Time Article: A Time Limit on Rape - Rape Board

LucyBoots · 02-08-2007, 02:27 PM

A Time Limit on Rape

Thursday, Feb. 01, 2007

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.

ego · 02-08-2007, 02:34 PM

Interesting.....

Becka · 02-08-2007, 07:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by insignia0

thats interesting i think in america it shud be one law to fit all states not ech state have there own laws cuase due to so many ppl moving all over america they can be forgiven for nto keeping up with all the slight changes but well i do think if a girl says no as long as the act ceases in the next few seconds then it shud be cool

Um...Where are you from because that concept, that each state has the independence to draft and decide on its own laws is a fundamental cornerstone of the constitution...So if you are American your point of view concerns me a great deal...

B.

SorryForBeing · 02-08-2007, 07:42 PM

Wow... I think that if the girl disagrees, the guy should definitely stop or well in any case of someone wanting the other to stop.. Eh, but I suppose it's unfair to ask that after getting into it for a long time. Still, the man should stop. It's tough to decide in overall situations.

Andering REDDSON · 02-08-2007, 09:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Becka

Um...Where are you from because that concept, that each state has the independence to draft and decide on its own laws is a fundamental cornerstone of the constitution...So if you are American your point of view concerns me a great deal...
B.

Strangely enough, I agree- To some degree.
My late roommate was driving down I-5, and missed his connection to- Well, wherever it was.
He flipped around, got back on the freeway- And was promptly pulled over by the Washington State Police.

Seems in Washington, certain parts of the freeway system are considered â€œdiamond lanes onlyâ€ regardless what lane youâ€™re inâ€¦ He was riding by himself, so when he got back on, he was hit for the fine (dunno how much it was). The law was ENGINEERED specifically to hit â€œforeignersâ€, knowing theyâ€™d be unable to fight the ticket do to the distances involved.

This, however, is even worseâ€¦ Now, you can not only be â€œfinedâ€, but even thrown in PRISON- Or, contrariwise, be a victim of a major crime, and unable to do anything about it.

Having said that- Some things are common sense, and laws (and court cases) like these, are a SHINING example of the comment: â€œÂ¿Why do they call it common sense if nobodyâ€™s got any?â€

MarcEdeSade · 02-09-2007, 05:36 AM

Such a "sticky wicket" what indeed is a good definition of a reasonable time to stop? "immediately" can mean so many things...

LucyBoots · 02-14-2007, 03:07 PM

Can I play devil's advocate here? What if a girl uses this law to her own financial gain? For instance, what if the girl wanted to extort money from a celebrity (like a basketball player, rapper, etc.). Lets say she meets him at a club and invites him back to her place. In the middle of sex (or right before he orgasms) she says "NO" and claims rape. Now he is going to have to pay her hush money! Where do we draw the line?

(Note: just trying to spark debate here.)

02-08-2007, 02:27 PM	#1
LucyBoots Member Join Date: Jan 2007 Posts: 43 Reputation: 131	Time Article: A Time Limit on Rape A Time Limit on Rape Thursday, Feb. 01, 2007 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.

02-08-2007, 02:34 PM	#2
ego the obscure Join Date: Nov 2006 Posts: 3,457 Reputation: 14892	Interesting..... __________________ ..lure them all into the abyss!

02-09-2007, 05:36 AM	#6
MarcEdeSade Amoralist Libertine Join Date: Dec 2005 Posts: 391 Reputation: 1262	Such a "sticky wicket" what indeed is a good definition of a reasonable time to stop? "immediately" can mean so many things... __________________ Pain is inevitable....suffering is optional

02-08-2007, 07:42 PM	#4
SorryForBeing Member Join Date: Jan 2007 Posts: 68 Reputation: 293	Wow... I think that if the girl disagrees, the guy should definitely stop or well in any case of someone wanting the other to stop.. Eh, but I suppose it's unfair to ask that after getting into it for a long time. Still, the man should stop. It's tough to decide in overall situations.

02-14-2007, 03:07 PM	#7
LucyBoots Member Join Date: Jan 2007 Posts: 43 Reputation: 131	Can I play devil's advocate here? What if a girl uses this law to her own financial gain? For instance, what if the girl wanted to extort money from a celebrity (like a basketball player, rapper, etc.). Lets say she meets him at a club and invites him back to her place. In the middle of sex (or right before he orgasms) she says "NO" and claims rape. Now he is going to have to pay her hush money! Where do we draw the line? (Note: just trying to spark debate here.)