It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
"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rape accusation under the argument that she had consented to the initial act (a point that she actually contests), then withdrawn consent when the sex hurt.
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.
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The idea that consent can't be withdrawn is ludicrous.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.
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?