New rape law allows change of mind

[chequita guevara]

In my experience, there are a lot of men, especially associated with sports, who don't care a lot about what women think or say.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
A crime requires intent to committ the crime.

I'll drop in just to point out this is patently false. Manslaughter, for example.

[Ned]

Che, you're not in the least bit prejudiced, are you? You seem to have convicted Kobe by attributing to him the behaviour of other atheletes.

[Velociryx]

No Che, that's not what I'm saying at all, and you know it full well.

What I AM saying that if you introduce a law with horribly ambiguous language in it ("immediately") and you can't be arsed to define what "immediately" is, then it is open to any interpretation you care to give it, which opens the door to abuse.

Immediately for you might be three seconds. If your partner who changes her mind thinks that's too long, say hello to your new roomie and 8x6 room.

-=Vel=-

[Velociryx]

Cosmically, "immediately" is a few tens of thousands of years. That's pretty fast in cosmic terms, innit? Shall we use that definition for "immediately" here? No? Why not?

And thus, the need to nail down what that word means if you're going to put it into LAW!

-=Vel=-

[Velociryx]

Asuka - thanks man! And just to be clear....I'm not againt the *purpose* of the law AT ALL! Of course a woman has the right to change her mind. But IF THIS IS TO BE MADE LAW, then "immediately" needs to be defined or dropped.

-=Vel=-

[Dr Strangelove]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


Consensua sexual activity does not equl consensual sex. Maybe there was some heavy petting going on. That's sexual activity, but it doesn't necesssarily mean you want to have sex. You can consent to the former while refusing to consent to the latter.

I think that a woman might ought to have at least some obligation to take into account the feelings and consent of the man, like perhaps if she's sure that she doesn't want intercourse she should draw the line way before intromission, and probably way before disrobement or even "coping a feel".

Regarding the "immediate cesseation" upon the woman's request I might point out that there is a point during the physiologic process of intercourse at which the (male) process can't (easily) be stopped. In fact if the woman suddenly lifts her upper torso and shouts "Stop!" as a guy is approaching ejaculation she might in fact trigger the ejaculation by virtue of startling him. What then? Would this be a chargeable offense?

[Tingkai]

Originally posted by Velociryx
What I AM saying that if you introduce a law with horribly ambiguous language in it ("immediately") and you can't be arsed to define what "immediately" is, then it is open to any interpretation you care to give it, which opens the door to abuse.

So you would be against vague terms like "reasonable doubt". Afterall there is nothing specific about reasonable.

Same thing with manslaugher, which looks at whether the accused should have reasonably known that his/her actions would cause death.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

Ah, ok. I imagined it to be "If he doesn't grind to a screetching halt in a second he's a rapist". no problem then.

That's what we are discussing now, I think . What's "immediately" mean.

My point is that it is quite possible in the cited case that there was rape committed.

"Immediately" usually gives some leeway when used in common parlance. It generally means "as soon as reasonably possible", not "after zero time has elapsed".

[KrazyHorse]

Hence: "after learning that I required course X to graduate I immediately went to see my academic advisor", even though it might have taken you five minutes to start down to his office.

But: "I immediately began performing mouth-to-mouth resuscitation" would be untrue if you waited five minutes, since the situation is more time-critical.

[Dis]

I'm really suprised how many people are against this.

I usually don't like silly laws like this.

But in this case the law is just. A woman should have a right over her body. Maybe in the heat of passion she thought she wanted sex, but then she realized she isn't on birth control and the guy doesn't have a condom. Then she may change her mind to not risk a pregnancy. It's the guy's responsibility to stop.

Also the guy might be just really bad at sex. If the guy can't satisfy a woman, and the woman isn't getting what she wants, she has every right to ask him to stop.

A woman should have full control over what enters her body.

I will agree that there is potential for a lot of abuse of this law. But in theory, this is very important ruling for women's rights.

[KrazyHorse]

I agree. There is a reasonable window for the man to stop in (a few seconds). After that, it's rape.

If you stop in those few seconds, you stopped "immediately".

I've been asked to stop in the middle before (it turned out it was hurting her). I stopped within 1-2 seconds, and this was 5 years ago, when I was 18 and probably my horniest.

[Flubber]

Vel I believe you either fundamentally do not understand much about law or are being a very good troll-- no matter-- the topic is interesting

A word like immediate is ok to use here-- The first case to be heard will probably see some jusrisprudence on the issue and the definition will be some element of the reasonableness tests such as "as soon as reasonably possible". To hold otherwise could make anyone a criminal. Words must be given reasonable interpretations-- laws have many many words in them and if you want to be afraid of every possible very silly interpretation, every sentence would need an attched 3 pages of definitions.

They don't set a specific time like 10 seconds since, as you correctly point out, there are scenarios where more or less time is warranted.

Also vel-- it is possible that there can be moments where "sex" is technically occurring but it is not rape. Its the whole mental element-- To commit a sexual assault I must be aware that the person does not consent to the act using a reasonableness test (so NO you can't jump the first woman you see and continue to have sex until she manages to get the word "no" out.)

Essentially , to not commit a crime you must have a reasonable belief in the consent of the other person. This works for things as simple as shaking hands-- I might shake your hand without your express permission but no court in the land would convict me of a battery if I had a reasonable belief that the contact was permissable. But the second you say " Don't touch me", continuing the contact WOULD be a criminal battery.

This rape law is no different than

1. handshake battery example above
2. Trespass to property -- I tell someone to get out of my house when I had permitted them inside-- they are immediately trespassing as they are present against the wishes of the owner but it is not criminal if they leave as soon as reasonably possible as they never formed an intent to trespass


Overall-- I think that folks are getting too hung up on the word immediately in this law. Its obvious how it will be interpreted and this "millisecond rape" is a silly strawman. To rape someone you must do an act in furtherance of the rape AFTER you are aware or ought to be aware ( can't ignore the obvious) that the other party is not consenting to the act


Oh and guys . . . strict liability --- One example is oil spills in an oil development. The theory is that the operator chose to develop the field and they have a "strict"-- some due diligence defences are possible, or even an "absolute" liability in case there is a spill.

[Sikander]

I have to assume that some of the objections to this are based in part on sheer inexperience. Women want to stop sexual intercourse fairly frequently. Most of the time it's a completely temporary thing, ie you are hurting them directly or they have developed a cramp or something. Keep pounding away and see if you ever get another invitation from her again. Really. You have to be sensitive more or less constantly during sex, lest you become a rapist at worst or a lousy lover at best. If you are paying this much attention in bed already (and you should), this law will never have an effect on you.

There are certain situations where you aren't completely in your right mind. The period a few seconds before you climax until the period perhaps a minute or so afterward can be pretty intense, and I can see how sometimes one's response time and ability to parse language can be seriously impaired. The thing is, when things with a woman are dodgy I don't tend to get lulled into that sort of luxuriant revery. My mind stays clearer as I am aware of her drifting away from the sex act mentally. I do the same, and the intensity of my orgasm (if there is one) is much diminished as a result. In such a case if she suddenly wanted me to stop I could do so much more quickly than above. If you make it your business to match your energy to hers you shouldn't ever end up on the wrong side of the law unless she is underage or unconscious.

The other situation where you can easily not be in your right mind is when you are wasted drunk, or on drugs or both. For some people this is the only way that they ever have sex, as they are too uptight normally to do so. Watch out for these people (especially if you are one of them), as sometimes what inhibits them is past sexual abuse or assault. Alchohol and drugs sometimes act as a gateway to their sexual self, which is often an underdeveloped and angry or crazy shard of their personality which was broken off from their main personality due to sexual trauma. The consequences of sex with that underdeveloped personality can vary widely. She may be completely passive and let you do whatever you want without responding to any of it. (Not my cup of tea) It may be insanely wild sex, she may be the craziest lover you've ever had, and she might not remember a thing the next day. She might not remember ordering you to tie her up and spray her with whipped cream while laughing maniacly, and then doing you hard for four hours in every conceivable position and then jumping your roommate when he got home. She may simply find herself waking up partially tied up, sticky and sore with a couple of naked stinking guys next to her, remember nothing and assume the worst.

You might be the person who is too wasted. Perhaps you are too shy to approach someone for sex or even conversation, and alchohol helps loosen your tongue. You are feeling good, and your recently loosened tongue is finally getting you some female attention. You drink more, and she drinks more. You are pretty far gone now and the bar is closing. She invites you up to her place which is only a block away and you agree because she is fun and you have no idea how you can find your own way home in this state. Can you guarantee that you won't overstep the bounds of legality when you are thrashed like this? You can barely stand up, much less recall the nuances of civilized or legal behavior. If you can't remember what happened you will find it hard to defend yourself against charges. For all you know you might be guilty.

Know yourself, know your partner, know the law, and be careful exploring the edges of reality with drugs and alchohol and you'll have a lot of fun and you won't ever have to explain to your parents why you need $10,000 to hire a really good lawyer like Flubber.

[Ned]

The word is that the woman who accused Kobe was deeply depressed and had tried to kill herself twice in the weeks preceding the alleged rape. I was wondering how mental and emotional problems could affect such a case.