is the adrenalin induced altered state your brain gets into when it has pushed the fight button. Try it some time and see just how much control you have over your actions.

[LostinVA]

70. The controlled environment of a boxing ring isn't the same as

a date rape situation. It's actually kind of disgusting that you think they are similar enough to sue the one as an analogy for the other.

And, per "boxing mode." Of course boxers have control over their actions. Any kind of martial artists does. They HAVE to. ADrenaline doesn't equal a loss of self control.

Bah.

[HarukaTheTrophyWife]

75. Exactly.

And I've been both in the ring and have refereed enough matches to know that there is a second or two delay between hearing the stop and stopping, but there should be no more than that.

If it is any more than that, the fighter without self-control will be penalized.

[LostinVA]

90. Hmmm: "the fighter without self-control will be penalized."

Personal responsibility for actions... what a concept, eh?

[HarukaTheTrophyWife]

94. Amazing, isn't it?

[Sapphocrat]

76. Ohhhhh! I see now!

So a man can't be held accountable for losing control, because that's the way men are, biologically.

So it's her fault.

Got it.

I bet she was wearing provocative clothing earlier, too. She was just asking for it. :eyes:

[Jamastiene]

112. Gee, I wonder if she asked twice.

I hate it when people say that "asking for it" too. I also hate it when men make up excuses for why they rape women. It still goes back to the fact that girls are raised to be "sugar and spice and everything nice" while when the boys do something wrong, we hear people say "boys will be boys." It's that very "boys will be boys" permissiveness that makes men like that think anything they do is fine and dandy. They've never learned what "accountable" means.

Another thing that gripes my ass: The saying, "She got herself pregnant." Like duh, basic biology tells us that it took two to tango.

Your post is right on, Sapphocrat.

[foreigncorrespondent]

80. I would really...

...love to see you tell your little boxing analogy to any females in your family who may one day face being raped.

[sandnsea]

100. "Break" means stop hitting RIGHT NOW

Any boxer who hits for 1 second after the break is penalized. If a boxer gets it, a man having sex can get it too.

[gollygee]

101. Boxers have training

I've never heard of anyone being trained to stop having sex immediately.

5 seconds "or so" - so even that is an approximation - really isn't that long. It seems like a reasonable amount of time to realize that the other person wants to stop, and then to stop, and then to withdraw.

[LostinVA]

104. Bad strawman, and I believe you know that

[gollygee]

105. Comparing this to boxing is a bad strawman

The man was told to stop. He stopped. If he had continued, then absolutely it would be rape.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

106. Alright...

At what point should the line be drawn that stopping sex goes from being a slow reaction to being rape?

Three seconds? One second?

[ThomCat]

109. At what point would a women be believed

if she said he didn't stop and he said he did?

Opening an officially approved window to keep going, no matter how small, can be stretched into an excuse for rape. "I spear it was only 5 seconds. Really. She's lying when she says it was 2 minutes."

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

110. You're dodging the question.

[ThomCat]

113. No, I'd asking about how this really would apply in the real

world! Theory is all well and good, but every possible exception, accusation and rumor is already used against women who dare to report a rape. I cannot and will not support the creation of yet another argument a man can use to say that a rape was not a rape.

We already have less than 1% of rapes resulting in convictions. Can we, just once, concentrate on finding ways to convict rapists rather than presuming that the women are lying and causing trouble?

I have to seriously wonder about the morality and ethics of people who spend so much time trying to justify rape as just sex that women should put up with.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

114. No, you're dodging the question.

"Can we, just once, concentrate on finding ways to convict rapists rather than presuming that the women are lying and causing trouble?"

That'd be fine, as long as it doesn't violate the rights of the accused, turn into a witch hunt, or claim rape when none took place.

"I have to seriously wonder about the morality and ethics of people who spend so much time trying to justify rape as just sex that women should put up with."

Talk about phony accusations.

:eyes:

[ThomCat]

116. Okay, if that question is your only concern.

As fast as possible. If she doesn't think he stopped as fast as he could then it's rape. Period!

If you want to set an arbitrary timeline, that's your problem. You obviously refuse to look at this from the perspective of something that women actually go through. To you it's obviously just an excercise in protecting men from those evil women who keep making up those horrible lies.
:eyes:

Obviously, with a conviction rate of less than 1%, the chances of anyone having their rights violated with a false conviction are incredibly slim. If a man get's falsly convicted of rape it's usually because he's black, she's white, and he had a shitty court-appointed attorney.

Creating more ways for rapists to defend themselves violate the consitutional rights of women!

[gollygee]

122. That is a very valid concern

but in this particular case, it sounded like she was the one who said it was about five seconds?

[sandnsea]

153. My sons are

They know beyond a shadow of a doubt that stop NOW means NOW. I made that as clear to them as their boxing coach father made the rules of boxing clear. Don't even go there. A man can sure jump up and stop when a 2 year old enters the room.

[gollygee]

154. You can't possibly know that much about your sons' sexual activities

We lock the door for privacy.

[sandnsea]

155. Yes - I Can

I know my sons and I know how their father and I raised them. I also know a man CAN stop - I've been married 25 years, don't even pretend.

[gollygee]

158. He DID stop

It took a few seconds. It is reasonable to think it might take a few seconds after a woman says, "stop - this is hurting" for him to think "Wait! It's hurting her! I need to stop!" and then stop, and then withdraw. It isn't like he was expecting that it was going to hurt and was on stand-by waiting for her to tell him it was hurting. The expectation is that sex is going to be pleasurable.

I have had to tell my husband to stop due to a painful health issue. I've only been married 9 years so I guess I don't know as much as you, though. :eyes:

[sandnsea]

160. Mine stops immediately

Sorry about yours.

[kiahzero]

162. Most people would consider this immediately. (n/t)

[sandnsea]

164. No, most wouldn't

The only time a man would continue after one stroke is if he was accustomed to believing he was such a sexual god that he could "make" the woman enjoy it or that she would obediently submit. A man who truly cares about his partner - STOPS.

[gollygee]

165. No

The only reason a man would continue *after he realized he was causing pain* is if he thought he could make her enjoy it or that she would obediently submit.

[sandnsea]

171. No

Woman: STOP

Man: OMG - what's wrong?!?

STOP - that's all the man needs to hear to stop - IMMEDIATELY.

[gollygee]

173. You just accounted for a couple of seconds.

[sandnsea]

182. Maybe in the Twilight Zone n/t

[gollygee]

163. My husband is as loving and compassionate as any man on earth

I promise you that. You should know better than to attack people's spouses.

[sandnsea]

170. Glad you're happy

Mine stops immediately if I say stop, men are able to do that. If you don't mind that yours doesn't, that's up to you. No attack about it if there's nothing wrong going on.

[gollygee]

172. That is literally impossible

Maybe you don't know what "immediate" is. It means without any time at all. Not even a fraction of a second. It isn't just sex. Unless someone is aware that whatever they are doing might hurt another person and is being very careful to notice if it starts hurting, it will take a moment for the person to realize they are causing pain and that whatever activity it is needs to stop. That's a common problem with work-related accidents - someone will be doing something and someone else will fall in the way or get a hand caught or whatever and the first person takes a short amount of time to react and realize that whatever they are doing is causing pain. It's very common in work-related accidents.

[sandnsea]

188. STOP!!!!!

Everybody stops. That's how it works. Even on the job.

Maybe the problem is that you haven't developed a commanding voice - maybe you're confusing STOP with - honey, please, that kind of hurts, honey...

STOP means STOP and you have a right to say it and have it respected - IMMEDIATELY.

[Deep13]

52. see post #24

[Ohio Joe]

10. Silly me

Here I always thought that no ment no, it seemed so simple. Thank god the courts are around to teach me the real meaning of words. :sarcasm:

[helderheid]

17. Silly, silly you...

and me.

[LostinVA]

35. Silly, silly... "no" only means "no" if f the MAN says so...

[Deep13]

11. Sounds like the statute needs a re-write...

...like they did in Ohio about ten years ago. Prior to that, rape within a marriage was not a crime. The law was rewritten and now it is. The court can only call it a crime if the law provides for making it so.

[undeterred]

13. Can she Bobbitt her partner?

[Deep13]

16. If she can make a case that it was necessary for defense.

Of course a juror might ask why not just stab him if the object was really to escape.

[Sapere aude]

14. If it were any other kind of physical contact and the woman wanted the man to stop after she

consented he would stop. Say for argument sake, a woman consented to a back rub, the guy starts the back rub then it starts to hurt the woman, she says to stop and the guy would stop. But if it is sex and he doesn't stop it seems wrong to me. He can have an orgasm outside the woman so that should not be a reason not to stop.

[Deep13]

18. That's the reasonable view based on the modern idea...

...that sex is two people acting together, not one person giving up something to the other.

[ThomCat]

41. Right. There seems to be little room for reasonable views

when it comes to rape.

[cally]

19. WTF, so if sex hurts a woman then she can't say stop

That's what this ruling means. Anytime a woman gives consent, she cannot legally demand that the penetration stops even if it hurts her. Sometimes, sex hurts when it's too rough, or for many other reasons. Women and men should be able to say no. I guess we're just chattal after all. :sarcasm:

[Ilsa]

32. My thoughts exactly.

Not all men, and not all women are built the same way. Some women may have smaller vaginal pockets and cannot endure sex with a man with a large penis, not to mention someone who may not know what they are doing.

[cally]

39. Let alone after childbirth

or when taking various medications, or for many other reasons.

[gkhouston]

23. what about male victims? n/t

[CTyankee]

50. which male victims? If a man is in the same position as this woman

then he is being sexually assaulted. You can THINK that sex would not hurt but find you were mistaken and that it does indeed hurt. There could be all kinds of reasons for this e.g. lack of lubrication, fear on the part of the victim, or just a case of painful sexual intercourse (which can happen to anyone).

[greeneyedboy]

25. thread title is a little misleading.

really it's after penetration has started. unless we are using the 42nd POTUS's definitions of "sexual relations", which are quite old-fashioned and heterocentric IMO.

[Lance_Boyle]

26. 'Five or so seconds' is not the same as

"continues until climax." Five seconds seems like it could almost be a reasonable time period to complete withdrawal of the penis after processing the "hey, stop now" message. Light on details here. :shrug:

[ThomCat]

44. Maybe if you have a motor control disability

but for any healthy person it shouldn't take you more than a second. Anything longer than that is making a definite statement. "I stop when I decide, not when you decide."

[Lance_Boyle]

66. see post #56

"5 seconds or so" does not strike me as utterly unreasonable, much less *criminal* - I think some confusion has been sown here by the original poster in her closing paragraph where she claims the jury inquired about "continuing to climax," where previously the story cited "5 or so seconds" with no mention of climax. There is a world of difference between taking 5 seconds to realize it's time to stop and keeping on until climax regardless of one's partner's wishes.

[gollygee]

45. I agree with that

Five seconds or so seems like the amount of time it would take to think, "Oh wait! Got to stop!" and then stop. I think this specific case isn't rape if that's all the amount of time that was involved.

[Poll_Blind]

61. I agree, see my Reply #56. (link)

Right here.

PB

[Blue_In_AK]

30. This is a terrible ruling...

Many women "consent" to the sex act in a situation of rape so they aren't injured or killed. This is just crazy.

[TroglodyteScholar]

98. You consider "Okay, just don't kill me" to be consent??? n/t

[Blue_In_AK]

119. I'm not disagreeing with you

What I'm saying is that oftentimes a woman will "go along" with a rapist, i.e., allow the penetration, the entire act, in an effort to avoid being further injured. This ruling seems to be saying that if the penetration happens without the woman physically fighting her attacker off, that she has given tacit "consent" and she would not be allowed to allege rape.

Am I misreading this somehow?

[LostinVA]

181. I think an accused rapist could legitimately argue that in court

And, with the right jury, would win.

[kiahzero]

186. Yes you are

The court clearly distinguishes between submission to a sex act and consent.

[ThomCat]

213. In theory, but rarely in practice.

Often, if the women did not show signs of a brutal, violent struggle the presumption is that she consented. So submission is explicitely considered consent because there is no violent struggle.

From personal discussions with rape survivors through my volunteer work I know first hand of women who had been on the receiving end of this presumption.
x(

[kiahzero]

219. That's a question of proof, though.

The problem is that we can't waive due process just because it's a horrible crime. The burden is on the State to prove all of the elements of the crime, including nonconsent. That means that if there's no evidence of forced sex other than the alleged victim's word, and it's reasonable to believe that there was consent, it will be very difficult for the State to dispell all reasonable doubts that there was no consent. It sucks, but there's not a whole lot that can be done about it without violating fundamental principles of criminal justice.

[ThomCat]

229. Yet, in other crimes,

the word of the victim is enough to generate an investigation and prosecution without the challeges and scepticism that women face in aleging rape.

If I call the cops and say that something was stolen from my home they'll come and investigate. They'll believe that I had whatever it is I said was stolen and they'll base their investigation, at least at first, on my word. If I point to someone and say, That's the person who stole it and that's the thing he stole, they'll take it seriously.

Only in rape cases are the accusers interrogated as if they are criminals, presumed to be liars, presumed to be out to destroy some innocent person's life, etc.

I don't have a problem with our criminal justice system following rules. I support equal justice for all very vocally and strongly. But the rules are not followed the same way for all crimes or for all victims. That is a major issue that cannot be ignored by anyone who claims to want equality and justice.

A law that says that once a women has given concent it cannot be withdrawn, and this distraction about how many seconds it took a man to withdraw, are ample demonstrations that women are being denied the personal sovereignty and presumption of integrity that is routinely applies elsewhere. (or at least routinely applied to white heterosexual men elsewhere.)

[kiahzero]

232. That's a different issue than what we were talking about

I was under the impression that we were talking about proving nonconsent beyond a reasonable doubt.

[ThomCat]

235. It's very difficult to prove non-concent

When instead of just presuming that the accused is is innocent you also assume that the accuser is guilty.

That different treatment that women receive when they accuse someone of rape taints the investigation. That is a basic fact that everyone is rape survivor advocacy sees and has to help women deal with.

[madmusic]

218. That is NOT what the decisiion is about.

The decision does not give anyone permission to start with consent, get a "No" and slap or beat him/her to get a yes, as if that is permission. It doesn't work that way and the opinion does not condone that.

[LostinVA]

33. I'm hiding this thread -- I know what's gonna happen

[gollygee]

42. There might be a number of reasons a woman might want to stop

a) It starts out OK but her partner becomes violent
b) She sees she's being videotaped against her will or something along those lines
c) It is physically uncomfortable

That's just what I immediately thought of.

If sex is forced upon her, even if she initially was OK with it, then it is rape.

Although "five seconds or so" seems like a reasonable amount of time for someone to realize that the sex was no longer consensual and stop.

[Deep13]

57. subjective guilt, it isn't any good, dinner is repeating, headache...

...jello-shots making her sick, parents just got home, thinks she hers the baby, is that upstairs toilet still running?, I-pod battery died, saw a big spider, just remembered--forgot pill, wait-are these the covers I got from my Grandma?

Lots and lots of reasons.

[ThomCat]

77. And even though you are trivializing a women's

hypothetical decision to stop having sex, they are still all valid reasons for her to say no. And if she says "Stop right now," the guy had better stop!

All this talk about 5-10 seconds is a distraction. The judge basically said that once they start the guy has permission to do what he wants for as long as he wants. Once penetration starts she has given her consent to whatever he chooses to do. That's sickening and wrong!
x(

[kiahzero]

118. He said that's what existing Maryland law says.

Since the precedent was set at a higher level, this judge is powerless to overturn it. Your ire should be directed at the Supreme Court if they don't overturn this decision, rather than at the judge whose hands were tied.

[ThomCat]

121. Judges overturn precident all the time.

This judge chose not to.

That's an entirely separate issue.

[kiahzero]

134. He can't.

He's one level too low to overturn this precedent, just like a Federal Court of Appeals or a State Supreme Court cannot overturn U.S. Supreme Court rulings.

[Deep13]

251. Not in the intermediate court of appeals.

Only the highest state court has that prerogative and they usually defer to the legislature.

[Deep13]

250. What?! Where am I trivializing it?

My point was that there are lots of reasons to stop and that the decision to do so should come as no surprise. Read what it says, not what you assume I mean. :rant:

[Zhade]

49. kick

kick

[Totallybushed]

53. I have to say this.

Sex at any time against the consent of another is rape, and should be punished as such.

That said, and I hope it is clear, if a woman says she withdrew consent after penetration has occurred, this gets deep into the whole "he said, she said" thing. That being so, the presumption of innocence should go to the accused, unless there was some other evidence that she had withdrawn consent.

Flame me if you must, but false accusations of rape abound, and the situation is one ripe for abuse.

[Deep13]

54. The problem with he-said-she-said.

Unless there is some apparent reason for her to be trying to frame the guy, she will be seen as having no reason to lie while anyone accused of anything has a reason to lie to exculpate himself.

[Totallybushed]

60. Why?

She has already said that she had initially consented? So why couldn't she be trying to frame him because she discovered he was cheating or something? Is she going to say this? It destroys her revenge.


Besides, here is the point you are missing. The accused is entitled, by right, to the presumption of innocence. And women have been known to lie.

If I were on a jury, and all I had was her word that she had "withdrawn" consent, and he didn't "withdraw" in 1 second or less, or whatever the time frame is, I could not reconcile it with my conscience to convict.

[ThomCat]

68. It rarely works that way in rape cases.

The women are frequently, almost always accused of manufacturing the charge out of nothing. She changed her mind about the sex and decided on a whim to ruin his life. And that accusation against her is given far more credit by most people than her charge that she was raped.

The men are almost always believed to be more honest than the women.

Unfortunately, I can't back that up with university studies anymore. It's been 15 years since I was actively involved in rape prevention education and had that information handy. So take my word for it based on experience that it doesn't work they way you suppose.

[Totallybushed]

74. The point is

that there is a very reasonable chance that she is lying. The presumption of innocence has to go to the accused.

[ThomCat]

78. You are WRONG

The presumption of innocence does not mean that the victims are presumed guilty! That's just wrong and evil.

The presumption of innocense applies up until the evidence is presented, and then the evidence speaks for itself. In a rape case, She Is The Evidence!

This idea that there is a "reasonable chance that she is lying" is so offensive and sexist I'm amazed you can even type the words. x(

[LostinVA]

92. Shades of the Duke Rape THreads, when this "point" was spewed

over and over again: the presumption of innocence means the plaintiff is a liar.

A "reasonable" chance? On DU. In 2006. Are you really proud that you wrote that? Most rapes aren't reported. Of the ones that are, most aren't prosecuted. Of the ones that are, a tiny number are convicted. Then, it's usually a slap on the hand, unless it's a black guy raping a white woman. Does this mean these women were lying? Hell no. And, if you believe that, take your ass and get it educated!!!



Sorry ThomCat... I didn't mean to post this here!

[ThomCat]

95. Feel free to post it anywhere

as long as you post it.

:yourock:

[Totallybushed]

168. I'm not saying that

rapes don't occur. I'm not saying that the woman is necessarily a liar, although she may be. What I'm saying, and what you seem to have trouble understanding, is that the fact that she said it doesn't make it so, and additional evidence should be required before sending a man away for years for {i]something that he may not have done.

And this is just for ordinary rape cases where the dispute is whether or not consent was given. If the woman admits that consent was given, and then withdrawn, it makes it harder to determine the truth.

So be offended. It's still the truth.

[kiahzero]

128. The question is actually "Is there reasonable doubt?"

Trial court records generally aren't reported, so I'm not going to be able to find the records on Westlaw or Lexis... however, from reading the decision, rather than someone else's summary of it, a reasonable fact-finder could hold that there was reasonable doubt that she was raped.

The presumption of innocense applies up until the evidence is presented, and then the evidence speaks for itself.

Yes, and one must gauge the credibility of all of the evidence. In the case of a person's testimony, that involves gauging the credibility of the person. That doesn't mean that there's "a reasonable chance that she is lying," but it does mean that if the jury has a reasonable doubt in the veracity of her version of events, and that is the only evidence, they must find not-guilty.

On somewhat of a tangent, it really seems like you're upset about this ruling, and you're taking your anger out on other posters in an unjustified manner. Why not turn that anger towards writing the prosecutor's office and asking them to pursue this case to the Maryland Supreme Court? I'm not entirely positive, as I haven't taken Criminal Procedure yet, but I believe the State could appeal this ruling to an authority that actually has the power to do something about it.

[Totallybushed]

166. Well, yes,

actually it does. In a way. She may have been a victim; she may be a liar. But that is not really the question. The question is: is their sufficient evidence that a rape occurred, and that the accused did it?

If the only evidence is a woman's word versus the man's, in a case where the woman admits that the act was consensual, then there cannot possibly be enough evidence to overcome reasonable doubt. Remember, the woman does not face years in prison. The defendant does, and must be presumed innocent unless there is evidence to overcome the doubt.

One person's word is not that given denial by the defendant.

What is it about a "fair trial" that you have a problem with?? As a juror a decent, honest person could not possibly vote to convict under these circumstances.

As for your last statement: you have never heard of a woman lying in a rape case? What about the Duke rape case?

[Deep13]

253. No. The jury is free to accept one side or the other.

If the jury does not believe the defendant is being truthful or if the defendant declines to testify and if they choose to believe the victim then that is proof beyond reasonable doubt. The law is not so naive as to allow violent crime to go unpunished just because the defendant denies it. The job of the law is to maintain order in society. Failure to do so means the failure of orderly society and the return to tribal vengence. No presumption or rule of evidence is going to allow that to happen. The trial is as much a ritual as it is an effort to find the truth.

[Totallybushed]

256. OK. Fair enough.

If I was on the jury, he would go free, based on what I now know. But you are right. There are enough OJ quality jurors out there to convict if a corrupt prosecutor, like the one in the Duke case, brings such a flimsy charge.

This is one reason respect for the legal system is at such an all time low.

The trial is as much a ritual as it is an effort to find the truth. You are right. And it's a damn shame that innocent people are sent to jail over it.

[Deep13]

249. The defense usually takes that position...

...but is hardly every believed at trial. The state focuses on the consistency of victim accounts, nonsensical aspects of the defendant's statements and changes in the defendant's explanation. If there is physical evidence as there often is if the crime is reported right away, then that comes in too. I prosecute these cases and a distraught victim pointing at the defendant saying he raped me is pretty hard for a jury to ignore. We usually convict even if the victim recants (usually out of subjective guilt at getting the dude in trouble or out of fear).

[Poll_Blind]

56. Sexual arousal, anger and the ability to make rational...

...decisions in a timely manner:

:bluebox: Sexual arousal and especially sexual intercourse partially impair the brain's ability to make rational decisions in a timely manner. During the act of intercourse the brain may become preoccupied with the intense physical sensations and provide lower priority for other stimulus.

:bluebox: The physical act of sexual intercourse, especially for a male, involves a quasi-autonomic functioning of the body to continue repeated penetration. I believe it is arguable that the physical act of repeated penetration is neither 100% willful (like contemplating a chess move each time) or 100% autonomic (like breathing) but a mix of the two.

:bluebox: People, on a biochemical and behavioral level, are animals. They are not objective beings by any means, especially in situations where great levels of emotion or stimulus are concerned. The "arousal response" is a mix of a physiological and emotional response and, again, because of these changes it is expected that the ability to make rational decisions in a timely manner would be impaired to some extent.

:bluebox: Most-importantly, different humans have different levels of control over their ability to be receptive to other stimulus when in situations where they are impaired in this and other ways.

  This partial impairment is not unique and is similar to anger, where a participant overcome with emotion may continue aggressive behavior for some period after the necessity to has disappeared.

  Would "5 seconds or so" of continued penetration be considered "acceptable" after being told to disengage during the heat of the sexual act? I'd say so. Though much longer (say twice the time, ~10 seconds) would strike me as far too long a period of time required to make a rational decision, even under such impairment. ~5 seconds would be about the longest I'd imagine a male would require to process such a simple request, even if they were close to orgasm.

  As a male who is acutely aware of the violence perpetrated on females of all species by sexually-excited aggressive males, I'm very sensitive to the level of comfort of my mate. However, I do not expect every male to have the same level of sensitivity to consider them "average". I do expect them to respond with a rational decision when such requests are made, however, and ~5 seconds seems a reasonable request to include the behavioral responses of the rest of humanity.

  I do not consider a ~5 second delay in withdrawing the penis during intercourse after a request to stop as rape. As someone said in an earlier reply, it may constitute something else, like sexual battery, but that enters into a gray-on-gray level of jurisprudence which I am not willing or care to argue.

  To engage in sexual intercourse with anyone who implies that they may not be willing to complete the act is folly, anyway. It is an obvious invitation to trouble of the worst sort.

PB

[joeunderdog]

93. Agreed. Not rape, but not OK.

Good points, PB. Something isn't quite right about this ruling, however, especially the archaic precedent the Court relied on. I like your angle better, but I'm left to wonder what the rest of this story is. This was not 5 seconds (or more) of unwanted penetration in the usual case of Rape. Delaying the cessation of intercourse for 5 seconds (or however long--1 sec, 2.5 sec's?) sounds like a reason to have a heart-to-heart talk more than 10 years in prison.

I've gotten a charley horse in bed and had to yell "stop" and had an uncooperative partner. She didn't know what the hell I was talking about and ignored me. If you're in the middle of doing it, especially near climax, you're bound to get a brain freeze if someone wants to quit before it's over.

Exactly how long of a delay before it becomes criminal? Really.

:shrug:

[DemocratSinceBirth]

59. I Might Not Have Had As Much Sex As Ron Jeremy But I Have Had My Share.

Of course no means no but five seconds to stop in the act of coitus seems like a very short time...

I don't think comparing coitus to boxing is helpful.

It's easier to stop hitting your partner than to withdraw from your partner...


Any way bad cases make bad law...

[endarkenment]

62. Actually I think the analogy is ok.

Both situations put you into an altered behavioral state.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

64. It's Easier To Stop Hitting Somebody Then Penetrating Somebody...

First you have to stop the act of penetration and (then) you have to withdraw...

In five seconds or less...

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

67. I don't care for the analogy either...

But this is why boxing matches have referees jump between the fighters when the bell rings, fighters are conditioned to fight and can easily miss a bell.

That said, you're right. "Five seconds or so" is about how long it takes for me to hear, understand, and respond to just about anything.

[treestar]

79. Watch a second hand on a clock

Five seconds is a little while, in this context.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

83. No it's not.

Especially with the "or so."

[Recursion]

65. Sick ruling... but... 5 seconds "or so"?

I don't know if it's realistic to expect someone to be poised and ready to stop consensual sex immediately. 5 seconds seems about right to realize "oh, wait, (s)he wants me to stop"

[Donald Ian Rankin]

69. This clearly wasn't rape, but by the law it apparently wouldn't have mattered if it was.

Stopping within five seconds of being told to *while having sex* clearly isn't legally or morally rape in any way shape or form, so in this case the ruling was undoubtedly correct.

But if the case is being reported accurately (which it may well not be, press sensationalism being what it is) then even if the details of the case had been different, and it arguably was morally rape, then the man would still have been aquitted, which I think it a bad thing (although I think proposing moral equivalence between a someone who continues to have sex once it's begun even if their partner changes their mind and someone who has sex with someone who wasn't consenting in the first place is clearly silly; the former is still in many cases rape, but it's a substantial mitigating factor).

[sakabatou]

72. My WTF meter jus broke

[ThomCat]

86. Best reaction to this thread I've seen yet.

[Solly Mack]

81. Y'all can't hear me but I'm cursing up a blue streak

Feel free to use your imagination

I've got a baseball bat solution to rulings like that

Again, feel free to use your imagination


"The court itself admits that this ruling is predicated on ancient views of women as chattel whose value is lost upon penetration, rather than independent human beings whose suffering matters."

[madmusic]

221. The COURT DID NOT ADMIT THAT. IT'S A LIE!

Read the case.

[cap]

85. obviously the judge has never been in the position where he has

had to, how shall I say this, readjust his position after beginning something???

Maybe his partner has never complained and just thought of England.

There's a certain angle that needs to be maintained for comfort.... hmmmm????

[IronLionZion]

87. Everyone count to five

one thousand, two thousand, three thousand, four thousand, five thousand

[ThomCat]

88. Exactly!

But that's beside the point in this judge's ruling. He ruled that once concent has been given it can't be taken away.
x(

[FourScore]

190. "once concent has been given it can't be taken away"

That's the real issue.

[Xithras]

89. I wonder how they verified the five seconds.

About ten years ago my house caught fire and I was furious that it took more than ten minutes for the fire truck to get there. When I checked the reports later, I discovered that it had only been about six. When we're in an uncomfortable and dangerous situation, our perception of time changes.

Now think about this for a moment. A man has been having consensual sex with a woman and is in the final run up to climax. His higher brain has largely stopped accepting inputs from his surrounding environment (sight and hearing ability is dramatically reduced, and the brain largely ignores the inputs it does receive). His autonomic lower brain has taken over most of his activity at this point, is running his muscles in a regular pumping pattern, and has even taken over his breathing to time it to his motion. Men in this state are largely on auto-pilot...we don't "think" about pumping, our brain largely turns off and it just happens (the Kinsey institute and various universities have documented this well in various research papers). Now, in the middle of that, a woman says "Stop". A few things have to happen before he can withdraw. First, she has to say it loud enough that it registers in his largely idle upper brain. Once the sound is received, it's going to take a second or so for him to "wake up" enough to process it. After the command is accepted, he has to regain concious control over his leg muscles. This may sound trivial, but I'd ask any women here who question it to try jogging while vibrating themselves to orgasm. The loss of muscle control is a very real phenomena, and it actually does take a second or two of concious thought to regain control and catch your breath. Once that's done he needs to actually withdraw.

Where does that put us timewise? Three seconds? Three and a half seconds? At what point does "acceptable time" become "rape"? We're talking about a possible difference of 1.5 seconds here, and unless she had a stopwatch and was timing him, it may not have even been that.

The fact remains that he did stop. He didn't continue to climax or try to force her on, he simply took five seconds to withdraw when she said stop. While that may be a second or two on the slow side, I don't think it constitutes rape.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

91. Pardon me?

I didn't catch that.

Count to five?

OK.

Wait a minute, it's already been five seconds or so.

[ismnotwasm]

97. Typical rape culture bullshit

Men are perfectly capable of stopping. I have NEVER bought into the idea that men are helpless slaves to thier sexual drives, or have such little self-esteem that when a women says no, or stop, they aren't capable of stopping. The sexually self assured men I know not only would stop, but would WANT to stop. Who wants to have sex with someone who is saying NO?

What happens in these situations is a sense of sexual entitlement that men prone being rapists, as well men who have been raised in rape culture and have been damaged by it have.

Very messed up ruling.

[Annces]

102. This is like being a referee for rape

What crapiola. If she says stop and he doesn't, that is rape. God, we are going backwards in our evolution as humans.

This is depressing.

[greguganus]

107. I would stop...

...cause I wouldn't want to end up in a 'penile' colony.
Also, isn't the time allowed to stop after she says no directly proportional to the size of his manhood? In that case, I could stop in less than a second! :)

[Annces]

127. ha ha n/t

[Dorian Gray]

108. I read about this earlier today on another site...

It reminded me of the Kobe Bryant scandal, and a horrible argument a male friend and I got into about this very topic. He was insistent that it was "unfair" for a woman to change her mind and cry rape once intercourse started. I was horrified by his beliefs, even though I know him well enough to believe that he would stop intercourse if a woman told him she wanted to. (This is a friend, not my husband, who sided with me in the argument.)

It was a heated argument, and, despite his "side" in the argument, I never once considered that there would be a law on the books in any of the states in our country that would uphold his position. I am horrified by learning this. Absolutely sickened.

[LostinVA]

115. Lots of posts on DU threads that said the same thing

[Matariki]

117. so if i hit a guy on the head after sex has started

does it still count as assault?

[etherealtruth]

151. I think you have five seconds to stop ...

lets see whack one ... whack two ...

This is one of the sickest rulings ...

[FourScore]

120. Oh good Lord! You ladies can't be serious!

First of all, clearly the court feels frustrated by it's choices in this case. It is necessary that the legistature make adjustments to the law. The Court is basically telling the prosecutor to take it to the next legal level if they feel dissatisfied by the ruling.

But aside from THAT...Ladies, c'mon! You gotta be kidding!

Women are not chattel in our society today. Clearly, we still have a fight ahead of us on many issues, but this is a case that I really think women on this forum are getting a little too bent out of shape over. I don't know about you, but I got much bigger fish to fry.

First of all, five seconds? She's sueing over FIVE SECONDS??? You want to tell me, that you would send a young man - or any man - to prison for ten years or longer because it took him five seconds to withdraw???? Are you out of your mind? Personally, I think this lawsuit is an insult. I don't even think this case constitutes sexual battery. If any woman on this forum has ever experienced the pain and horror of a real, brutal rape attack, then you would know what rape really is. Sexual battery? I don't even think this case is that. The fear, the feeling of powerlessness a woman experiences during truly brutal rape or sexual battery assault is so horrible. Certainly REAL rape cases are much more horriying than the five seconds it might take for a guy to stop in the middle of CONSENSUAL sexual intercourse.

The guy stopped. It took him a five seconds, but he stopped.

Now let's suppose the guy went on for a while. Let's say he finished. Let's say that she was screaming and sratching at him and it became truly brutal on his part. If the Court then said they could do nothing, and women are chattel, women can't say no after starting, and all that crap... well, that's a fish I could fry. That's one I'm willing to get pretty mad about.

But this case? Oh puh-lease.

Who brings a case like this to court? What is she trying to prove? Jeez. You learn a lesson not to have sex unless you are 100% sure, otherwise you don't it. If you do, and the guy takes five seconds, do you REALLY take him to court for RAPE?

[WindRavenX]

135. "you ladies"

whatever :eyes:

[LostinVA]

136. No, I wouldn't send a young man to prison for this

I'd send a rapist to prison for this.

"Who brings a case like this to court? What is she trying to prove?"

Fucking unbelievable. Your post sounds like an apology for date rape. Can you explain to me how it isn't? Of course you can't.

Call me when you have a guy refuse to take his dick out of you.

POOF! You're gone.

On edit: Oh, and nice sexism: "Ladies!" Do you really think men don't disagree with you? There are some on this very thread.

[kiahzero]

138. According to the woman, he didn't refuse.

Don't let that get in the way, though.

[FourScore]

175. Exactly! Big difference. n/t

[HarukaTheTrophyWife]

143. Calling us "ladies" shows your mysogyny straight off.

Oh and about this:

"You learn a lesson not to have sex unless you are 100% sure, otherwise you don't it."

What if the woman was sure and once intercourse has started the man is hurting her? She has no right to tell him to stop? The man has the right to keep his penis inside her UNWANTED?

Vile.

[LostinVA]

144. It's also the point of --"it's the woman's fault"

Because she had sex when she shouldn't have... whatever the hell that means.

[FourScore]

174. Please see post 161. n/t

[Sapphocrat]

145. Let me know when you get raped.

Let me know when you have "experienced the pain and horror of a real, brutal rape attack," and then you can tell me why the theory of relativity is bunk. Let me know if five seconds still feels like five seconds when you've got something intrusive pumping away at your insides like a jackhammer when you don't want it there.

You come back and tell me it wasn't rape, and I'll tell you you're overreacting.

I won't even address your condescending use of the word "ladies," as you wouldn't even begin to understand.

[FourScore]

161. By using the term "you ladies"

I meant NO sexism (and I resent being called a mysogynist). I consider myself a lady, and I am proud of it. I addressed "you ladies" because I was trying to post a message aimed at my gender peers. If one were to accuse me of anything, I was purposefully excluding the males on this thread (sorry fellas). I had no idea the the term "Lady" was viewed as degrading.

I am no apologist for date rape. I think women do not "ask" for rape. Nor do I condone it if a man ignores a woman's request to stop. But the guy did stop. It took him five seconds, but that is not rape IMHO. I am surprised that women would see it as such.

I never said the guy should keep his penis in her unwanted. I merely said five seconds delay isn't rape. Of course, it certainly isn't gentlemanly behavior and I doubt I'd be interested in being with the guy again. But would I drag THIS into a court room? No. I wouldn't.

It is unfair to say that I am condoning rape. Because I don't. Nor am I a "male apologist." I just don't think this case should be classified as rape.

[LostinVA]

180. And I resent you calling yourself my peer

I make no apologies for rape. I do not berate "fellow" (oh boy) women because they see unwanted sex as rape.

I think you need to reread everything you wrote, because you indeed said all of that. You said it, you meant it, so own it. Don't spin it.

And, if you think women (if you are indeed one) can't be misogynist, then I guess you've never heard of Dr. Laura.

*sounds of hands being wiped clean of this mess*

[HarukaTheTrophyWife]

183. Excellent post.

:thumbsup:

[Sapphocrat]

187. In that case...

...knowing now that you are a woman, I am even more appalled at your post, which strikes me as dismissive and insensitive to all women (as well as all rape survivors, male or female).

Maybe a five-second delay to you means nothing. Maybe you put it at 30 seconds. So, if you say it's 30 seconds, and I say no, you're wrong, the cut-off is 45 seconds, does that invalidate your opinion?

I'm sorry if you don't like my reaction, or can't see how your words are perceived, but I'm even more offended and upset by your post now.

[kiahzero]

193. Arbitrary time isn't important

What's imporant is determining whether he continued to have sex with her after she withdrew consent. Since Maryland is a common law state, the mens rea would probably default to negligence. Even under this standard, from the summary of the facts, I don't think any reasonable jury could conclude that he acted in a "gross deviation from the standards of normal conduct."

[Sapphocrat]

197. Not my point, although I hear what you're saying.

I'm not arguing arbitrary time. I'm arguing that there's reasonable discussion of difference of opinion (e.g., your post that I'm replying to), and wholesale dismissiveness (the post I was originally replying to in this subthread).

I don't have to agree with you, and I'm not bothered by you disagreeing with me, because you're not blowing me off as an overreactive, hysterical female.

(Well, you might think it, but you're not saying it to my face. :))

[kiahzero]

201. I agree: wholesale dismissiveness is bad

You're being reasonable, in my mind. However, this is an issue that doesn't exactly invite reasonable thought.

[Sapphocrat]

202. Thank you, kiahzero. :) n/t

[FourScore]

196. So are you saying

that you equate a five second withdrawal (he DID stop) to a brutal, completely non-consensual, violent attack? You think those five seconds deserve a minimum ten year sentence? I am saying, and have said the whole time, that I do not equate the two. Nor do I think the "crime" fits the punishment IN THIS CASE. I am not being dismissive of women. Nor of rape victims. I am merely argueing that this case does not constitute rape. I'm not the only one on this thread holding that opinion. Plenty of women here see it the same way.

[Sapphocrat]

200. Stop putting words in my mouth...

...and trying to divert me from the issue I have with your post -- which is: The tone of your post smacks of dismissiveness toward rape survivors, and toward women in general.

You can argue that five seconds does or does not constitute rape all you want, and you can set your arbitrary time limit at one second or six hours -- I really don't care.

You don't have to agree. You may take my response to your post as a personal attack, which it is not. The bottom line is that I find your words, and your tone, offensive.

Now, if you want to spend the rest of the night trying to convince me your post wasn't offensive in any way, shape, or form, knock yourself out. But if you want to convince me that I should not feel offended by your words, then you're talking to a brick wall.

I've run out of ways to put it so that you'll get it, so I'm giving up for tonight.

[omega minimo]

123. If the situation was two men and anal rape, would it be different?

Would the fact that men were not consdered chattel under law make a difference?

[ThomCat]

125. No, because of the Gay smear.

Didn't you know that Gay people deserve whatever we get? The moment they consent to have sex, they're both immediately beyond anyone's concern except as sinners who need to be banished from society!

[omega minimo]

129. If the same situation with males under consideration in a court of law

perceptions of "stopping penetration" and of the sovereign rights (to their own bodies) might be seen differently?

[ThomCat]

132. No, I'm saying that prejudices would authomatically

favor the defendant. The accuser would have little or no chance of getting a conviction even before this issue of halting penatration comes into play. And that prudice offers so many strong factors that violate the supposed neutrality of the law that a theoretical nuance about 5 seconds is moot.

[kiahzero]

139. In many jurisdictions, it wouldn't even be considered rape.

Rape is legally definied in many statutes as a man forcing sex on a woman.

[Jed Dilligan]

192. You are right about that

In prison, if you are raped and visit a shrink, he will tell you you are a "faggot" and disgusting for allowing this to happen to you.

Source: William Hogshire, "You are going to Prison"

[Imagevision]

126. Some males are that ignorant, no is no -- yes is yes, end of story!!

[LostinVA]

137. Look at some of the responses on this thread...

[Odin2005]

141. Christ, I hate these kind of threads.

I highly doubt either side can PROVE how long it took for the guy to pull out, so you are basically going by he-said she-said, there is no way one can determine how long it actually is. I am deeply disturbed by how some people here forget about the concept of due process and the presumed innocence of the accused when it's a rape case, as if giving the accused constitutionally guarenteed rights as a defendent is sexist when the accusation is rape. People accused of rape deserve the same right to be considered innocent untill proven guilty as any other person accused of any other crime.

[kiahzero]

142. You sexist!

:dripping:

[LostinVA]

146. People believe that saying the accused is presumed innocent

means the plaintiff is a liar. Some have said it on here. The Duke rape threads dripped with it. It is the ONLY crime I know of where this happens. A person robbed isn't held up to this weird standard...or someone beaten... or someone swindled.... only rape.

And, a reading of these posts will show that -- and conversely.

That's right -- a he-said/she-said. It's a immoral and illegal ruling, and will be swiftly challenged.

And, count aloud: five seconds is a long time.

[Totallybushed]

169. Your understanding of the position

is seriously deficient. It doesn't mean the plaintiff is a liar. It means there is insufficient evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that a rape occurred.

Is a woman's word worth more than a man's? I'd like to hear you say that!.

[Odin2005]

242. Exactly.

You can't just toss out the principle of "innocent untill proven guilty" just because it's a rape case.

[dsc]

148. appeallate courts can't go making up laws

I certainly don't agree with this result but you can't blame judges if legislatures refuse to make laws. The law is quite sadly clearly saying what the judges say it says. It is the legislatures job to write new law and the Supreme Court's job to reinterpret existing law. The correct people to blame here are the legislators of Maryland who allowed this law to remain unchanged for several decades, not appellate judges who interpret the law as it is, not as they would have it be.

On edit, this is similar to the decisions being handed down in Ohio and Michigan which have stripped live in couples of domestic violence protection. The iniatives that have passed in those states clearly and unambiguiously do exactly that. Judges can't save people from idiotic legislatures or themselves when they won't or can't do it themselves.

[FourScore]

167. Exactly. n/t

[DarkTirade]

152. Normally I'd agree with something like this... but five seconds?

That makes it a bit iffy.

[Name removed]

176. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Richard Steele]

184. Only if you promise that -IS- your last word.

[LostinVA]

185. I can't believe I just read this -- good grief

What the hell is wrong with some of you people? Do you honestly have zero understanding of how things really are? Guess so.

[Richard Steele]

195. Well, bear in mind...

That this particular poster has claimed that John Kerry
actually works for B*sh, and his "gaffe" yesterday was
planned by Karl Rove. (deleted already)

Someone stated their day with a nice big bowl of CRAZY!

[LostinVA]

198. I missed that post -- thank the gods!

[DarkTirade]

241. I'm almost afraid to ask what was said there.

Especially since it was in response to my comment. :\

[joeunderdog]

177. How about 8? How about 2? When does it become a crime?

A year in jail for every second delay is out of whack. I believe that's what was in the balance here. The punishment does not fit the crime. I believe that this is a crime, but delayed cessation of consensual sex for a matter of seconds represents a different kind of crime than what is generally termed Rape.

I still think we need to know more about this story than what is at the link. I thought the site should have represented the facts for the prosecution better, at least in such a way as to make me understand taking away a man's life for 10 years. If we call this act Rape, and its perp a Rapist, doesn't that represent a rather wide brush to be coloring with? And doesn't it water down the terms that are often times (and rightfully) applied to situations involving violence, criminal pathology and life-altering trauma?

"Over-Charging" is a term used by a retired Police Cheif to me when we were discussing the integrity of today's law enforcement. I think it's applicable here. Maybe it was a crime, but not THAT crime.

[Name removed]

179. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[DarkTirade]

240. I remember reading something similar where someone charged with rape

when the other person did stop after the girl changed her mind... but it took almost a minute. The clincher there was that she didn't actually say 'stop', she said, "I should probably go.", which means that it wasn't obvious right that instant that she wanted him to stop. The judge on that case was a woman, and she threw it out of court. In that case I'd tend to agree with the judge. In this case... as I said, 5 seconds... kinda muddy right there.

[Jed Dilligan]

194. I would stop--no problem.

It would take less than 5-6 seconds, which is actually a long time.

Unless it was absolutely just an issue of physical pain, I would never touch the woman again in any way. A person who for emotional reasons decides against sex after starting it is, in my opinion, too unstable for even a casual relationship.

[greguganus]

204. With the widespread use of Viagra...

...among older men, he could be hard of hearing. Maybe Viagra should be dispensed with a sign that says "STOP YOU SOB!". But then again, his eyesight might be bad too. :)

[HarukaTheTrophyWife]

238. ...

:eyes:

[Blue_Tires]

205. you ladies are just going to have to lean how to give it up

like good girls are supposed to!!:sarcasm: :sarcasm:

[greguganus]

208. I thought good girls never give it up n/t

[Zhade]

209. I can't believe people here - HERE! - are excusing rape!

Rape is sex without consent. When is not the issue. ANY TIME IT IS NON-CONSENSUAL, IT IS RAPE. PERIOD.

Some of you are monsters. Disgusting!

[kiahzero]

214. Most of the discussion is actually about whether five seconds is fast enough

There is no question of fact surrounding the claim that the male pulled out after the female said stop. The debate raging throughout the thread is whether or not "five seconds or so" between the withdrawal of consent and the withdrawal of his penis is enough to be considered rape.

Good to see that entry to this thread comes standard with a Jump To Conclusions mat.

[Odin2005]

243. Giving the accused a fair trial and not a lynch mob is excusing rape?

What happened to "innocent untill proven guilty"?

:eyes:

[LostinVA]

247. Whatever -- take off the blinders

Unless you prefer having them on.

[pinto]

210. Just a general reminder about our civility guidelines.

Highly personal and emotionally laden topics always foster rather heated discussion. It's the nature of the discussion forums. And, in the general interest of all members the guidelines we all subscribe to help maintain an open and civil discussion board. Thanks for your support.

"The administrators of Democratic Underground are working to provide a place where progressives can share ideas and debate in an atmosphere of mutual respect. Despite our best efforts, some of our members often stray from this ideal and cheapen the quality of discourse for everyone else. Unfortunately, it is simply impossible to write a comprehensive set of rules forbidding every type of antisocial behavior. The fact that the rules do not forbid a certain type of post does not automatically make an uncivil post appropriate, nor does it imply that the administrators approve of disrespectful behavior. Every member of this community has a responsibility to participate in a respectful manner, and to help foster an atmosphere of thoughtful discussion. In this regard, we strongly advise that our members exercise a little common decency, rather than trying to parse the message board rules to figure out what type of antisocial behavior is not forbidden."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/forums/rules_detailed.html

[madmusic]

215. The Happy Feminist's Title is Hysterical

MARYLAND COURT'S INTERPRETATION OF RAPE LAW IS PREDICATED ON THE NOTION OF WOMEN AS CHATTEL

That's just plain false, and the Happy Feminist claims to be a lawyer? Where? At Disneyland? She also mis-quotes the case because she quotes quotes from previous cases as part of this opinion. A terrible reading of the opinion.

Read the case for yourselves and ignore the sound bites.

http://www.courts.state.md.us/opinions/cosa/2006/225s05.pdf (PDF)

Excerpt:

1The State maintained throughout that Jewel L’s apparent
consent was never volitional. Had the jury accepted the State’s
major premise, the issue of withdrawal of consent would never have
been considered during the deliberations. The issue of post
penetration consent, was, to be sure, injected into the case, not
by the appellant or the State, but rather by the jury in its
consideration of the evidence during its deliberations. Although
we cannot know precisely the thought processes of the jurors, the
evidence was that appellant and Mike had suggested that Jewel L.
and Lacey S. get a hotel room because the girls were older and
that, when appellant and Mike began discussing sex and the former
produced three condoms, Lacey, apparently uncomfortable with the
turn of events, made it clear that she did not want to accompany
the trio. After complying with Lacey’s request to drive her back
to the restaurant, Jewel L. drove the two boys, at night, to a
residential area and parked her car on the street. She then
climbed into the back seat of the car between appellant and Mike.
Notwithstanding the State’s theory that Jewel L. was tricked into
joining appellant and his accomplice on the back seat of the car,
the evidence presented to the jury provided at least a rational
inference that (1) Lacey sensed that a sexual encounter was
contemplated by the two boys and chose to leave the trio; (2)that,
although Jewel L. certainly did not relinquish her right to refuse
appellant’s sexual advances by climbing into the back seat of the
car, by agreeing to remain with the two boys, she had abandoned the
security provided by Lacey’s presence; and (3) the earlier
conversations about sex and appellant’s production of three condoms
should have been indicia of their intentions. All of the foregoing
evidence was before the jury for its consideration in
contradistinction to the State’s theory that Jewel L., an
eighteen–year-old college student, was tricked by two
sixteen–year–old high school students. The rape trauma syndrome,
discussed, infra, was competent evidence to explain the unusual
behavior of Jewel L. subsequent to the sexual encounter, but would
have no bearing on her actions preceding the alleged rape.

The key line is this one: "The issue of post
penetration consent, was, to be sure, injected into the case, not
by the appellant or the State, but rather by the jury in its
consideration of the evidence during its deliberations."

Further, the discussion of chattel is a discussion on the prosecution's historical summary of common law. Could the prosecutor be a feminist by any chance? Almost the entire opinion is pro-feminist.

Not only that, but this kid did what feminists want him to do, stop when she said stop.

Yes, no means no, and just because someone disagrees with your arguments that doesn't mean they don't get that. And hysterical is hysterical. Or maybe it is intentional moral panic to stir up the masses. Rove would love it.

Further, it appears the prosecution was trying to railroad the defendant. Read the arguments the prosecution proffered.

I tell ya, these hysterical arguments are doing more harm than good and only other women can disagree without being misogynists, though they will still get yelled at.

Read the case and decide for yourselves. I've only read it once and will have to read it again to fully understand it. One thing for sure, you can't trust sound bites or those with enough agenda to twist the facts.

[FourScore]

239. Thank you.

BTW, I'm a woman who disagreed and was called misogynist. And yelled at.

[lukasahero]

217. This isn't about how many seconds

"The court further held that there is no rape under Maryland law if the woman consents to sex prior to penetration and then withdraws the consent after penetration."

People who are arguing about the sentence the guy got or the amount of seconds it takes to withdraw have totally missed the point. This is not a one-off. This is not about this one trial. This is about the interpretation of a Maryland law that suggests once a woman consents, once penetration occurs, it can not be rape.

Does ANYone here agree with that? Just as it is, without all the added drama thrown in for effect. Forget about the seconds. We're not talking about 1 case. If a woman consents and for whatever reason then withdraws consent, does ANYone here really think that (however the fuck many seconds it takes), it simply cannot be rape?

THAT'S what this decision says.

[madmusic]

222. What page is that on?

Searching the PDF doesn't find it, though it does sound familiar in my reading of it.

[kiahzero]

223. Maryland law already said that.

This court is powerless to change it. Hopefully the decision will be appealed to the Maryland Supreme Court so the law can be changed. See post #118.

[madmusic]

226. THAT'S NOT TRUE

From p 36:

9In light of our holding that the trial court erred by refusing
to respond to the jury’s question, we need not reach an issue which
was apparently of concern to the jury. The testimony of the
complainant and appellant regarding the interval between her
command to stop and his acquiescence was surprisingly consistent;
she said that he stopped after five or ten seconds and he said that
he withdrew “without any delay at all.” Our research reveals a
paucity of decisions regarding what constitutes “ample time,” as a
matter of law for a defendant to terminate an initially consensual
sexual encounter once the complainant demands that he stop. In
cases where the time intervals are five to ten minutes (State v.
Bunyard, 31 Kan. App. at 857, 75 P.3d at 755 (Kan. App. 2003)),
four to five minutes (In re John Z., 29 Cal. 4th 756, 762, 60 P.3d
183, 187 (2003)) or longer, the contention that “a defendant must
have a reasonable time” in which to respond to the victim’s
withdrawal of consent has been dismissed, out of hand, as a matter
of law, the court in In re John Z. stating, that the defendant was
given “ample time” to withdraw, and that his failure to cease
intercourse was not reasonable. We have found no decision,
however, involving a de minimus time interval, as in the case sub
judice. We leave for another day consideration of that issue.

So they didn't even rule on that issue.

[kiahzero]

230. Easy there

If you read the chain of posts, we were talking about the "no withdrawing consent" business, not the time interval business. Back off the shift key and calm yourself.

[madmusic]

237. The quote from the footnote is about that.

They did find case law on withdrawing consent. The key line is "We have found no decision,
however, involving a de minimus time interval, as in the case sub
judice. We leave for another day consideration of that issue."

So the time interval and withdrawing consent are interrelated.

It is important for people to know that law if the deterrent effect is to be effective, namely that someone could be charged with two or more counts of rape during the same incident if he/she had time to reflect but didn't stop. That is contrary to the general consensus here.

[McCamy Taylor]

220. This was a jury with too much time on its hands. This question is not

pertitent and the answer is not important to this case.

When a woman, a thoracic surgeon consents to sex , then midway through gets a stat page saying that she is needed in the operating room to do an emergency surgery on a gunshot wound to the chest victim and the corporate CEO who just popped viagra and who is humping her refuses to let go of her for 30 minutes despite her repeated pleas that she has to go prep for the surgery now or else the young shooting victim may die, and the shooting victim suffers massive shock and brain damage from the delay, and she charges the corporate CEO with rape because she clearly withdrew her consent for sex, then I think that you will get a different legal opinion.

[Erika]

224. Falwell and the Taliban religious right are applauding

It's about time those cheap female harlots were put in there place. Now on to theocracy...

[madmusic]

227. Yeah, in the place of a little logic and actual facts would be a good start.

Read the case.

This is all moral panic.

[nofurylike]

234. thanks to those here who really get the horror of this ruling, and

are expressing it so well.

we all need to raise the consciousness of others!

and we need men standing up and raising other men's consciousness, thanks!


peace and solidarity

[frustrated_lefty]

236. Mixed thoughts.

Some of this is simply stupid. No means no, yada, yada, yada. Some positions can't be extricated from immediately, nor within a matter of a few seconds, without causing physical damage. You can stop humping, but it can require a degree of cooperation to disengage. Wtf? I said stop and he came while getting out of me? Is that rape? Where do you draw the line?

I think the more productive way to approach this topic is for perspective partners (and people in general) to communicate more openly prior to engaging in sexual activity. If there is hesitation in either person's mind, it would be good for that to be in the open. But, nooooooooo, coitus is just a place where American's find themselves, like an accident, and everything which follows is equally accidental.

[Porcupine]

244. I can't believe that I read this whole mess.

There are irreconcilable points here with virtually no middle ground.

Position A) The female was within her rights to demand a stop. The male stopped after a reasonable period (if not ideal) of time. No rape.

Position B) Any accusation of rape constitutes rape. The declaration of a stop should have resulted in an IMMEDIATE (or sooner) stop. The statement of the injured party claiming rape is complete and sufficient for conviction. Don't even bother holding a trial because the guy is guilty unless he can prove he was in the next county.

The Position B people have been repeatedly refuted by genetic testing sometimes year after a falsely accused person has been sent to jail. People accusing others of crimes are often wrong. Humans are poor reporters of the facts of emotionally charged incidents. Maybe we should examine what proven beyond a reasonable doubt actally means.

[LostinVA]

248. Nobody on here agreed with "B"

[Eurobabe]

245. this is fucked up. literally.

eom

[DemocratSinceBirth]

246. I Don't Understand The Controversy

As it has been stated ad nauseum and ad infinitum no means no. But to give a male less than five seconds to withdraw from any orifice regardless of the gender of the one being penetrated strikes me as a bit much.I also see the "gay sex" issue as a bit of a canard. Two men having consensual gay sex would presumably face the same obstacles..



"If a female consents to sex initially and during the course of the sex act to which she consented, for whatever reason, she changes her mind and the man continues until climax, does the result constitute rape?"

I reread the question and just realized how flawed it is...


Two people can be having sex and one partner says "stop" and the person who this is being communicated to ejaculates immediately he has committed rape.


That flies in the face of physiology and what every over eager fifteen year old boy/young man knows about sexual intercourse.

Geez....

[SmokingJacket]

252. Of course a woman can say no -- that's not what the ruling says.

It means if she consented in the first place and changes her mind during sex, it's not technically *rape*. It could very well be assault.

Personally, I think every case should be decided individually -- in some cases that might well be rape, and some cases it might not.