Rape twisted situations

[shysnale]

A man and a girl are having a real nice sexual relation.
They're in sweat, they scream, they're in intimate touch with their bestial instincts, freedom of mind is flattering them with these regular mind blanks out of pleasure peaks.

Suddenly the woman say 'NO MORE".
The poor man utterly driven by his balls can't stop and finish what they started.

Is that a rape ?

Maybe she women may have good reason for claiming a stop (she doesn't like his dirty talk or he says something about her mother or his piercing is hurting her or she is in pain ) but can't these arguments be clearly considered in someone who gets carried away and have conscience loss while sex ?

What I'm trying to say in my jazzy English is that sex, to some people, is like a particular period in the 'normal familly working day' where all stress has a chance to chill out through carnal pleasure. It's like you have a drink after work everyday at 5PM watching football. Ok You do that for 15 years, and that drink becomes so familiar to your 'internal clock' that the day you can't have it, you feel like you're lost. Aging is kind of modeling us and make our minds a little rigid. The terrible power of habits doesn't help to cope with changes and new situations , and especially from hearing the person you've been living with for 20 years asking you to stop your day to day sex time.

[Ragman]

I have always been of the opinion that it is over as soon as she says "No More" Its odd, for me personally during vanilla sex, Saying no is a big turn off, of course just the opposite is true during roleplay.

[clan_hunter]

Yes it is rape if either partner withdrawls consent, even if the other wants to keep going every person has enough self control to stop even if it has become as routine as having a beer with football every 5pm.

[Sternenlied]

Well ...
Perspective A) legal
Yes, it is rape. No matter how used your are to having sex with your wife, girlfriend, whatever ... there are no legal grounds (at least not in Germany) for any kind of "release" from your responsibilities to your partner's will.
"No" is incentive enough for anyone to stop. If you don't ... "I was just too horny to stop" won't do you any good.

Perspective B) personal
Yes, it is rape. If I - for whatever reason - suddenly feel I can't have it anymore, suddenly feel uncomfortable I expect my partner to stop immediately. Frankly I don't care at all if he is horny or used to having sex with me. I am not a piece of meat to fuck, I am a human being as well and I expect to be respected as such. If the man cannot provide that respect all he's doing is showing the woman satisfying his sexual urge is more important to him than the woman herself.
I don't need that, I don't want that.

[FinalKey]

Well ...
Perspective A) legal
Yes, it is rape. No matter how used your are to having sex with your wife, girlfriend, whatever ... there are no legal grounds (at least not in Germany) for any kind of "release" from your responsibilities to your partner's will.
"No" is incentive enough for anyone to stop. If you don't ... "I was just too horny to stop" won't do you any good.

Perspective B) personal
Yes, it is rape. If I - for whatever reason - suddenly feel I can't have it anymore, suddenly feel uncomfortable I expect my partner to stop immediately. Frankly I don't care at all if he is horny or used to having sex with me. I am not a piece of meat to fuck, I am a human being as well and I expect to be respected as such. If the man cannot provide that respect all he's doing is showing the woman satisfying his sexual urge is more important to him than the woman herself.
I don't need that, I don't want that.

Yea I agree. Once 'NO' leaves her lips I'm stopping and pulling out and hopefully I'm not in the middle of cumming lol.

[Sephy]

Suddenly the woman say 'NO MORE".
The poor man utterly driven by his balls can't stop and finish what they started.

Is that a rape ?

Nice try, but yes. That's rape. lol

[SecretObsession]

I agree that technically it is rape. However, personally, I think if it was my husband and he was already so close to cumming that he just couldn't help to let it go, I wouldn't consider it rape. More like bad timing... Now if I told my husband to stop well before he started to cum and he blatantly refused, I would definitely call that rape.

IMO, outside of marriage, I think anytime a woman says no, and the guy doesn't stop, no matter what the situation, it's rape.

[RapeU]

Yes, it is technically rape, but if I'm about to cum and she says no more there's nothing I or any guy can do to stop the flow.

She only wants attention and possibly a new fuck buddy.

[ego]

Yes, it is rape. If I - for whatever reason - suddenly feel I can't have it anymore, suddenly feel uncomfortable I expect my partner to stop immediately. Frankly I don't care at all if he is horny or used to having sex with me. I am not a piece of meat to fuck, I am a human being as well and I expect to be respected as such. If the man cannot provide that respect all he's doing is showing the woman satisfying his sexual urge is more important to him than the woman herself.
I don't need that, I don't want that.

I wouldnt disagree about if it is rape or not- there are so many situations that can be named with that word, although there are so many differences from one case to the other. I think Secry's POV about "bad timming" fits this situation better, but its another think i noticed and i'd like to bring up for discussion.

Since you say you dont care how he feels and you seem to dont respect him as well, since you see him like a living vibrator (a piece of meat as you say) that you can turn on or off with a single word, since you seem to consider the whole situation -not like something that a man and a woman are both doing, but- like something that a woman allows to a man, how do you expect to be treated otherwise ???

[ego]

Ok, i think this is a "trap" question.
In your first paragraph, you use plural. They act together. Then, they suddenly separate their thoughts. And not only, they act like they just met, like they are strangers to each other.
Imho, it just doesnt make sense...


A man and a girl are having a real nice sexual relation.
They're in sweat, they scream, they're in intimate touch with their bestial instincts, freedom of mind is flattering them with these regular mind blanks out of pleasure peaks.

Suddenly the woman say 'NO MORE".
The poor man utterly driven by his balls can't stop and finish what they started.

If their relationship is the way you describe, she wont say "NO MORE". Not suddenly. She must have a reason. But even if she does, he will stop.
I've noticed that in long term relations, men stop thinking with their balls. Most probably because balls are satisfied after some weeks with the same woman and let space for the other brain.

[kathryn]

it is wrong but guys do it all the time. if you say stop it hurts.. they say "what? oh shit sorry" but carry on

[Sierra]

If I were to suddenly say "no" during sex with my husband he would know there was a very good reason and stop immediately. I suspect he would be so startled that he would lose his concentration anyway. I am not a blushing young virgin who loses her nerve halfway through the proceedings.

When I was in college I knew girls who would use this as a power play. They got reputations as cock-teasers and spent a lot of evenings alone. Unless there is some actual physical issue, calling it off in the middle of sex is a dirty trick.

That said, once she says no, he'd better pull out and finish himself off.

[Sternenlied]

Since you say you dont care how he feels and you seem to dont respect him as well, since you see him like a living vibrator (a piece of meat as you say) that you can turn on or off with a single word, since you seem to consider the whole situation -not like something that a man and a woman are both doing, but- like something that a woman allows to a man, how do you expect to be treated otherwise ???

Ego, dear ... you know I am not that kind of woman. ;)
I DO expect respect and I DO give it.
I didn't say I don't care about his feelings, I just don't care if he's so horny he thinks that may be an excuse not to stop. I would never cry "stop" just for funsies, there has always been good reason and there always would be! A boyfriend of mine knows that and so I would expect him - in that particular situation - to do what I say without hesitation, yes, that much is true.
And by the way - although I don't see my man as such - I CAN turn him on whenever I want! :D

[ego]

Come on dear, turning a man on is no big deal! :D
We are programmed by nature to be easily turned on!

Anyway, putting the matter in reality situations really alters the thing. In your previous post about Snale's visionary scenario i thought i meet a wall, you know like you really believe he is a soulless piece of meat, predestinated to do what you say and only. Perhaps was the expression "for whatever reason" what made me see this that way. You know, that expression includes many things, thinking it is funny is one for example. And some of these reasons mean no respect to him, dont you think?

Your second post is way more "flexible", it indicates there is a serious reason.
I can accept that a woman can say "stop" at any time, with reason or not (although doing so without a good reason will make me reconsider our relationship).
I can accept that a reason can occur any time during sex.
Can you accept that perhaps he had a good reason as well to continue?
If no, i am afraid it is you who demands respect and blind trust, but without giving any.
If yes, perhaps you would like to reconsider your initial statment.
I mean, rape? You call a situation like that a rape? You call him a rapist? Le Tenia (irreversible character) was a rapist. Your boyfriend is amenable here -no objections on that- but a rapist? You call the police and wish they put them in the same cage???

[Sternenlied]

No, I would not want him to be put where all the "real" rapists sit, definitely not!
And yes, I can accept the possibility the man might have reason not to stop. The sad thing is everybody has a reason for whatever they do - that's what makes some things so horrible.
I however agree ... maybe in some parts of a relationship I expect more than I can give (at least in the beginning).
I do not claim my point is necessarily a hundred percent fair. I have a somewhat "troubled" past and I admit to the fact this left me unfair to some point. If a situation like that arose I would feel violated, yes. That may not be fair in every possible case but that's the way I feel about it.

[ego]

I find it fair if you feel violated. I just wanted to point out that its not necessarily him who was unfair. The way Snale described it seems to be an unfair situation. You know, the "me" and "him" against "us" stuff.....

I'm sorry i made that personal.

[Sternenlied]

I find it fair if you feel violated. I just wanted to point out that its not necessarily him who was unfair. The way Snale described it seems to be an unfair situation. You know, the "me" and "him" against "us" stuff.....

Well, isn't that the way the world sometimes works?
You know ...
"Us" against "you guys"?
;)

I'm sorry i made that personal.

No need to be!
No harm done! :)

[ego]

Well, isn't that the way the world sometimes works?
You know ...
"Us" against "you guys"?
;)

All the time but when in a relationship. Then, there is only "us". If "I" appears, that is the beginning of the end...
But thats only me i guess.

[Ace_McGuire]

Well ...
Perspective A) legal
Yes, it is rape. No matter how used your are to having sex with your wife, girlfriend, whatever ... there are no legal grounds (at least not in Germany) for any kind of "release" from your responsibilities to your partner's will.
"No" is incentive enough for anyone to stop. If you don't ... "I was just too horny to stop" won't do you any good.

Perspective B) personal
Yes, it is rape. If I - for whatever reason - suddenly feel I can't have it anymore, suddenly feel uncomfortable I expect my partner to stop immediately. Frankly I don't care at all if he is horny or used to having sex with me. I am not a piece of meat to fuck, I am a human being as well and I expect to be respected as such. If the man cannot provide that respect all he's doing is showing the woman satisfying his sexual urge is more important to him than the woman herself.
I don't need that, I don't want that.
That's true. If anyone has ever been forced into a situation they did not want to be in then they'd know how much it sucks for them and logically and morally shouldn't desire to do that to others.

I like Immanuel Kant's formulation where you treat rational beings (ie us), as ends instead of means. In a situation where you role-play, both partners give consent and are being treated as a means. But, if some douche bag wants to fuck a chick because he's too horny to stop, then he's not treating her as a rational being, but as a means to satisfy his pleasure.

If by the poster's logic, a man could rape a woman and get away with it because he was too horny and it's a way to relieve stress, then I could come after him (legally) and peel his skin off because it's a way for me to cope with my emotional problems and it's a habit I've become accustomed to.

To think someone would try to pass off this argument is seriously lame. When debating law and morality, logic comes into play and the only way you can make a moral, ethical, or legal rule usable it has to be universalized. If we're excused to have a lack of self-restraint and discipline then nothing works anymore. Every day, because you're too tired or too lazy, you'd be excused from coming to work. Doctors could be total fuck-ups and never be held accountable, and people can target you for some fucked up shit and wouldn't be punished because they felt like doing.

That's the thing about people with anti-social personality disorder. They don't mind hurting others if they can get away with it. They're really not good to have around, in my opinion, because it's their nature to destroy the social balance so long as their desires are fulfilled.

I don't know why I find certain things to be turn-ons, but I don't ever see myself doing what you described, ever. If a girl who nice enough to have sex with me, decided to stop out of no where, the least I can do is respect her wishes. We have to sometimes make sacrifices of our desires so as to maintain social harmony.

If you have people you love, care about, or are concerned about your own well-being, then you need to implement pro-social behavior. If anti-socials make it so that one has to be capable of evil in order to survive, then civilization collapses. It's something observable in history, like before the Roman Empire fell Roman writers and historians complained often that Rome had changed for the worse. Romans used to be more morally upright, but by that time a Roman had to be evil in order to survive. As a result no one wanted to carry a sword and defend an corrupt empire anymore. Why risk your life for something evil? Why care about those who only want to use you?

Well, that's my rant, and first posting here. I had to say something because I felt that this guy was being a moron. Maybe I'm judging him too harshly, and maybe should refrain from name-calling but it pisses me off that people here think like this. After all, we're humans, we're not fucking animals no better than the ones we eat or use for clothing.

[Ace_McGuire]

I agree that technically it is rape. However, personally, I think if it was my husband and he was already so close to cumming that he just couldn't help to let it go, I wouldn't consider it rape. More like bad timing... Now if I told my husband to stop well before he started to cum and he blatantly refused, I would definitely call that rape.

IMO, outside of marriage, I think anytime a woman says no, and the guy doesn't stop, no matter what the situation, it's rape.

I suppose from your perspective, your husband is someone you care about and since you might think that if in a similar type of situation he'd yield his desires for you, then the least you could do is put away your own wants and give in to his.

[ego]

Welcome Ace.
Nice post. Who is the guy you refer to?
(if me, dont hesitate say so, its obvious you have misunderstand) :D

[Ace_McGuire]

Yes, it is technically rape, but if I'm about to cum and she says no more there's nothing I or any guy can do to stop the flow.

She only wants attention and possibly a new fuck buddy.

True though. From a male perspective, there are tough situations and if a woman puts you in those kinds of situations then it's irresponsible on her part. She shouldn't be so indecisive to wait to the near the finish to say no. What's worse is that she states you did rape her even when she didn't communicate with you (either she unsuccessfully did so or the other party didn't listen). However, if it's the guy's fault he couldn't tell she wanted to stop (ie, "But, I didn't hear her!") then he should be punished so as to prevent other men from using similar excuses on women and for people in general when committing a crime.
Yet, I do hate it when girls do cry rape for arbitrary reasons. Not to be sexist, because I'm sure that usually many women don't fake being raped. But, some women have mental issues and try to punish men in some way or another. Since, society tends to immediately sympathize with women first, in part due to antiquated, sexist belief that the female sex being the "weaker" sex, we make it so that our culture is such an environment where it's possible for a woman to get away with this.

If I ever got arrested for rape, I'd be like so depressed and ashamed. I wouldn't want to come home anymore and see my parents or anybody I know. But, I'd be so pissed if I was falsely accused however. I don't know, the "sex wars" is a pretty tricky game to play I think.

[Ace_McGuire]

To ego^:

I think it was to shysnail. He was the one who asked the question if it counts as rape if the guy was accustomed to sex and his feelings prevented him from complying with his sexual partner's request.

[Ace_McGuire]

it is wrong but guys do it all the time. if you say stop it hurts.. they say "what? oh shit sorry" but carry on

lol. Not to be mean, but that's because what that phrase probably implies to them is stop whatever it is you're doing (but not stop having sex) because it hurts. So, they might think they have to do it another way or something. And, honestly they probably hope that's what you mean because the way men's brains are built. Not that they can't stop, if you make it very clear like saying "No! GET off of ME!" or something like that, then he shouldn't have an excuse at that point.

[Ace_McGuire]

No, I would not want him to be put where all the "real" rapists sit, definitely not!
And yes, I can accept the possibility the man might have reason not to stop. The sad thing is everybody has a reason for whatever they do - that's what makes some things so horrible.
I however agree ... maybe in some parts of a relationship I expect more than I can give (at least in the beginning).
I do not claim my point is necessarily a hundred percent fair. I have a somewhat "troubled" past and I admit to the fact this left me unfair to some point. If a situation like that arose I would feel violated, yes. That may not be fair in every possible case but that's the way I feel about it.

I think a better analogy might be with theft. If you tell someone they can have your VCR, because you don't want the old thing anymore, then they come to get it. Now, if they're in you're house you can change your mind and say "Sorry, I think I'll keep it instead," then if they try to take it anyways that's still theft. But, if they have it in their arms and as they go to carry it out of your door and you say you change your mind (I think, but I'm not a lawyer) then it's still theft, but it's just a dick-move on your part and not very fair.

[ego]

You have misunderstood as well. Snale asks these things now and then and i'm sure he does so because a) his mind likes putting him in dilemma and b) he wants know what we think.
Actually, thats why boards exist, to share opinions. I mean you dont know whats his POV on that, you only know that he asked.

[Sternenlied]

And he's a really nice guy.
He'd never do anything (or post anything for that matter) to consciously hurt anyone around here.
He's just a curious guy who loves interesting subjects.

[menace]

Yeah, I too like making up weird scenarios and then post those here just to get a convo going. Some of my topic are even more controversial then this one :skull-red

[Ace_McGuire]

I guess I was too quick to judge this guy. It's like if someone would assume the wrong things about me because of things I might be interested in would offended as well.

I'm curious to know what people's opinions are on this article from CNN.com. I personally didn't agree with the wording of a couple of sentences, but I'll leave the initial open observations to someone else on this thread.

Withdrawing consent during intercourse
California's highest court clarifies the definition of rape

By Sherry F. Colb
FindLaw Columnist
Special to CNN.com

(FindLaw) --Earlier this month, the Supreme Court of California confronted an important issue about how rape should be defined under the law. In People v. John Z., the court held that a woman who initially consents to sexual intercourse does not thereby give up her right to end the encounter at whatever point she chooses. In other words, when a woman tells her partner to stop, and he forces her to continue, he is guilty of rape.

One could imagine difficult factual variations, in which the woman's communication is ambiguous or her partner's compliance almost, but not quite, immediate. The basic ruling, however, should not be controversial. If a woman (or a man, for that matter) is clear in conveying the desire to end a sexual interaction, a decision forcibly to disregard that desire is an instance of rape.

Of greater interest than the California court's decision itself, is the fact that the court took the case in order to resolve a lower court split over the issue. According to at least one court in the state of California, then, for purposes of rape law, consent to penetration – once given – may not be withdrawn. And courts in other states have held the same.

Such a position rests on outdated ideas about the harm of rape and the biological imperatives of men who are engaged in sexual intercourse.
An old view of the harm of rape

In People v. Vela – one of the cases the Supreme Court overruled with its recent decision – a California appellate court had held that as long as an alleged victim gives consent prior to penetration, there is no rape, despite the withdrawal of consent during intercourse.

The Vela court cited precedents from Maryland and North Carolina as persuasive authority. (Of course, out-of-state cases do not bind California courts, but California courts may nonetheless be swayed by their analysis). The majority reasoned "the essence of the crime of rape is the outrage to the person and feelings of the female resulting from the nonconsensual violation of her womanhood. ... If [after consenting to penetration,] she withdraws consent during the act of sexual intercourse, and the male forcibly continues the act without interruption ... the sense of outrage to her person and feelings could hardly be of the same magnitude [as would the disregard of an initial refusal] ..."

Though the court speaks of the woman's person and feelings, its use of the words "violation of her womanhood" evokes an earlier century – a time when a woman who was no longer "intact" would have much less cause to feel violated by rape than her purer sister. The court's argument, then, suggests a continuum of harms, one in which sex without consent is in some instances very bad; in some, not so bad; and in some, perfectly fine.

Consider the greatest "outrage" along the Vela court's implicit scale. The virgin who has saved herself for her wedding night has the strongest interest in avoiding unwanted intercourse. Her purity as a maiden hangs in the balance, and any man who would disregard that purity commits a grave offense against her and her family. Indeed, in the Bible, a man who rapes a virgin is said to owe her father damages and is expected to marry his victim. In that way, presumably, he can ensure that her reduced market value does not eliminate her prospects for marriage and a family.
Another antiquated view: 'promiscuous' women suffer less from rape

In modern secular cultures, by contrast, non-virgins also have the right not to be raped. And, of course, a rapist cannot avoid liability for his crime through marriage.

Nonetheless, juries today remain skeptical about a woman's claims of rape if she is "promiscuous" – a vestige of the notion that a woman has one opportunity to decide whether she will be a good girl who waits until she is married or a bad girl who doesn't. As soon as she says "yes" once, she's "that kind of girl" forever.

The crime of rape, on this account, has more to do with a victim's character or "virtue" – her status, that is – than with her right to bodily integrity against all manner of sexual intrusion.
The marital rape exemption: another relic

Even if one progresses beyond a status approach to the definition of a rape victim, one might nonetheless believe that with respect to any one man, a woman who says "yes" forfeits her right to say no forever after. This, after all, is the perspective of marital rape exemptions. Only a few decades ago, these exemptions permitted men in much of the country to force their wives to have intercourse without criminal accountability for rape. (Many jurisdictions, moreover, continue to rank marital rape as a less serious offense than the rape of a stranger).

A progenitor of the marital rape exemption in this country was Sir Matthew Hale, a former Chief Justice in England. When British practices were imported to the U.S., Hale's view on marital rape came along. Hale famously said in the Eighteenth Century that "the husband cannot be guilty of a rape committed by himself upon his lawful wife, for by their mutual matrimonial consent and contract the wife hath given up herself in this kind unto her husband, which she cannot retract."

Some even argued in the late Twentieth Century for extension of the marital rape exemption to cohabitants. The argument was that limiting the rape license to married men was unfair to unmarried men who have undertaken committed, monogamous relationships that should entitle them to the same sexual access to their women as married men have to theirs. A number of states – including Connecticut, Kentucky, and Pennsylvania – apparently found such reasoning convincing, for they embodied it in their laws.

On this theory of rape, a woman may decide which men have and do not have consent, but once that initial decision is made, she cannot pick and choose on which occasions those men may exercise their prerogative. Consent thus becomes something like an unrestricted train pass on Amtrak.

Under such a view, the logic of Vela is unassailable. A woman who not only has chosen to consent to a particular man but has consented to him in the very same encounter has necessarily given up any right to stop him. She may still be able to decide to say no to some men (and perhaps even to decide on any given day whether to say yes again to a man with whom she has been intimate before). But if consensual penetration has already taken place, she must live with her decision, a variation on the expression, "you've made your bed; now lie in it."
An alternative, modern conception of the harm of rape

One might understand the harm of rape very differently, however. On this alternative understanding, what is wrong with rape is that it compels a person to be subjected to sexual intercourse, when she has specifically and clearly indicated that she does not want to be.

She may choose to say "stop it" for any of a variety of reasons. Perhaps the particular man is unattractive to her, or she is not in the mood to have sex, or maybe she has an infection that unexpectedly renders the particular experience physically painful. Regardless of her reasons, though, the consent is hers to give or take away, on any particular occasion, as she so chooses.

This view takes account of an emotional reality: Regardless of what motivates a particular woman to refuse a man, his deliberate, forcible disregard of that refusal is a traumatizing and humiliating experience for her. It inflicts harm because it takes a decision about the most intimate, personal, and vulnerable matters in her life out of a woman's hands.

The harm of rape, then, is in forcibly depriving a person of her right of bodily integrity. The marital rapist – or any rapist who has once received consent – still violates the woman, because he treats her earlier consent as a transfer of dominion instead of an expression of desire that – to be freely given – must be freely revocable as well.
The problem with a 'waiver' approach to consent

Not only does the Vela approach to sexual consent reflect a regressive view of women's sexuality, but it is also troubling for a second reason: It treats consent as the moral equivalent of a "waiver."

In legal parlance, "waiver" refers to a situation in which a person voluntarily decides to give up a right that he has. A defendant charged with a crime, for example, has the right to a trial. If he pleads guilty, he waives that right and thereby foregoes the benefits that a trial would have accorded him. He cannot later, after sentencing, decide that he would like to have a trial after all.

Similarly, a defendant who goes to trial has a Fifth Amendment right to refuse to take the witness stand. She may decide nonetheless to testify in her own behalf. But by doing so, she waives her Fifth Amendment right not to be compelled to answer a prosecutor's questions (at least those that fall within the scope of her direct examination).

In these situations, the person who has waived her rights has given them up and ordinarily cannot later decide to reassert them. The waiver, in other words, is irrevocable. The giving of consent, however, should not be.

Almost by definition, an assertion that "I don't want to do this anymore" negates an earlier consent. The reason that waivers are not always revocable is that the party who has obtained the waiver may develop an interest in relying on that waiver, because the party has reciprocally given up something valuable as well.

When a defendant takes the witness stand and waives her Fifth Amendment rights, for example, she provides the jury with evidence that the prosecutor now has an interest in rebutting, an interest that was not present prior to the defendant's testifying. It would accordingly be unfair to deny the prosecutor an opportunity for cross-examination under these circumstances.
The myth of the unstoppable male

Should consent to sexual intercourse be treated as an irrevocable waiver? Those who argue in the affirmative believe that a man who has received consent will properly allow his biological urges to take over, in a way that makes it unfair to demand of him that he stop. He has, in other words, relinquished his obligation to exercise self-control, in response to the woman's invitation.

As the brief in support of the defendant in John Z. put it, "[b]y essence of the act of sexual intercourse, a male's primal urge to reproduce is aroused. It is therefore unreasonable for a female and the law to expect a male to cease having sexual intercourse immediately upon her withdrawal of consent."

Giving legal protection to a male's unstoppable "primal urge" treats the man's sexual desire as a bullet that – once fired – is physically impossible to stop. This view has significant implications for women's safety and liberty.

Taken to its logical conclusion, such an approach requires women to restrict their behaviors in all sorts of ways – including how they dress and whether they appear in public unescorted – if they are to avoid being sexually assaulted. It removes male accountability for sexual assault and instead places responsibility upon the woman to prove that she took all possible steps to avoid awakening the man's primal urge.

Just like the status definition of the harm of rape (suggesting that rape only counts when it happens to virgins and not to the "promiscuous"), the myth of the unstoppable male effectively regulates women in the guise of defining sexual assault. In fact, it may be precisely the desire to dominate and punish a woman who has behaved like a "tease" that motivates men to force them to continue to have sex after consent has been unambiguously withdrawn. In that sense, the sexual act that proceeds after a woman's withdrawal of consent is no longer truly the "same" act as that which took place while her partner still had consent.

That puts the law to a choice: It must either punish aroused men who inflict forcible intercourse, or condone the violent punishment of fickle women who frustrate the "primal urge."
No means no, whenever and to whomever it is said

Many of us are loath to regulate intimacy. Some of my readers may even remember the infamous Antioch Code, in which male college students were expected to ask female companions' permission for each advancing stage of intimacy in a sexual encounter. Comedians had a field day with the Antioch Code, including sketches in which a male would say, "May I now escalate our level of intimacy by moving my lips from your neck to your ear?"

In a democracy, it would seem, consenting adults should generally be free to engage in sexual relationships without government oversight or instructions on how to escalate intimacy. That being said, however, the reality of consent is a crucial precondition to such freedom. The liberty to harm another is not, and should not be, protected.

Freedom thus requires that consent not be presumed or irrevocable – but actual and true. So that women may decide whether or not to have or to continue to have sex, then, free men must be capable of resisting primal urges, no matter how strong or at what point they emerge. Those men who cannot or will not do so are sexual predators and should be legally recognized as such.

Sherry F. Colb, a FindLaw columnist, is a professor at Rutgers Law School in Newark.



Find this article at:
http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/01/17/findlaw.analysis.colb.rape/index.html

[ego]

I like Immanuel Kant's formulation where you treat rational beings (ie us), as ends instead of means. In a situation where you role-play, both partners give consent and are being treated as a means. But, if some douche bag wants to fuck a chick because he's too horny to stop, then he's not treating her as a rational being, but as a means to satisfy his pleasure.

The conclusion is thereabout. He is seeing her as a hole.
If by the poster's logic, a man could rape a woman and get away with it because he was too horny and it's a way to relieve stress, then I could come after him (legally) and peel his skin off because it's a way for me to cope with my emotional problems and it's a habit I've become accustomed to.
But i extracted a very different conclusion from the initial description of the situation. I guess any one of us will "picture" it with his own criteria, according to his background.

[ego]

To think someone would try to pass off this argument is seriously lame. When debating law and morality, logic comes into play and the only way you can make a moral, ethical, or legal rule usable it has to be universalized.
:eek:
You refer to a single-culture world? "One world, one king" ?
All attempts failed so far.

You come upon the strongest wall: People fight to sustain their modus vivendi. To some cultures, their logic, ethics and even their law, demands they resist to anyone who wants to put rules on them.


There are cultures that consider that putting a man in temptation is a sin/crime and thus women have to be always covered.
And there are cultures that "encourage" women to expose and show their body.

[Ace_McGuire]

The conclusion is thereabout. He is seeing her as a hole.

Yeah, I made a mistake, I meant ENDS. In consentual role-playing the parties are treating eachother as ENDS instead of means.

[ego]

Perhaps i got it wrong.
Means- the "vehicle" that will take you to your "destination".
Ends- your "destination".
Is it so?

[Ace_McGuire]

Perhaps i got it wrong.
Means- the "vehicle" that will take you to your "destination".
Ends- your "destination".
Is it so?

Yes, that's correct. Point is that as a rational being one would find it logical to treat other rational beings for what their worth. And, all rational beings are worth the same as any of their goals. The rational being is fully self-autonomous and thus creates her own goals. A fully self-controlled being does not need control from others, and thus should not be dominated. It is because of this that a rational being is independent and has a right to be treated for what it is. This also includes having rights to their own resources (including themselves).

Yet, in her environment, a rational being's rights might be infringed due to a variety of causes. It is because of this that rational beings collect into a society in which there is a contract amongst all members in which all agree to from the moment they join.

To maintain a society that can protect a rational being from the elements she would logically choose to universalize her actions to uphold the social contract. A rational being can't assume that the rest of society will act as sheeps and contradict their nature, to allow him to prey on them as he chooses, because that would contradict reasoning if the observer knew the entire picture.

The rational being, being in the original position, and was given all relevant information (with the exception of who they are in the real world), and was free of body and emotion then they would NEVER choose to violate their civilization's laws. Violating the laws that they agreed to abide by (whether in the real world, they were aware of this or not) would defeat the purpose of society and would destroy its foundations as it no longer serves a purpose.

With the collapse of any society, ushers in a situation where the environment has reverted to its primitive form. Ultimately, the anti-social would find himself alone to fend for himself with no assistance from others. By violating the social contract, the anti-social being makes it so that she will not receive the optimum amount of resources.

It is because of this, that such anti-social actions contradict the very nature of a rational being. If a human being's intellect was free from body, emotion, bias, ego, and all other inhibitors then they would always be rational and always do what is right regardless of how that affects them.

But, since we humans do have to deal with our emotions, egos, selfish desires, personal beliefs, and a need for resources for our survival we can't always be rational. After all, biologically, we're animals. What separates us from other animals is our intellect, which enables us to chose not to give into our animal instincts.

Unfortunately, humans also have egos as well, which also seems to make us unique. This can conflict with our intellect as our intellect in the real world tends to be driven by the ego. The ego is central in the human mind and has power over other aspects of the consciousness. As a result, the ego will only allow the intellect to observe certain data as it would put up a mental filter for the intellect. Anti-socials are those who have no control over their ego.

These individuals allow their actions to be ruled by their own desires, regardless of what happens to anybody else. They make the illogical assumption that society will continue to exist and there will be enough of others who will maintain society well enough to benefit themselves individually. They don't consider that their actions degrade all civil institutions and would affect themselves negatively in the end, because humans don't normally look at the entire picture.

[Ace_McGuire]

:eek:
You refer to a single-culture world? "One world, one king" ?
All attempts failed so far.

You come upon the strongest wall: People fight to sustain their modus vivendi. To some cultures, their logic, ethics and even their law, demands they resist to anyone who wants to put rules on them.


There are cultures that consider that putting a man in temptation is a sin/crime and thus women have to be always covered.
And there are cultures that "encourage" women to expose and show their body.

Yeah but that doesn't make it the right thing to do. People establish culture as it is one segment in the make up of a society. Yet, sometimes laws and cultural norms were established for either arbitrary or self-satisfying reasons and are thus irrational. Perhaps women should consider men and cover up to keep temptation from arising within men. On the other hand, women are equal to men in that they too are rational beings and do have a right to dress the same way men do.

Logic can be used to prove everything, just the same with statistics, facts, or anything else. However, it's when one has all the relevant information can they come to a clear conclusion. Governments are often times established, and are usually traditions sent in times when their creators did not have the entire scope of the truth when they came up with those rules.

[ego]

Well, you make some very right points, but some other are maddeningly wrong.
Strange mix...