Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Derec · 07-30-2003, 09:38 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by tronvillain
Well, I can see sex turning into "rape" simply because one party "changes their mind." I myself have had someone change their mind in the middle of the second time we were having sex and when she made it clear she actually wanted to stop, I stopped. I am unable to imagine any label but rape for what it would have been had I not stopped at that point. Of course, that is the vital part, that the person who wants to stop actually makes that crystal clear (otherwise it isn't rape, it is just consenting to sex that you didn't feel like having).

I can see that, but there are problems making this a very bad development:

- it requires immediate compliance - if you don't stop in midstoke it's "rape".
- it is virtually impossible to prove as sexual intercourse and initial consent are beyond dispute - so courts would have to convict based on the accusation only. I suspect the rape laws in "liberal" (read leftist) California already allow conviction of rape without having it proven beyond reasonable doubt as the 17 year old from the CNN link was convicted.

UMoC

fatherphil · 07-30-2003, 09:48 AM

either party should have the right to stop the sex act at any time for any reason! what is so difficult about that concept to comprehend? or do you believe that penetration causes a person to surrender all rights and controls over their own body?

Derec · 07-30-2003, 09:51 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by AquaVita
As I asked above, how will this be proved?

Often, it doesn't have to be. Which is the real tragedy re rape laws.

"The judge now informs the jury that 1) an allegation of rape does not require any evidence of corroboration; 2) there is no requirement for medical evidence; 3) there is no requirement for DNA evidence; and 4) there is no requirement for a second witness. In short, there is no requirement for obtaining a conviction other than the bare allegation made by a complainant. "

http://www.mens-network.org/rape.html

UMoC

Bad Kitty · 07-30-2003, 10:20 AM

Quote:

either party should have the right to stop the sex act at any time for any reason! what is so difficult about that concept to comprehend? or do you believe that penetration causes a person to surrender all rights and controls over their own body?

Puh-lease. Nobody suggested any such thing. The point it that it is going to be very difficult to accurately and justly adjudicate cases such as these.

See the California case details for a sample of just how complicated this is going to get. Here is just a high-level:

Quote:

They were having consensual sex in a bedroom during a party where alcohol was available. Because they were minors at the time of the 2000 rape, their full names are shielded by law.

The boy testified the sex was consensual and that he stopped when the girl demanded. She disputed that, testifying the boy kept having sex with her for about a "minute and a half" after she said she called it off.

Because he was a minor, the boy served about six months in a juvenile facility after being convicted of rape. The high court affirmed that conviction Monday.

Justice Janice Rogers Brown, while agreeing with the majority on what constitutes rape, dissented on whether the boy was guilty of it.

She said that the boy may have had an honest and reasonable belief that the girl did not waive consent during sex, a defense to rape that California's courts have recognized since 1992. Brown wrote that the girl never clearly said stop.

The girl testified that she told the boy that "I should be going now" and "I need to go home."

sergeyvladimirovich · 07-30-2003, 10:38 AM

One more ridiculous law.

A thing like that is impossible to prove. To enforce it, all places where people can have sex should be equipped with cameras. Even if that is done, what if a guy continues for 5 seconds after the lady said "stop"? (in the heat of passion, you know) Is that a rape already? With this law there bound to be many rediculuous convictions.

No, this is a case of excessive government intervention. I think that if a couple set out to have sex it should be assumed that they completely trust one another and as long as no one gets killed or physically hurt, what happens, happens...If one of the partners is left unsatisfied it is their problem, not the government's. To put it simply: think before you screw. In sexual matters the role of the State should be minimal, as it is a deeply personal act.

auto-da-fe · 07-30-2003, 10:50 AM

And what if, when the girl says stop, the guy, in the moment before she said stop, reached orgasm? That isn't something that can just be "stopped" even if the guy wanted to. Once it starts, it goes, no questions asked. It is physically impossible to stop an orgasm, once it has started. So even if you do actually stop the thrusting or whatever, the girl could probably still get a conviction just based on the fact that the guy continued to ejaculate even though she asked him to stop.

Amen-Moses · 07-30-2003, 10:59 AM

"The girl testified that she told the boy that "I should be going now" and "I need to go home.""

She didn't say stop though! If that is what she said he probably just figured she wanted him to go quicker!

Amen-Moses

sergeyvladimirovich · 07-30-2003, 11:02 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by MegaDave
And what if, when the girl says stop, the guy, in the moment before she said stop, reached orgasm? That isn't something that can just be "stopped" even if the guy wanted to. Once it starts, it goes, no questions asked. It is physically impossible to stop an orgasm, once it has started. So even if you do actually stop the thrusting or whatever, the girl could probably still get a conviction just based on the fact that the guy continued to ejaculate even though she asked him to stop.

LOL! I'm starting to love this discussion. What if the girl says stop WHILE the guy ejaculates? The only way to determine what happened before, that "stop" or ejaculation, the government will have to equip all women with VAVRDs (Vaginal Audio/Video Recording Devices)...

This whole approach of regulating sexuality governmentally is really, really problem-prone!

Derec · 07-30-2003, 11:05 AM

How about Illinois Infidels write to this Blagojevich guy expressing how misguided his decision is. Btw, is he a Democrat or a Republican?

UMoC

P.S.: I think this legislation and other laws inacted since the 1970s are an attempt by radical feminsits to restrict male sexuality

sergeyvladimirovich · 07-30-2003, 11:28 AM

To summarize my thoughts about the issue:

The main problem with the approach modern governments are taking is that they assume that some set of laws from above can eliminate all injustice below. I say, make people themselves responsible for their happiness or unhappiness.

Take this law about "change of mind during sex", for instance. Suppose the girls cries "stop" but the guy is so at it that he can't stop as his testasterone somewhat distorted his perception (he might think she's playful or something). The girl ends up having sex for a few minutes more than she wanted. So what should the State do? I say : NOTHING, BIG DEAL!

This unpleasant experience will simply teach the girl to not open her legs to someone who she doesn't completely trust. It is really her fault that she agreed to have sex with someone she wasn't sure of. And let's face it, the probability of such an event, where a girl first says "yes" but than says "no" is highly unlikely if she is the least bit descreet about who she goes to bed with.

Agreeing to have sex is a serious matter. Just like agreeing to have a surgery. Suppose a certain surgical intervention has a 20% fatality rate. The consent to surgery clearly states that if the patient gets into these unlucky 20%, the relatives are not to hold the surgeon liable. Just like a surgery, sex carries its burdens and dangers. If you are not sure, then just don't agree and if you agreed but didn't like it-- too bad. Just learn from your mistakes and don't make the same mistake again...

It's rather trivial and government has no buisness in such trivial matters!

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

07-30-2003, 09:48 AM	#12
fatherphil Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: burbank Posts: 758	either party should have the right to stop the sex act at any time for any reason! what is so difficult about that concept to comprehend? or do you believe that penetration causes a person to surrender all rights and controls over their own body?

07-30-2003, 10:38 AM	#15
sergeyvladimirovich Regular Member Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: SF Bay Area Posts: 175	One more ridiculous law. A thing like that is impossible to prove. To enforce it, all places where people can have sex should be equipped with cameras. Even if that is done, what if a guy continues for 5 seconds after the lady said "stop"? (in the heat of passion, you know) Is that a rape already? With this law there bound to be many rediculuous convictions. No, this is a case of excessive government intervention. I think that if a couple set out to have sex it should be assumed that they completely trust one another and as long as no one gets killed or physically hurt, what happens, happens...If one of the partners is left unsatisfied it is their problem, not the government's. To put it simply: think before you screw. In sexual matters the role of the State should be minimal, as it is a deeply personal act.

07-30-2003, 10:50 AM	#16
auto-da-fe Veteran Member Join Date: May 2003 Location: edge of insanity Posts: 1,609	And what if, when the girl says stop, the guy, in the moment before she said stop, reached orgasm? That isn't something that can just be "stopped" even if the guy wanted to. Once it starts, it goes, no questions asked. It is physically impossible to stop an orgasm, once it has started. So even if you do actually stop the thrusting or whatever, the girl could probably still get a conviction just based on the fact that the guy continued to ejaculate even though she asked him to stop.

07-30-2003, 10:59 AM	#17
Amen-Moses Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2001 Location: Portsmouth, England Posts: 4,652	"The girl testified that she told the boy that "I should be going now" and "I need to go home."" She didn't say stop though! If that is what she said he probably just figured she wanted him to go quicker! Amen-Moses

07-30-2003, 11:05 AM	#19
Derec Contributor Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: Atlanta, GA Posts: 15,686	How about Illinois Infidels write to this Blagojevich guy expressing how misguided his decision is. Btw, is he a Democrat or a Republican? UMoC P.S.: I think this legislation and other laws inacted since the 1970s are an attempt by radical feminsits to restrict male sexuality

07-30-2003, 11:28 AM	#20
sergeyvladimirovich Regular Member Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: SF Bay Area Posts: 175	To summarize my thoughts about the issue: The main problem with the approach modern governments are taking is that they assume that some set of laws from above can eliminate all injustice below. I say, make people themselves responsible for their happiness or unhappiness. Take this law about "change of mind during sex", for instance. Suppose the girls cries "stop" but the guy is so at it that he can't stop as his testasterone somewhat distorted his perception (he might think she's playful or something). The girl ends up having sex for a few minutes more than she wanted. So what should the State do? I say : NOTHING, BIG DEAL! This unpleasant experience will simply teach the girl to not open her legs to someone who she doesn't completely trust. It is really her fault that she agreed to have sex with someone she wasn't sure of. And let's face it, the probability of such an event, where a girl first says "yes" but than says "no" is highly unlikely if she is the least bit descreet about who she goes to bed with. Agreeing to have sex is a serious matter. Just like agreeing to have a surgery. Suppose a certain surgical intervention has a 20% fatality rate. The consent to surgery clearly states that if the patient gets into these unlucky 20%, the relatives are not to hold the surgeon liable. Just like a surgery, sex carries its burdens and dangers. If you are not sure, then just don't agree and if you agreed but didn't like it-- too bad. Just learn from your mistakes and don't make the same mistake again... It's rather trivial and government has no buisness in such trivial matters!

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.