Rape, Yes, Yes, Yes, um. No. Rape?

Great Debates
61

Its not really that easy for a guy to stop on a dime. I know I wouldn’t stop unless a chick was actually writhing around and using her arms and legs to push me off.

Just imagine if your family dog Snoopy was nailing the neighborhood bitch in your front yard. You don’t want the kids to see, so you go out and yell at them. That doesn’t stop Snoopy. So you go and get some hot water and throw it at the. Still, Snoopy keeps on humping. I doubt if anything less than a firecracker up Snoopys ass would get him to disengage. Either that , or a baseball bat upside his head.

Thus, is male lust.

62

I care what I would like to do. And I would not like to seriously injure someone over an honest misunderstanding that could have been cleared up by simply talking about it just because some people would like to make it the law that mere verbal objection isn’t a legally adequate expression of dissent.

For someone who was concerned just a few posts ago with the potential confusion of guileless if misguided individuals with hardened rapists by the legal system you are showing a strange lack of concern for what harm might come to such innocents in a world where those who feared being raped couldn’t count on decent people understanding when to stop without having the message punctuated with punches.

I am going to give you the benefit of the doubt and presume that you momentarily lost the point of this discussion and forgot that we are talking about what should constitute rape under the law and not what the best way is to escape being raped (which is indeed to make use of any possible means of defense). Otherwise I would be forced to interpret the above as a claim that if a victim failed to make use of every possible means of defense then it wasn’t really rape, and I’m sure you wouldn’t have posted such an appalling statement.

63

3 verbal messages to stop + continuing to thrust until orgasm != decent guy.

Frankly, I’m disgusted by the ease with which people will accept the “arroused male == raging animal” proposition. A hard cock does not absolve one of ethical responsibilities. Was the girl in question clueless, foolish, and irresponsible. Absolutely. She was also raped.

64

I’m just going to drive with my left-blinker always on. That way I can change lanes anytime I want, and if I hit someone, it’ll be their fault. They need to let traffic merge and I gave them plenty of warning. 40 miles of warning.

Their fault.

65

Please, speak for yourself.:rolleyes:

66

You know, I’m trying very hard to not make that statement. I just cannot fathom the fact that the same crime can generate two completely different responses from the same victim.

Do you think that if our victim was dragged into an alley by a rapist she would have said “I really want to go home.”??? It sounds completely ridiculous. Yet that was her response to this ‘rapist’. The boy was selfish, and took something from her that he shouldn’t, but what he did doesn’t (to me) rise to the level of brutality of an alley rapist, and I think it’s terribly wrong that he should be charged with the same crime.

The way I see it, if the crime is identical, the victim’s reaction to the crime should at least be similar. Being a stupid or selfish lover doesn’t make you the equal of an alley rapist. Its the equivalence that bothers me. There’s something different about our treatment of sex that makes it this way.

Example, I went on a short trip with friends (I rode in their car) to a Haunted House thing. On the way home, it was getting late, and I really just wanted to ‘go home’, sound familiar? Well, I didn’t get to go home, they wanted to eat, so I had to sit and wait while they took forever to eat something. I was miserable and unhappy, and trapped with them 25 miles from home, against my will. I was not ‘kidnapped’ even though I did not want to be with them, and they wouldn’t take me home. Sure, I consented to be with them for the event, but now, I just wanted to go home. If I threw out a few statements of ‘I want to go home.’ does that make them kidnappers if they refuse to throw away their dinner and leave immediately? Of course not, it makes them irritating SOB’s, who you shouldn’t ride with.

Put sex into the mix, and you’re no longer an irritating SOB, or a jerk, or insensitive, you’re a RAPIST. The idea that a consentual lover can turn into a rapist in just a few seconds sickens me, and I don’t like the idea that rape is hanging over my head every time I have sex. Just because rapists misuse sex as a weapon in their crime doesn’t make every misuse of sex rape.

67

I think they could easily be interpretted as ‘hurry up’. And they were not ‘objections’.

Now, if a woman said that to me in that instance, I would have stopped. That’s me. But she didn’t say ‘stop’. She didn’t say ‘no’. She didn’t say ‘I’m not liking this and I wish it would end immediately’. Had she used any of those words, I would feel differently.

But what I see is 2 boys (who, admittedly, are assholes) who will do time because this girl could not express her desires.

If her withrawl of consent equals prison time, and it seems it does, then her withdrawl of consent needs to be clear.

68

I read the trial documentation (which I had not the first time I posted). Since the girl’s words, and whether or not she clearly withdrew consent, seem to be the real point of contention here, how can we ignore this:

**As long as we’re parsing words, what part of “I don’t want to do this” seems ambiguous? Read the whole cite; let’s not just pick the portions of her testimony that, taken out of context, suggest something unclear. Doesn’t seem ambiguous to me anymore. Those guys were two world-class pricks who didn’t get punished enough.

69

Not the same at all, unless your friends not only wouldn’t take you home, but also prevented you from leaving and taking a bus, train , calling a car service or walking. And that’s why it wasn’t a crime. Because they didn’t force you to stay and they didn’t abduct you. If you went somewhere with your friends and they not only wouldn’t drive you home, but forcibly prevented you from leaving, it would have been “unlawful imprisonment” (in NYS). And if they threatened deadly force to keep you from leaving, it would have been “kidnapping” just as much as if they had forced you into the car at gunpoint.
and as for this

She absolutely wouldn’t have said " I really want to go home" or told him “if he really did care about me, he wouldn’t be doing this to me and if he did want a relationship, he should wait and respect that I don’t want to do this.” She might not have said a word or physically resisted at all if she were dragged into an alley by a rapist, and still he would be guilty of rape.Because it that case, the lack of consent is presumed. In our case, it wasn’t. She said she didn’t “want to do this”, and still, he didn’t stop. If I start to hand you money, change my mind , and put it away, are you stealing if you grab it from me? Or does the fact that I initially was going to give it to you make it yours to take?

70

We don’t know how the victim in this case would react in another rape situation, so I don’t see how you can say that her response would be completely different.

**

Maybe if she were jumped and pulled into an alleyway she would be so frightened and surprised that she wouldn’t have been able to say anything at all. Would you say that the rapist in such a case should then get off scott free?

**

Uh, the crime isn’t identical. No two crimes are identical. Classifying a crime into a broad category like “rape” or “murder” (or even the narrower “first degree murder”) or “grand theft auto” does not imply that all such crimes are identical. Does the equivelance of a murderer who brutally beats their victim to death with a murderer who provides their victim with a clean death by shooting them execution-style in the back of the head bother you too?

71

They didn’t have to force me to stay, because I didn’t attempt to leave. Just as she didn’t attempt to stop him from having sex, he didn’t have to force her to have sex. She whined, I whined. He didn’t stop having sex, they didn’t take me home. If he had forced her to have sex, that’s rape, if they had forced me to stay, that’s unlawful imprisonment.

Only difference is that he didn’t have to force himself on her to commit a felony, all he had to do was continue with what was, 5 seconds before, consentual. The forcing aspect of the crime is implied by his continuation, rather than actual, physical, force (or threat). We refuse to imply force (or threat) with respect to my abduction, why don’t we refuse in this instance?

I really don’t have a whole lot else to add except that the two rape situations are so vastly different that I cannot justify calling them the same crime. The only similarity is that sex is involved, that doesn’t cut it for me.

72

Cheesesteak, I would advise you to read - or re-read – the linked-to opinion on this case, because your characterization of the incident bears little resemblance to the facts presented there.

73

It depends on whether you accept the Majority or Dissenting opinion’s version of the events. From the Dissent, we get some very interesting nuggets of info:

She “never officially told him” (her words) she didn’t want to have sex

On cross examination by the prosecutor we find out that she told John “I got to go home” because “I had to get home so my mom wouldn’t suspect anything”

Which, to me, sure as hell sounds like someone more concerned about the time rather than someone who doesn’t want sex at all. John’s assumption that she just wanted him to hurry up “Just give me a minute” doesn’t sound so off the mark now.

I am in agreement with the dissent in that

He made no threats, did not injure her, and she spent 4-5min of the act on top! Forced, my ass!

74

I believe the part that makes it ambiguous is the dependent clause starting with “if”. I’m really on the fence as to whether this case was a good ruling or not, but I honestly don’t think the case turns on that particular sentence. I don’t think it would be unreasonable for the defendant to have interpreted that particular sentence as a request for reassurance, and he in fact responded with “I really do care about you.” (I’m reasonably certain that John didn’t give a rat’s ass about her, but being a lying son-of-a-bitch isn’t necessarily a crime.) Plus, shouldn’t the obvious ambivalence of someone who tells a guy he should “wait and respect that I don’t want to do this” right after she just spent 5 minutes ON TOP OF HIM be a factor?

Also remember that this is only her side of the story, and as Cheesesteak already pointed out, her testimony was to some degree impeached on cross-examination.

I agree that they are pricks. Guys like that make me sick. But should being a prick be a crime? Like I said, I’m undecided as to whether I agree with the ruling or not, but I definitely do not consider it to be cut-and-dried by any means.

75

According to the official document which describes the incident (you can find link to pdf file on page 1 of this thread) she explains this (bolding mine):

"He asked her to lie down and she did. He began kissing her and she kissed him back. He rolled on top of her, inserted his penis into her, and although she resisted, rolled her back over, pulling her on top of him. She was on top of him for four or five minues, during which time she tried to get off, but he grabbed her waist and pulled her back down.

…

"Laura told him she needed to go home, but he would not stop. He said, ‘just give me a minute,’ and she said, ‘no, I need to get home.’ He replied, ‘give me some more time’ and she repeated, ‘no, I have to go home.’ Defendant did not stop. ‘[h]e just staying inside of me and kept like basically forcing it on me.’"

Now, maybe she’s lying—we don’t know. But assuming that she was not lying (and that’s what we must assume at this point, I suppose), then it was rape. The reason she was on top of him was because he held her hips down and made her stay on top. And I think that while she could have been more adamant about wanting the sex to stop, only a complete clueless bastard would not be able to figure out that she wanted it to stop. I mean, he had to hold her hips down. She said, “No, I have to go home” twice when he asked for a little more time. That is enough, in my mind, for him to get the clue that she wants it done NOW. Not “a little more time.” NO—that is what she said. NO.

76

There’s one thing which I think is being overlooked here. If I’m wrong, I have no doubt someone will correct me. It strikes me that the women who hang out here at SDMB, or at least the ones who have posted in this thread, have no problem knowing what we want and do not want in a sexual situation or in making those wants known. I’m probably one of the least experienced posters here in terms of number of lovers, but every time the subject of whether to have sex or not has come up (pun intended), I’ve had no problem letting the gentleman know whether or not I was interested.

On the other hand, girls are socialized to be polite. Even under the best of circumstances, a woman can be nervous by an aroused male (boy, do I sound Victorian!). Look, here’s an example. Late one night, I was at the home of a couple who are good friends of mine, talking with the male half of this couple. We were stretched out on the couch, fully clothed, with me on the inside. As the conversation progressed, I became aware that he had an erection and it was pressing against me. I trusted this man with my life even then, but it still took a few moments for me to screw up my courage and point it out to him. He was completely embarrassed and assured me it wasn’t a come on or anything and the end result was no harm, no foul. That was also the last time I was nervous around him.

A teenage girl who’s placed herself in a situation where she’s outnumbered and presumably knows she’s not behaving sensibly might be afraid to say, “No. I don’t want to.” This is very much a WAG, but she may well be thinking “What if he doesn’t take “No” for an answer? What if he harms her? What if he calls her a tease? What if? What if? What if? Besides, a nice guy would know ‘I have to go home’ really means ‘Please don’t,’ wouldn’t he?”

I suspect there’s still a conflict between the idea that everyone has incredibly wild sex a la Penthouse Forum and the idea that nice girls don’t or, if they do, only with their boyfriends. I know I spent sometime trying to figure out the middle ground between those two when I was in my 20’s.

I don’t get it. Maybe I’m still too naive, but I don’t see why people simply can’t make decisions about what circumstances they will or will not have sex with someone and say so. Cheesesteak, you may be a great guy (or gal), but if you were to appear on my doorstep this moment with more sex appeal than Tom Cruise and Pierce Brosnan combined, offering me pleasures that would make Bob Guccione blush, I would still say “No” to you not because of who you are, but because of who I am. I’d also say so before one article of clothing was taken off. However, I might also tell you that in a year or so, assuming you don’t have an SO, among other things, I might say “Yes” and, if so, could you please clear out a weekend?

The girl was foolish, and yes, she should have said exactly what she meant, rather than leaving it for the guys to figure it out. Men should not be expected to read women’s minds or vice versa! On the other hand, I can see how she might have thought “I need to go home” might have meant “No.” Excuse me. I think I need to go read some posts by d12 or one of our other sensible Board teenagers!

CJ

77

Pure, unfiltered horseshit.

I’ve “stopped on a dime” before. It’s not hard if you give a shit about whether or not your partner is into it.

“Male lust” is first cousin to the “I couldn’t help myself because of the way she was dressed” defense.

78

**I’m not trying to be confrontational, but I think you’re misreading the action that’s dependent upon the “if.” I don’t know how it’s reasonable to take some form of “I don’t want to do this, and if you really gave a shit about me, you would respect that” and infer that she really meant, “It’s OK to have sex with me.”

Even the dissenting justice mentioned that she made the statement I referred to, which apparently led her (the justice) to conclude that the girl may have meant something else. I don’t know what drug that judge was smoking. And it must be quite convenient to assume that any ambiguous statement (e.g., “I want to go home”) attributed to her is, of course, verbatim, but this particular statement was not . (Not that this is what you’re doing, though some in this thread appear to be.)

She said she was still held against her will, even when she was on top of him. But even if you don’t buy that, the law is already clear that if consent is withdrawn, then it’s rape, even if it was at one point consensual. IOW, the law already contemplates just such a scenario; in fact, it guards against it.

79

No, the force isn’t implied. If one of your friends had laid on top of you, or grabbed you preventing you from leaving, that would have been force . Read the part yosemitebabe quoted,and and think about the fact that it some positions, it’s quite easy for one person to prevent the other from getting out from under them. Sure, the girl might be lying. But the issue isn’t whether she’s telling the truth at this point. At this point we have to assume she’s telling the truth, as did the California Supreme Court. The original judge was in a far better position to judge her credibility than we are. The question now is whether it constitutes rape if she’s telling the truth.

80

I understand what you’re saying. But the issue here (and this was part of the dissenting Judge’s opinion) is that in a criminal trial, the burden of proof is “beyond a reasonable doubt”. Both you and I know that we wouldn’t have continued with this girl under those circumstances, because that would have been the nice thing to do. But we’re talking about more than whether John was a “nice guy”; we’re talking about whether he committed a felony. The question is whether John clearly understood beyond a reasonable doubt. And his answer to her suggests that he didn’t take it as a clear indication that she wanted to stop, but as a request for reassurance that he cared about her. Also, you’re not taking into account that on cross-examination she admitted that she never “officially” told him she did not want to have sex. Those are HER words.

Now, what happened after that is another matter. I just don’t think the case hinges on these first events.

But when you read the dissenting Judge’s opinion, it seems unlikely. The majority opinion leaves out the fact that John had a cast on his left hand, and could only hold her waist with one hand, and that he wasn’t holding her hard enough for her to even “feel the pressure”. He wasn’t applying enough force to hold her there, and she didn’t say anything at that point, so how is it reasonable to assume that he knew it was against her will?

Yes, that part is clear - all the judges agreed. Although even THAT wasn’t clear up to this point - they actually went against precedent in this case. But the issue isn’t whether the principle of law is correct - there was no disagreement on that; the issues are 1) Whether consent was clearly withdrawn beyond a reasonable doubt, and 2) Whether saying “give me another minute” constitutes forcing her to have sex. I still think it’s a tough call.