The left wants the law out of the bedroom.....Wait!

[RMNIXON]

They found a way in:


Are women no longer adult enough to manage sex?
By BETSY HART
Scripps Howard News Service
2007-02-15 00:00:00


"A Time Limit on Rape," a news story by Jeninne Lee-St. John in Time magazine, opens with this question: If a woman consents to sex with a man but then withdraws that consent during the sex act itself, can he still be convicted of rape and sentenced to prison if, essentially, he doesn't stop fast enough?

"The answer depends on where you live," Lee-St. John writes in answer to her own question. In seven states, she writes, courts "have ruled that a woman may withdraw her consent at any time and if a man doesn't stop he is committing rape."

My home state of state of Illinois is the first to pass legislation giving a woman that "protection." Gee, I feel so much safer now. I mean, there's a law!

Sheesh.

Feminists and "victim advocates" argue that without being able to change her mind and say no during sexual intercourse itself, "there is no recourse for a woman who begins to feel pain or realizes her partner isn't wearing a condom or has HIV," writes Lee-St. John. No recourse? Now, I'm not sure how they think a woman is going to suddenly get that latter piece of information only after sex has begun. But are these feminists really saying that all men are such incredible brutes they wouldn't stop, if they found their partner was uncomfortable for some reason, without the threat of prison? Just what kind of men are these feminists involved with?

But more likely is that this is what many in the sisterhood want to think of men because it fits with the "man-bad, woman-good" theory of life they consistently project to the world.

In a complicated Maryland case that may soon make it to the state's highest court, a young man and woman both testified that she told him to stop during the sex act and that he did so within seconds, and without completion. What preceded those agreed-upon events is murky; what matters is that the jury asked the judge during deliberations, "Is it rape if a female changed her mind during the sex to which she consented and the man continued ... ." The judge said it was for them to decide. (The defendant, who appealed that conviction to the state's Supreme Court, currently is serving a 5-year prison sentence for rape.)

But the Maryland appellate court has essentially said no, once intercourse has begun with a woman's consent, it's too late to call it rape and put him in prison if he doesn't stop immediately. So now feminists are "inflamed," according to Lee St.-John. They say they will push to change the law if the high court doesn't strike down the appellate court ruling.
Huh?

To establish that a woman can fully and even enthusiastically agree to sexual intercourse and then in the middle of it, if she chooses differently, he must stop "immediately" or he goes to prison, does women no favors.

For one thing, as Lee-St. John notes, what qualifies as "immediately"? Can we really count on a law to be fully "protective" in the moment, anyway? The seduction game can be incredibly, even wonderfully, daring, complicated and nuanced. This shouldn't be a news flash. So, should there be some officially sanctioned signal, or perhaps a notarized paper, she has on hand to show, "I really mean it! You've got two seconds?"
Talk about creating a tangled web.

Sadly, what the feminists are advocating here degrades the real crime of rape. And, it infantilizes women. At some point _ gasp _ we are responsible for the choices we make, and for managing the consequences of the choices we make. That's what's empowering. We women are grown-ups, aren't we?
I'm not sure. There used to be some generally accepted rules of engagement between civilized men and women. No, they weren't always followed, but they provided something of a known playing field.

Now we just involve the courts when a woman's sensibilities are offended because, like very young children, we can't possibly be expected to manage those offended sensibilities ourselves.
And that's what's considered "progress" for women.

__________________________________________________ _______________


My guess is that a pack of condoms needs to come in a larger box full of legal contracts. That and an egg timer!

[Diesel66]

In general, I agree with the new laws. If one partner changes their mind, the other must stop.

But in practice I wonder how well it will work. How long is an appropriate time between the request and stop. If he cums in that time, is he guilty ?

[nbiggershaft]

I remember back in the dorms, we actually had a mock rape trial, in which we dealt with one of these vague circumstances. The accused was a friend of the girl who invited the girl to his room, they made out, took off their clothes, and had sex. The girl later claimed it was rape because she had never given consent. She testified no time before during or after did she say or do anything to say she didn't want to have sex, but he didn't ask her if she wanted to have sex. They took a poll of the audience and he was convicted by a overwhelming margin. It was the most absurd thing I have ever seen.

[Simius]

Originally Posted by RMNIXON

Feminists and "victim advocates" argue that without being able to change her mind and say no during sexual intercourse itself, "there is no recourse for a woman who begins to feel pain or realizes her partner isn't wearing a condom or has HIV," writes Lee-St. John. No recourse? Now, I'm not sure how they think a woman is going to suddenly get that latter piece of information only after sex has begun. But are these feminists really saying that all men are such incredible brutes they wouldn't stop, if they found their partner was uncomfortable for some reason, without the threat of prison? Just what kind of men are these feminists involved with?

I have no problem with a woman being able to change her mind after the sexing starts. The guy should get off reasonably quickly. Just because most guys would do so, doesn't mean there shouldn't be a law against those who wouldn't.

As far as the case she cited, it is pretty bogus to convict him of rape when he pulled out pretty much ASAP. In my opinion the following scenario would be okay: sexing starts, girl says "Stop", guy says "what?, girl says "stop", guy stops.

What wouldn't be okay is: sexing starts, girl says "stop", guy continues until he is done.

I'm sure it would be kind of murky trying to write a reasonable law... but having a law where a guy has to stop after being told to is fine by me. Maybe we could adopt the "ten second rule" into the bedroom.

[Dumpy Dooby]

The law is a crock of shit. It's one of those "he said/she said" laws, which is complete nonsense. Basically, the girl says, "I said 'no.'" The guy says, "No she didn't." or "I didn't hear her." or whatever.

Of course women should be protected from those that wish to sexually assault them. But there are methods of looking for such an assault, i.e., semen on her clothing, bruises, pregnancy (obviously), etc. These new laws are complete bullshit because there is absolutely no defense for an innocent man, other than, "I thought she consented."

[SoFlaJDM]

i don't see where the "left" comes into play here

[Scrum]

What a crock of shit.

If a girl says yes I should be able to do anything I want without her being able to suddenly say no.

Wine bottle up the ass making you bleed? Sorry sweetie, you said yes when this all started.
Not my fault you don't like sex the way I like it. You said yes and now I can punch you in the face as much I want.

Fucking lefties.

[hsmith]

Originally Posted by Scrumtralecent

What a crock of shit.

If a girl says yes I should be able to do anything I want without her being able to suddenly say no.

Wine bottle up the ass making you bleed? Sorry sweetie, you said yes when this all started.
Not my fault you don't like sex the way I like it. You said yes and now I can punch you in the face as much I want.

Fucking lefties.

i do agree that if she says "stop" in the middle, it is probably in your best interest to stop.

now, can it be considered rape if she says ok then changes her mind half way through? no.

[motivez]

I fail to see how this has any connection to the "out of the bedroom" agenda or where the left comes in really?

If either partner asks the other to stop, they should stop.

I think it would be considered rape if either party asked the other to stop and they continued on and forced the encounter to continue.. the question would be whether or not it could be proven one way or aonther.

[JSmythe]

Fuck that, literally. Once she spreads there should be no take-backs.

[RMNIXON]

Originally Posted by hsmith

i do agree that if she says "stop" in the middle, it is probably in your best interest to stop.

now, can it be considered rape if she says ok then changes her mind half way through? no.

I think that is the whole idea of "consentual" sex is it not? I certainly don't suggest a guy should not stop if asked! I think that is a given. I only question the court system as the new bedroon referee. Perhaps we should have neutral observeres since anything else will be he said she said?

[Dumpy Dooby]

Originally Posted by Scrumtralecent

What a crock of shit.

If a girl says yes I should be able to do anything I want without her being able to suddenly say no.

Wine bottle up the ass making you bleed? Sorry sweetie, you said yes when this all started.
Not my fault you don't like sex the way I like it. You said yes and now I can punch you in the face as much I want.

Fucking lefties.

That's not the point. The point is that the guy has no defense in the event that the girl decides to fuck him over. He is completely left to the mercy of the courts. It becomes a case of "he said/she said" and it's complete and utter shit. This drivel belongs in a civil court, not a criminal court.

So how do you justify the punishments that will inevitably be afforded to innocent men by this law? "Gotta crack a few eggs to make an omelet?"

[Dumpy Dooby]

Originally Posted by RMNIXON

I think that is the whole idea of "consentual" sex is it not? I certainly don't suggest a guy should not stop if asked! I think that is a given. I only question the court system as the new bedroon referee. Perhaps we should have neutral observeres since anything else will be he said she said?

Fucking


Nobody is in here advocating that sex shouldn't have to be consensual. You'd have to be a fucking dullard to think that I'm a-okay with "wine bottle up the ass making you bleed" without consent. The point is that the law rests on the shoulders of circumstantial evidence. It's ridiculous.

[RMNIXON]

Originally Posted by motivez

I fail to see how this has any connection to the "out of the bedroom" agenda or where the left comes in really?

When the modern feminist victimhood ( not equality) movement stars voting Republican Conservative I will give on that point.

I might add that the feminists are the ones who have defined rape as assault and not a sexual crime. So you better pull out at the slightest sign of rejection.

With all do appolgies to the "actual" victims of rape, this is nothing but a one sided empowerment set up. And if you don't think any number of dishonest women will not take advantage of this legal precedent in any number of nightmarish ways you just fell off the apple cart.

Too bad they didn't think of this in the Coby Bryant case. Behind the times!

[RMNIXON]

Originally Posted by Scrumtralecent

What a crock of shit.

If a girl says yes I should be able to do anything I want without her being able to suddenly say no.

Wine bottle up the ass making you bleed? Sorry sweetie, you said yes when this all started.
Not my fault you don't like sex the way I like it. You said yes and now I can punch you in the face as much I want.

Fucking lefties.

That would be assault, very much evident, and it compares to not stopping consentual sex in what measurable instant? My suggestion would be not to say "yes" to guys like that! I guess the presumption that men are monsters is a feminist principle for the court when no other evidence can be given?

[nbiggershaft]

Originally Posted by RMNIXON

When the modern feminist victimhood ( not equality) movement stars voting Republican Conservative I will give on that point.

Right, and until the KKK votes for Hillary you all hate black people.

[Simius]

Originally Posted by Dumpy Dooby

That's not the point. The point is that the guy has no defense in the event that the girl decides to fuck him over. He is completely left to the mercy of the courts. It becomes a case of "he said/she said" and it's complete and utter shit. This drivel belongs in a civil court, not a criminal court.

So how do you justify the punishments that will inevitably be afforded to innocent men by this law? "Gotta crack a few eggs to make an omelet?"

Usually to get convicted of something it needs to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. If it is just "he said/she said" he [shouldn't]won't get convicted anyway since there is plenty of reasonable doubt.

As far as I'm concerned, just because it would be a lot harder to prove a guy pinned a girl down and continued fucking her after she told him to stop, doesn't mean it should be legal to do so.

[Scrum]

Originally Posted by nbiggershaft

Right, and until the KKK votes for Hillary you all hate black people.

[RMNIXON]

Originally Posted by Simius

As far as I'm concerned, just because it would be a lot harder to prove a guy pinned a girl down and continued fucking her after she told him to stop, doesn't mean it should be legal to do so.

To quote the author who is a woman I might add:



"Feminists and "victim advocates" argue that without being able to change her mind and say no during sexual intercourse itself, "there is no recourse for a woman who begins to feel pain or realizes her partner isn't wearing a condom or has HIV," writes Lee-St. John. No recourse? Now, I'm not sure how they think a woman is going to suddenly get that latter piece of information only after sex has begun. But are these feminists really saying that all men are such incredible brutes they wouldn't stop, if they found their partner was uncomfortable for some reason, without the threat of prison? Just what kind of men are these feminists involved with?"


It seems to me we have a borderline presumption of guilt of an act (rape!) that we can't even define with any reasonable doubt or evidence. Just because in an extreme case it can happen. Well into the bedroom we go.......and the court can sort it all out!