North Carolina's Shocking Legal Rape Law

Article

"If the actual penetration is accomplished with the woman's consent, the accused is not guilty of rape," reads State v. Way.

"Shocked" is the best way to describe most reactions to hearing about this case law, which was dredged up to dismiss a 17-year-old's rape accusation under the argument that she had consented to the initial act (a point that she actually contests), then withdrawn consent when the sex hurt.

The father of the 17 yr says that the law allows rapists to rape legally if they just do it the "right way".

I for one was intrigued when I read about this.

As a female, from birth the Mantra "NO MEANS NO" has been drilled into my head. I am certain males too have all heard the mantra, we are bombarded with it everywhere we look on the topic of sex.

But in the case the North Carolina law was decided upon, the female GAVE permission, then AFTER penetration said NO.

So the judges decided that once penetration takes place consentually, the act is no longer rape.

I agree.

I feel if you allow a man entry and consent, it amounts to entrapment to then turn and say NO after he has already began consentual sex.

The recent case according to the article, the girl says she told him to stop because it hurt. And he did not, thus she cried rape.

Is it?

I would love to have a debate about this topic, as there seems to be many shades of grey of here, and a lot of ways this law can be abused, by women more so than men.

The father is seeing it from his daughters POV.

I see it from my son's POV, if she says yes that means I can go ahead.

It would be nice if he stopped when you change your mind in mid stroke, but how confusing. You already said yes, are you teasing? Why are you now saying no?

As parents we teach the mantra NO MEANS NO.

We ususally do not cover this grey area (no in mid stroke), because once you say yes and are engaging in sex, the assumption is both parties are not commiting a crime.

I am not chained to my POV on this subject, and would love to hear from both sides on this issue.

Seems like it should be pretty straight forward.

If you ask someone to come over to your house and they say yes, and then they ask to leave and you forcibly stop them it's consider a crime yes?

If she withdrew consent and he continued against her will it should be rape.

reply to post by lellomackin


And this is the grey area.

I say yes to a man, and we begin having sex. The assumption he is working under is consentual sex. How can consent be withdrawn once it is given? I already said yes, yet after the man is engaged suddenly I say no.

A defense for the man would be I lied and entrapped him, because I did say yes, otherwise his penis would not have been inside my body.

When anyone with sense begins sex, we all know it ends once the act is over and many times it ends fairly quickly.

Why is a woman consenting only to change her mind? That seems deceitful and it worries me for my sons.

I cannot understand how anyone could even want to carry on if the woman said it hurt or was saying no.

Yet another law passed where you have to wonder about the minds of those making and passing them.

Disgusting.

CX.

The idea that consent can't be withdrawn is ludicrous. People withdraw consent for things all the time.

What if you were having sex with a man and he started being rough or started saying things that you were not comfortable with? You would just say "well. I said yes so I guess I gotta tough this one out".

I think it's apparent that the initial act is consensual, but if someone says stop and the other person doesn't, then it's based on the response to the request.

reply to post by CX


I cannot imagine that kind of person either, and would hope I knew my sex partner well enough to be able to ask him to stop after we began and trust he would.

But since the law is involved in our sexual lives and rights, can one not look at it like this.

When both enter into the sex contract mutually by each giving consent, would not both then have to withdraw consent in order to invalidate the contract?

Try and apply the theory that both parties have to withdraw consent to any other social interaction and see what you think.

"I don't want to date you anymore"..."Well I don't withdraw my consent so..."

Divorce rates would be pretty low I imagine and I know I would have a lot more drunk people staying at my house till six in the morning.

Here is a link to a previous article the author wrote about the recent case, a few more details, and at the bottom is the petition the author is wanting people to sign and send to North Carolina Lawmakers.

Article and Petition Here

And the petition.

Saying a woman cannot withdraw consent after she has begun having sex is mere steps away from saying she can't refuse to have sex if they're already naked, or she had started making out, or she was in a relationship with the rapist. Whether a woman simply decides she doesn't want to continue having sex, or if the sex is violent and she wants to put a stop to it, that is a human right that she doesn't release the moment she lets a penis penetrate her. The idea that a case in which the victim says she repeatedly said no and sustained physical injuries, suggesting that she attempted to fight the perpetrator off, would be considered by law to be totally acceptable and an act not rape seems like something out of the Twilight Zone.

It is not mere steps away from saying if you make out you must have sex, right there the petition is ridiculous. We are talking about once the act has commenced!

If the consentual sex turns violent, then would that not be an assault crime?

Merely changing your mind once you enter into the contract? Well, why should a man's life be ruined because you lied to get him inside of you in the first place?

That is the unsettling part of this drive, and is probably the very reason the law is on the books, to protect men.

And anothe rpoint.

To cry rape, the female is drawing into her sex life the law and justice system. The female wants to the laws on her side when she is wronged or raped, but does not ant a law in place to protect a man from a woman tricking him into her vagina only to say no once the act commences?

If sex is reduced to legalities, then the legality of the consentual contract entered into once the act commences cannot be ignored.

"If sex is reduced to legalities, then the legality of the consentual contract entered into once the act commences cannot be ignored."

Well, what are the terms of the consensual contract?

Did it include continuation of the act after pain? Did it include a specified amount of time? DId it include satisfaction by both parties?

You see where I'm going with this? You are actually going to have to have a real contract. Kind of kills the mood no?

Don't understand why anyone would continue doing anything to someone once that person said they wanted it to stop.

reply to post by hotbakedtater


Are you for real? As a man, if I end up in some women's bed and we are having sex and she says STOP get off, I stop and get off! even under this obscene judges moral code, continuing would be sexual assault as she told him to stop!

If a guy in not able to stop then he has a problem and needs medical (drug) help or should get himself castrated!

NO means NO! even if she has already said YES.

What he should have done is stopped, and asked if she was OK. She said stop because it hurt. If it was my son that had continued after being told to stop, he would be spending every night at therapy and doing hard labour for a year. (if he was also let of by some Muppet judge).

I personally can not understand anyone thinking it is ok to do something to another person if they ask you to stop?!!!!!

MODS: why can't we have a facility to take flags off people or have another flag for BS

Originally posted by lellomackin
The idea that consent can't be withdrawn is ludicrous. People withdraw consent for things all the time.

What if you were having sex with a man and he started being rough or started saying things that you were not comfortable with? You would just say "well. I said yes so I guess I gotta tough this one out".

I think it's apparent that the initial act is consensual, but if someone says stop and the other person doesn't, then it's based on the response to the request.

Hear hear!! I speak from a married man's point of view here. Being as my wife and I are married, sex is consensual by default, right? Wrong.
If she says no, it means no, not go ahead. Consent can most certainly be withdrawn, and the law would back up that principle in a court of law. A woman's body is HER OWN. Not property, (sorry Muslims) and not subservient, (sorry Christians) but her own personal property. Not to even be touched without full consent, in any case, any where, in any situation, whatsoever.

If someone says stop - you stop.

No does mean No

ridiculous law - has always been my belief, and that's what my children will be told too.

As someone already stated, why the hell would you want to go on if someone said 'no'

So let's take a case where she says no after she already let the act commence. He stops, eventually, maybe she has to say it several times because how utterly confusing and weird it must be to be in what you thought was an AOK all systems go consentual sex act and now she is saying stop no quit? So he thinks she is joking around, and does not stop right away.

Is that rape? If he eventually gets it, but not at first ask, should he have to go to jail and have the brand of sex offender for life due to some female changing her mind?

That is the situation that is wide open for abuse here.

Most women say yes and mean yes, most healthy adults engage in consentual sex, and do not expect that after they start someone will make them stop, and healthy adults do stop.

But this kind of situation really has the potential to ruin a young man's life, because young people are more immature when it comes to sex, and what if some poor kid gets caught up in a opps I regret saying yes so I am going to say no now half way through the act, and say its rape to save face?

Where is the protection from that happening?

If you have already said yes then change your mind, and the person will not stop and restrains you from rolling out from underneath them, that is rape still, or is it assault and battery then?

Wow, the more I think about this the more complicated it becomes.

I understand the girl's POV, she said "no" and by that was removing consent.

From the legal POV this opens up a whole different can of worms. It would mean being able to make a rape conviction with ZERO evidence.

Example:

Her story.
They start consensual, she says no, he finishes and leaves.

His story.
They start consensual, he finishes up and leaves, she tells her father she said no.

Now, in a typical rape accusation, first thing, rape kit....well no point now, both have said consensual sex took place. Second, check for physical damages, signs of forcing, etc. What if there are none? What if they previously engaged in "harder" sexual acts? Next would be interviewing friends and family for character and eyewitness'. From what I read, no eye witness. Next character, both having sides saying they are the "good" side.

That leaves us with her word vs his word.

This is the complex part, does the court choose to allow convictions based on word?

Or does the court contiune to require evidence for conviction.

Wether it is a woman watching her rapist go free, or an innocent man going to jail, somebody is going to get the short end of the stick.

reply to post by hotbakedtater

If you have already said yes then change your mind, and the person will not stop and restrains you from rolling out from underneath them, that is rape still, or is it assault and battery then?

Are you kidding with this? "Will NOT STOP" " RESTRAINS"!!

This is blantant! Let's look at the definition of Rape:
rape-
noun
1.
the unlawful compelling of a woman through physical force or duress to have sexual intercourse.
2.
any act of sexual intercourse that is forced upon a person.
3.
statutory rape.
4.
an act of plunder, violent seizure, or abuse; despoliation; violation: the rape of the countryside.
5.
Archaic . the act of seizing and carrying off by force.
–verb (used with object)
6.
to force to have sexual intercourse.
7.
to plunder (a place); despoil.
8.
to seize, take, or carry off by force.

dictionary.com


Seems the word "force" is used over and over again. It means unlawful consent, even if the person changes their mind! I don't care if it is in the beginning, middle or during climax!!! Why would you take this stance?

To make someone do something sexually they do not want to do is dehumanizing, cruel and sick. I understand you took the debate as a way to protect the man, however, at what cost? Protect the man and violate the rights of the woman?


Pax

It should be understood that no means no but it can get rather grey unfortunately in the real world. There are no winners in this sort of case. If she or even he says no at anytime during sex, that means stop. Not keep going and explain it a bit more. You have to stop. To say consent can't be withdrawn is ridiculous. Contracts of all sorts get broken all the time. It seems to me the only ones who win in these types of cases are lawyers.

I had a friend many years ago who was accused of rape because she said she said no after they started. As one of many who knew she didn't, it was hard to watch everything that happened to him. She found out he had a girlfriend very shortly after and thats when she decided she had been raped. Many months and many dollars later, his name was cleared but his reputation had already been destroyed.

reply to post by hotbakedtater


the story of rape is that of honest men and violated women. the law has a tough time sorting these things out. i largely agree with what you say, although i'd love to see the facts of the case. if penetration is consensual....ug this is so confusing.

for one, if a woman says no, how long does the man, who penetrated consensually have to get out? immediately? that'd probably be the answer. but how immediate is immediate? instantaneous with the woman's words is so impractical and sometimes impossible that you'd have to make an argument about reasonability.

is the man is 4 seconds away from being finished and the woman says no with 2 to go, the man finishes and then withdrawls is that soon enough? 2 seconds? does the fact that the man completed his end after the word no was uttered have any bearing on it?

and while 'no means no' in some contexts, sometimes no simply means, 'no not that way' or 'no too fast.' how much leeway in interpretation do you give a man before locking him away for 20 years and how much leeway do you give a man before he abuses it and commits rape intentionally? how much leeway do you give a woman to decide what kinds of physical or mental duress or misconceptions informed her actions?

too complex.

reply to post by hotbakedtater


How many of these posters are sexually active

Picture yourself in the situation.. like, seriously.. you actually think that CRIMINAL law needs to intervene here? I don't, and not only because it's impossible to prove.

I'm thinking about this completely differently than everyone I think... a likely scenario is that this was her first time, she had consensual sex with him, didn't say anything, went home where she talked to her parents about some of the pains she was feeling... down there. One of her parents asked her if she asked him to stop when she noticed it was hurting.... and she said -- for fear of being seen not as a "strong woman" -- "....yes."; the father flipped out and filed a lawsuit. It may seem like a stretch, but I can assure you that if this was the case with my father and my sister, this is exactly what would have happened due to my father's intimidation factor. Later she would come into my room crying because our father was terrorizing her boyfriend and trying to have him thrown in jail; a victim not of rape, but of her fathers extreme control over the sex life of his daughter. Luckily she's not the one facing years of penalty over a pubescent sex act.

Even with the plaintiff's [father's] scenario, I actually never thought of it before this, but I think this law is not far off. If she consented the beginning of sex, she already committed to the fact that she wants it to happen. Rape is a criminal act because you are denying the victim's right too choose their sexual partner, which can cause psychological harm, and its maximum and minimum penalties are there to penalize those infringements. She has consented her sexual partner... so the law steps out of their bedroom; what happens from here is of their own accord. It is right to keep going after she asks him to stop? No. Is that the government's problem? I don't think so, and if it is, there should be separate, non-criminal laws that surround it because it is an entirely different situation..

I agree that at any point during the exercise, either party can call it off, and this must be honored. To continue to force something on someone they do not want, is sexual assault.

Tater, I'm sure you are teaching your sons manners. They will be fine. What guy with any integrity wants to continue with someone when something is wrong?

This really is a tricky one isn't it? Some comments have really bothered me, I think I will overlook those, Could be trouble.

I just never realized that "consent" fell into a time line. It is a persons right to change their minds no matter what the action at the time may be. When one has changed their minds, it is no longer consent, period. At least that is how I see it.