Hello Friend,

If this is your first visit to SoSuave, I would advise you to START HERE.

It will be the most efficient use of your time.

And you will learn everything you need to know to become a huge success with women.

Thank you for visiting and have a great day!

A time limit on rape

Skel

Master Don Juan
Joined
Nov 5, 2003
Messages
1,724
Reaction score
10
If a woman consents to having sex with a man but then during intercourse says no, and the man continues, is it rape?

The answer depends on where you live. The highest courts of seven states, including Connecticut and Kansas, have ruled that a woman may withdraw her consent at any time, and if the man doesn't stop, he is committing rape. Illinois has become the first state to pass legislation giving a woman that right to change her mind. But in Maryland--as well as in North Carolina--when a woman says yes, she can't take it back once sex has begun--or, at least, she can't call the act rape.

That was the recent ruling by Maryland's Court of Special Appeals in a case that may soon make its way to the state's highest court and that has captured the attention of feminists and legal experts across the country. Advocates for victims' rights insist it's not just a matter of allowing a woman to have a change of heart. If the law doesn't recognize a woman's right to say no during sex, they say, there is no recourse for a woman who begins to feel pain or who learns her partner isn't wearing a condom or has HIV. Those who are wary of these measures say they're not arguing against having a man stop immediately when a woman no longer wants to have sex, but with how to define immediately.

When the California Supreme Court handed down a ruling in 2003 that codified the withdrawal of consent during sex, Justice Janice Rogers Brown, the lone dissenter, raised that very question. "The majority relies heavily on [the defendant's] failure to desist immediately," she wrote in her minority opinion. "But it does not tell us how soon would have been soon enough. Ten seconds? Thirty? A minute?" Mel Feit, executive director of the National Center for Men, a male-advocacy group based in Old Bethpage, N.Y., says biology is a factor. "At a certain point during arousal, we don't have complete control over our ability to stop," he says. "To equate that with brutal, violent rape weakens the whole concept of rape." His group has created a "consensual sex contract" to be signed before intercourse.

Victims' rights activists don't buy the loss-of-control argument. "It's insulting to men to say they can't stop," says Lisae C. Jordan, legislative counsel for the Maryland Coalition Against Sexual Assault. "Any one of us who's had a toddler walk in on them knows that that's not true. Or a teenager who's had a parent walk in--they stop pretty quickly." Still, even advocates concede it's hard to set a time frame in which sex must cease after consent is taken back. "I don't know where that bright line is," says Scott Berkowitz of the Rape Abuse and Incest National Network. "We'll leave that to juries to decide what's reasonable in each case."

The murkiness surrounding what's reasonable has deepened further with the Maryland case, which was tried in 2004. The accuser and the defendant agree that after he began to penetrate her and she wanted him to stop, he did so within a matter of seconds and did not climax. Even so, during deliberations, the jury sent a note to the judge asking if it was rape if a female changed her mind during the sex to which she consented and the man continued until climax. The judge said it was for them to decide. They convicted the defendant of first-degree rape, among other sex offenses.

But the appellate court, citing a 1980 rape ruling based on the English common-law idea of "the initial de-flowering of the woman as the real harm," unanimously ordered a new trial, essentially stating that how fast was not the issue, nor was whether the accuser had said no during intercourse. In Maryland, rape is determined at the beginning of the sex act, and therefore consent is officially given at that point. The court wrote, "It was the act of penetration that was the essence of the crime of rape; after this initial infringement upon the responsible male's interest in a woman's sexual and reproductive functions, any further injury was considered to be less consequential. The damage was done."

This logic has inflamed feminists and editorial-page writers. "The decision is philosophically from another century, from a time when our rape laws were based on the concept of women being property of men," says Berkowitz, whose organization will push for a legislative remedy if Maryland's highest court doesn't reverse the ruling. In the meantime, the defendant is serving a five-year sentence, and the legal world continues to debate how quickly--if at all--a man must go when a woman says no.
 

Master Bates

Master Don Juan
Joined
Jan 26, 2007
Messages
1,014
Reaction score
10
Beginning of the sex act sure makes more sense than days after the sex act. These feminist whackos complain about the supposed barbarism of not pulling out the very second a woman says "no" even if she initially consented, and then go and support a woman's right to destroy a man's life by claiming rape days after the consented act.
 

Shiftkey

Master Don Juan
Joined
Aug 28, 2001
Messages
3,652
Reaction score
8
Location
Orange County, Ca
The murkiness surrounding what's reasonable has deepened further with the Maryland case, which was tried in 2004. The accuser and the defendant agree that after he began to penetrate her and she wanted him to stop, he did so within a matter of seconds and did not climax. Even so, during deliberations, the jury sent a note to the judge asking if it was rape if a female changed her mind during the sex to which she consented and the man continued until climax. The judge said it was for them to decide. They convicted the defendant of first-degree rape, among other sex offenses.
I don't get it. If he stopped, why was he convicted? Was that a typo or did I miss something? As it stands, it sounds like the jury convicted him based on a fictional hypothetical situation, which is fvcked up on another level beyond weird rape laws...
 

Eternal

Master Don Juan
Joined
Dec 7, 2001
Messages
5,518
Reaction score
10
"The murkiness surrounding what's reasonable has deepened further with the Maryland case, which was tried in 2004. The accuser and the defendant agree that after he began to penetrate her and she wanted him to stop, he did so within a matter of seconds and did not climax. Even so, during deliberations, the jury sent a note to the judge asking if it was rape if a female changed her mind during the sex to which she consented and the man continued until climax. The judge said it was for them to decide. They convicted the defendant of first-degree rape, among other sex offenses."

Seriously, what the f*ck!? This is just a way to give women a way out when they get buyers remorse quickly. That means women can get almost any man tried and convicted of rape if this is the case.
.
F*cken scumbags taking advantage of the courts and the legal system...
 

Skel

Master Don Juan
Joined
Nov 5, 2003
Messages
1,724
Reaction score
10
This was taken from Time.com. If you want to go check feel free to do so.
 

JohnJones

Master Don Juan
Joined
Oct 22, 2002
Messages
582
Reaction score
1
Location
PA
This is the issue:

She consents to penetration, he penetrates (Penetration 1), she withdraws consent, he does not comply with her withdrawn consent and continues to have sex with her (Penetration 2).

Can he be guilty of rape for Penetration 1?

Answer: No.

Can he be guilty of rape for Penetration 2?

Answer: Yes (but this wasn't the issue: the testimony from the victim generally agreed that he stopped when he told her to).

All the feminists are ticked off because (1) they didn't read the case and (2) they think it means that if a woman says yes, she isn't allowed to stop the sex act later -- that's not what this was about. This was about him having sex with her with her consent, and the state trying to make THAT consensual sex criminal because she changed her mind.

Change the facts:

She consents to [loan him her car], he [borrows her car(Borrowing 1)], she withdraws her consent [via cell phone and he is still driving the car and does not return the car but goes on to run some more errangs (Borrowing 2)]

Can he be guilty of unauthorized use of the car for Borrowing 1? No

Borrowing 2? Yes
 

mpimpin

Master Don Juan
Joined
Apr 26, 2006
Messages
1,750
Reaction score
14
Location
Bama
Skel said:
This was taken from Time.com. If you want to go check feel free to do so.

I got this issue in the mail last week. There are too many crazy women out there.
 

wayword

Master Don Juan
Joined
Jun 13, 2006
Messages
1,482
Reaction score
21
Location
BFE
I think this ruling is ridiculous because it would be impossible to prove...and will now give women yet another out to cry rape.

Now, you could prove that a woman was flirting heavily with a guy at a party, willingly went home with him, showed no signs of struggle...which would normally imply that she wasn't raped.

HOWEVER, now she could always just lie and say...well yes, I did consent to all that...BUT told him to stop halfway through.

How the hell will you prove she is lying now??? It will just be he said, she said...and we all know that women lie like hell when it comes to sex and "rape."

Another huge blow to honest men and win for lying byches... Men, we need to mobilize and fight this shyt. Please sign up with an MRA group near you... We need MASS AWARENESS & PARTICIPATION to slowly turn the tide!
 

WaterTiger

Master Don Juan
Joined
Aug 3, 2003
Messages
1,720
Reaction score
35
Location
Wine Country, Ca
You want to get a man to stop having sex with you? Just say :"You aren't allergic to penicillin are you?"

If you aren't sure you want to have sex...then don't say YES in the first place! Unless he's hurting you or you suddenly notice he has fleas, why are you suddenly saying NO????

Saying no 3 days later is just stupid! There is no "money back guarentee" with sex.
 

MuayThai

Banned
Joined
Aug 14, 2005
Messages
314
Reaction score
7
IMO this is all Bs. Doesn't matter if a woman says no, if you aren't forcing the girl it's not rape. When you are forcing her against her will, it then becomes rape.
So, if a woman I'm friends with and have touched her (in a platonic manner) for years, one days says "no" in the middle of me tapping her waist, should I be charged with sexual harassment? It is exactly the same thing.
But of course nowadays, it is always easier to argue the commonly held "truths" of politically correct nonsense, drilled into people though media and culture, then to appeal to common sense and human intuition.


You know If you type "Womens rights" into google you get 146,000,000 "results" , Type "Mens rights" and you get 1,840,000.
Edit - Even if you type in "gay rights" you get 85,000,000 results. lol

http://magazines.ivillage.com/cosmopolitan/men/menu/articles/0,,426370_525871,00.html

Funny how this is in cosmopolitan. I like the lack of guilt and unapologetic excuses. Says so much about western women.

I'm turning into Pook.
 
Last edited:

Latinoman

Master Don Juan
Joined
Apr 21, 2006
Messages
4,031
Reaction score
57
Shiftkey said:
I don't get it. If he stopped, why was he convicted? Was that a typo or did I miss something? As it stands, it sounds like the jury convicted him based on a fictional hypothetical situation, which is fvcked up on another level beyond weird rape laws...
Well...read closely again and you will see a contradiction between

The accuser and the defendant agree that after he began to penetrate her and she wanted him to stop, he did so within a matter of seconds and did not climax.
and

Even so, during deliberations, the jury sent a note to the judge asking if it was rape if a female changed her mind during the sex to which she consented and the man continued until climax.
The question is...did he continued until climaxing AFTER she changed her mind or did he not?
 

djbr

Master Don Juan
Joined
Nov 22, 2004
Messages
965
Reaction score
12
bigjohnson said:
I think we need a google fight to see the real issue here.
EXCELLENT!!!

We are at disadvantage here.

My procedure is simple: if a girl says NO (happened 1 time), I just take the dyck out and calmly end the sex act. If I drove her to my home, I leave her wherever she wants to go. After that, I whip out her number and never ever again talk to her.

Unfair? Maybe. But we have to adapt, not to complain. Same with marriage.
 

MisterNigma

Don Juan
Joined
Nov 19, 2006
Messages
190
Reaction score
1
Location
North New Jersey
The System of Injustice and Equality.

Here's the problem as I see it,

No matter what actually occurs, the men are always at a disadvantage. It seems to always come down to a he said / she said scenario. Juries being human typically side with the crying girl, over the sad man.

The law as I see it, should be based on a couple of concepts, primarily logic, and common sense. In fact for a jury to be able to convict the decision has to be "beyond a reasonable doubt".

Now here's my problem, with no witnesses to the actual act, and no direct physical evidence (bruises, scratches, general signs of struggle) to indicate rape, how can there NOT be reasonable doubt?

Even with some bruises and scratches, it's still questionable, sex is not always a peaceful act, sometimes you bump your elbow on the wall, or get a rug burn, or gets scratched a little and scratch a little, ect...

If a woman gets buyers remorse at any given point, a case automatically turns into a he said / she said. For some (to me odd) reason, in this feminist drive for equality, for some reason the woman is always assumed to be the one telling the truth, the man lying.

What recourse does a man have to prove that he is not lying? Sadly, NONE. In any empirical science a negative hypothesis is rejected outright. This is not the case with our legal system however. The burden of proof is supposed to be on the accuser. With rape cases, this is simply not true. For some reason, almost by default the burden of proof falls on the defendant, not the prosecutor.

To me the only conceivable proof in a he said / she said case is a lie detector test. Unfortunately these tests are not admissible in court because they can easily be fooled.

Sodium pentathol, the "truth serum" is also out of the question, not getting into the obvious issues of human rights, and cruel and unusual punishment. Even with consent from one or both parties, sodium pentathol is inadmissible.

A lie detector can be fooled quite easily. An examiner typically establishes a baseline reading by asking several control questions. Such as name, date of birth, social security, male/female, basically a set of questions that have to be answered in a truthful manner. A few questions are also asked where the answer is not a certainty and a few where the answer is an obvious lie. These questions are typically ones that do not pertain to the substance of the case in question.

Fooling a lie detector, well, it's not easy, but it is definitely possible:
1. Utilize stimulants to speed up your heart and perspiration rates to a point where any possible increases read due to the added anxiety of a lie would be so negligible as to be missed altogether. Basically all answers would be read by the examiner as having a high anxiety level, and being false, unfortunately certain answers are known to be true, so the test invalidated.
2. Utilize depressants. Pretty much the opposite of stimulants. All answers would read as being "true", even control questions known to be false. Again the test is invalid.
3. Utilize a physical act to increase perspiration and heart rate. Any injury that causes pain, essentially invalidates the test. Bite the inside of your cheek while answering a question which is true. Your EKG reading, your heart rate, and your perspiration rate increase, presenting the same reading as a false answer. This is by far the easiest method to utilize, especially for a person knows ahead of time which questions are for control, and which questions actually pertain to the case.

Fooling the effect of sodium pentathol - (this is a drastic oversimplification) sodium pentathol works by inhibiting the parts of our brains responsible for creativity. The principle behind sodium pentathol is that if a person is unable to make up a false answer, that person has only two other options, refuse to answer, thus proving wrong doing, or answering using memory. Basically the idea is that you can only give an answer utilizing your memory, and thus have to tell the truth.
-The only way to deal with this, is to practice, and verbalize all possible answers before hand. Same way as you would memorize lines in a play. The result is that when asked, you utilize your memory as opposed to your creativity to answer the questions. Or internalize the "truth" as you need it to be. Essentially self hypnosis.
Realistically, there is no way to resist a sodium pentathol interrogation, if the subject of the said interrogation is not aware of it before hand.

So, no lie detector, no truth serum.

Research is being conducted into non-invasive memory retrieval. Research is also being conducted in using a scan to actually monitor the brain directly during the interrogation, as opposed to monitoring the effects of the brain upon the body. Unfortunately the former method is only a dream at this point. The latter, probably exists, but not available to the general public, and again cannot be foolproof.

The only real recourse is for the defendant to attempt to attack the character of the accuser. Basically destroy any credibility of the accuser. Convince the jury that the accuser is a liar.

Regrettably this is virtually impossible if the accuser is smart enough to rehearse the story beforehand, and the prosecutor is smart enough to coach the accusing witness.

The most notable high profile case, that mirrors this scenario, is the trial of three Duke University lacrosse players. Just Google "duke, rape" for news and you can find most details.

I don't know about you though, but I'm not that rich, nor do I come from a rich enough family to be able to afford a team of lawyers, as apposed to an over worked, under paid public defender. The only possibility is to generate sufficient publicity over the case as to get a law firm, or civil rights group to represent you for the sake of publicity and prestige for the said law firm.

So, those are my thoughts regarding women, and buyer’s remorse.

I wish I could think of a way for an accused man to deal with false accusations relating to rape and sexual harassment. Regrettably aside from what I already laid out, I can't. Hopefully I'm missing something obvious, if so, I would appreciate any thoughts, and opinions.


-E.Nigma

P.S. – For any feminists out there, no I don’t support rape or sexual harassment, but I do support truth, justice and equality. Fortunately I have never been in this situation, but I do think a lot about hypothetical scenarios.
 
Top