New rape law allows change of mind

[Japher]

This just gives women more leeway to lead the man on! She'll get hers than not give him his, blah!

Whatever

[Sava]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov


So you don't think a woman (or man, for that matter) has the right to change her mind during the act?

While I agree that the woman or man has that right, I am skepticle of the practicality of this law. Because the original sex was consensual, you are talking about a lack of physical evidence. And without evidence of rape, it boils down to a he said/she said situation. There is too much of a potential for abuse/false accusation. I believe the pendulum has swung too far. And my slippery-slope comment is perfectly legit.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
It's not stupid it all. Look at the reverse situation.

Well, how would one go about proving a charge based on this law then?

[Az]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov


Tell me more about these mind reading powers of yours... will I be rich?

The minds of people say nothing of your future.

Seriously, though, how is a couple of minutes "immideately" on that scale of things.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
Well, how would one go about proving a charge based on this law then?

The same way it's done now, very rarely. Currently it's almost impossible to get a rape conviction unless there is some sort of trauma or witnesses who are willing to testify. I don't think the law will result in more convictions, but it might save a few women from being raped.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Sava
While I agree that the woman or man has that right, I am skepticle of the practicality of this law. Because the original sex was consensual, you are talking about a lack of physical evidence. And without evidence of rape, it boils down to a he said/she said situation. There is too much of a potential for abuse/false accusation. I believe the pendulum has swung too far. And my slippery-slope comment is perfectly legit.

No, it isn't legit, it's slippery slope nonsense.

I don't think this law changes anything with regards to the burden of proof. It is simply clarifying something that should be evident to most people, but apparently isn't--changing one's mind can be done at any time, and is their right. I'm sure the law was in reaction to cases where defendants had acknowledged continuing sex acts after being told to stop, but claimed they thought it was ok because the woman originally consented. I don't see this as lowering any proof requirements. Such claims appear to be strawmen.

I don't agree with chegitz, however, since humans aren't capable of "immediate" action, especially when engaged in a fundamental, sensational part of our natural instinct. Allowances must be made for a person to register the refusal. If that means erring in the direction of acquitting those few who finish up in the 5 seconds after being told to stop, that's gotta be the way it is. The rights of the accused are given a bit more weight in our system, and that is how it should be in this regard as well.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Azazel
Seriously, though, how is a couple of minutes "immideately" on that scale of things.

Immediatey is a vague term. Depending on your frame of reference, it can mean a few seconds or days. Apparently you are a quick lover while Boris takes all night. Thus for him, a few minutes would be immediately while for you . . .

[Dinner]

I have a real problem with continually expanding the definition of rape. What protections are there for a man, like Kobi Brian, who had consentual sex but the good digging whore latter claims rape just so she can settle outside of court for a huge settlement? Do any of you remember the farce that was the Kennedy rape case about 10 years ago where another girl had sex with a rich man and then said point blank "Pay me $X or I'll claim you raped me"?

What does a man do in a situation like that? The system is stacked against him.

[Sava]

No, it isn't legit, it's slippery slope nonsense.

okay Fez...

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Azazel


The minds of people say nothing of your future.

Seriously, though, how is a couple of minutes "immideately" on that scale of things.

The article just says he didn't stop immediately. That doesn't mean he didn't continue on for what anyone would consider a reasonable amount of time. Like I said, I think it's reasonable to interpret "immediately" as up to 10-15 seconds.

I mean, it took 30 seconds for the Hindenburg to crash--so 15 secs is more than enough time to register a refusal and withdraw.

[Dis]

I have no problem with a woman saying no before or during sex.

just not after. That's where I have a problem.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
The same way it's done now, very rarely.

Then what's the point of the law?

[Velociryx]

In those cases, the man pays up and prays that the system doesn't hunt him down anyway.

I agree, the deck IS stacked, and this prolly won't be the last time rape is further redefined to give the accusors yet more leeway.

What's the next step? Oh, well see your honor, I changed my mind but he finished before I could voice it, it MUST BE rape!

-=Vel=-

[Sava]

What happens if she says, "no" right as the man is climaxing? He finishes (a few seconds), and she cries rape... hmmm... what happens then?

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov
I don't agree with chegitz, however, since humans aren't capable of "immediate" action, especially when engaged in a fundamental, sensational part of our natural instinct.

When humans are having sex they do not lose their power of reason, their ability to understand language, their ability to determine right from wrong. . . . except maybe during the moment of orgasm, and possibly just before it. Even then, it can be done. It is, after all, a form of birth control (if not a very effective one).

The instant consent is withdrawn, it becomes a crime to continue. That's how it works for all crimes, I see no reason to treat rape any differently.