North Carolina's Shocking Legal Rape Law

Originally posted by theregonnakillme
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

edit on 2/10/2010 by theregonnakillme because: addition

So, by this reasoning we can assume that your ok with being charged with rape since you stopped when she said stop. BUT maybe you didn't stop fast enough, maybe she said stop because her husband came in and caught you in the act. There are a ton of maybe's in this situation, I agree forcing yourself on a woman is rape, but after she consents, then withdraws consent, maybe you insulted her, maybe you farted..I think this would fall under a different crime than rape. By letter of the law, if you have biological material in or around the woman, and she cries rape, you're screwed, and not in a good way.

So I agree that when a woman says stop, it is good form to stop, but to claim that 2 drunk people having sex, she says stop, he's incoherent with passion at the moment, this is hardly the rape we try to protect our daughters from.

For the record, I have 2 daughters, one is 20, the other 14 and I teach them not to get into the situation in the first place, but I suspect that if they did, they would comprehend what they were doing and make the choice for themselves. To claim this instance as rape provides avenue for some serious abuse by some women. Better to have a new category of assault than to mix it in with rape.

..Ex

[quoted content removed]

Looks like ATS' automatic censors aren't working today.

Under a recent California Supreme Court decision you could be guilty of rape when she said to stop and you didn't. But her subsequent behavior of getting on top of you would make it difficult to prove that she sincerely withdrew her consent to having sex without a condom.

Why are you having sex without a condom? Have you not heard of the dangers? I trust you both had complete STD checkups and came up negative beforehand, leaving an unwanted pregnancy the only risk.

It's pretty simple imo. A woman says "ouch, stop." Then the man should stop. If he continues, then the man is being forceful. That is rape.

It works the other way around as well. If a man says stop and the woman continues, I would consider that to be rape too.

Withdrawing consent after the act begins can definitely be construed as entrapment and lying by the defense.

This is also a good reason to really get to know your sex partner before you have sex with them.

[quoted content removed]

If she continued telling you to stop and you didn't, you would be forcing her to have sex beyond her desire to continue. In my opinion that is rape. Or what, in that situation would you tell her, "shut up, you know you love it" And continue?

reply to post by hotbakedtater


No is no , what other way could there be to look at it?

Originally posted by HomerinNC
See, with stuff like this, men need to be VERY CAREFUL whom they decide to fool around with. Sex crime laws and laws of consent are very touchy. The woman decides to withdraw consent after they start, who's to say the guy heard or even paid attention in the heat of the moment? Or she decided to want to stop and not tell him, yet claimed she did? Nine times out of ten, they will take the woman's word at face value.

Okay, first, it shouldn't be an excuse for him to get 'caught up in the moment' as if men can't control themselves. Men can. They are not animals, they are humans and as such are able to stop having sex if she says no, and if he stops paying attention to what she wants and decides to just do what he wants regardless of the consequences for her, he deserves punishment regardless if he broke an actual law or not. If that happened to one of my friends, to my sister, my mom, whomever, I would make sure he regretted it.

Second, yeah it can happen that she doesn't say anything but says she did, but in NO WAY should we get rid of laws that protect women because of certain exceptions. Yeah, some women lie about rape, so does that mean that there are no rapists and we should get rid of laws against rape because some innocent men get hurt in the process? Nothing is perfect and people will always find ways to use the law to get innocent people hurt, but if we don't have the law in the first place, women are screwed (in more ways than one). In the majority of cases, women will say that they don't want to continue, so there should be a law specifically saying that if a woman says no, he stops, regardless if maybe 1 out of 10000 women will decide to use that law in a bad way. Does what I am saying make sense? How we shouldn't let the exceptions dominate the need to have the law in the first place to protect the majority of honest women who really are getting raped?

Originally posted by hotbakedtater
Withdrawing consent after the act begins can definitely be construed as entrapment and lying by the defense.

Okay, so Billy says to Tommy, "I need help for a school project, will you come over to my house after school and help?"
Tommy says, "Sure Billy, I'd love to!"
That evening, Tommy goes to Billy's house, and Billy takes Tommy up to his room, locks the door, and starts beating him up. Tommy says "Wth Billy, stop that!"
And Billy says, "I am doing a project on bruising, I need some pics of massive bruises, and you said you'd help me, you can't back out now!"

So, if Tommy prosecutes Billy for assault, is Tommy entrapping Billy because Tommy said he'd help Billy with the project? If you think Tommy is in the right to prosecute Billy for assault, then you should be on the side of women who are in the same situation - where they think something is gonna turn out just fine, it doesn't, so they try to escape the situation but are unable.

I can't believe you, as a woman, would EVER be on the side of a man who is hurting a woman sexually when she asks him to stop. It sickens me.

Wowzers @ some of the users comments!

I think that each case should be individual. Everyone's case is different.

Some people get framed for murder..does that mean we should get rid of murder laws just because a few people out of hundreds are innocent?

Regarding the particular article cited... When a TEENAGER who is of consensual age agrees to have sex, and asks for her partner to stop because of pain, and he doesn't, holding her forcibly (causing bruising, other physical trauma) causing even more pain because she is now struggling to get away because he won't stop... is a case of rape...IMHO.

Regarding ADULTS....
Even strippers, who are consensually showing off their body for monies, still have a right to retreat their consent if they feel the situation permits them to want to. Thats why clubs of the sort have bouncers. To take care of the wise (demented) guys who do not understand and abuse this "consent".

I know a guy who was wrongfully accused for rape (as a teen) as well. He is a real nice guy. Being accused didn't ruin his life. It taught him valuable lessons, lessons that helped him now have a healthy, respectful, life and family.

I again want to state, each case should be treated individually. That's why we have due process, to hear both sides of the stories before making any kind of final judgment.

I think it’s it’s a whole big ugly mess with a very large gray area.
I tend to agree with those that say NO means NO.
However, where do you draw the line between a guy being an insensitive lout and a rapist?
How does a court draw the line, a dead stop after “NO”, two seconds, three?

THE “NEW” WITHDRAWAL OF CONSENT STANDARD
IN MARYLAND RAPE LAW:
A YEAR AFTER BABY v. STATE
www.wcl.american.edu...
The over-reaching implications of what has been termed “The Five-Second Rule”
are obvious, because the most difficult legal elements to prove in any rape crime
case are force and non-consent.

After doing some reading on the Sombo case (the original op) This never went to court. It was dismissed at the district court level by the prosecutor. I wonder if she thought she couldn’t win because of State v Way? The victim contests that she ever actually gave consent in the first place. If that’s the case, seems she could re-instate the charges.

I pulled the case on State v Way and it’s rather confusing. She claimed he beat and raped her, he claimed it was consensual. He was found guilty of second degree rape. But because of the jury instructions about consent, he was granted a new trial. What I can’t tell is if the second degree rape conviction is from the first trial or the appeal.
www.loislaw.com...
.

Originally posted by lellomackin
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.

I wholeheartedly agree with your conclusion, but I think you may have muddled it up a bit in the middle.

It would be more like: you allow a guest to your party, and when they become a pain, you ask them to leave.
They should.


OP, I think you should either have more faith in your sons, or have a long talk about self control and the repercussions of losing it.

I'm sure most males on this forum have been through a situation something like this, and have resisted the urge to continue. Your sons will be confronted with this sooner or later, what would you want them to do?

No means no, but I wouldn't call it 'rape'.

You can't compare "I gave consent, but halfway through decided to ask him to stop, but he didn't." to, "He attacked me and brutally raped me against my will."

The former, trivializes the reality of the latter. I see it similar to manslaughter vs. murder, two entirely different charges with separate sentencing, yet it still applies to simply 'ending someone's life'. It shouldn't be so cut and dry, there needs to be a validated gray area with it's own appropriate laws.

It would depend on the severity of the situation as well. Was consent withdrawn immediately, or "in the heat of the moment", was it a casual request or did it turn into a forceful encounter? All of this matters.

Do we really want to sentence a confused teen under the same hammer brought down on actual rapists?

reply to post by lellomackin


Considering someone has to go to jail for the rest of his life or for a long time, this matter should be dealt with great concern. But who knows what went in the act which probably happen in the very private place? This is a dangerous topic you should avoid.

Consent cant be withdrawn after being given.

It isn't rape, and any really thinks it is, they have some screws loose.

Its too easy for men to be accused of rape these days by women thinking it was a mistake, or for attention i.e the numerous story's of footballers being accused of rape and they turn out the accuser just wanted to sell a story and they are found innocent.

reply to post by hotbakedtater


I don't really much care how "confusing" it is. No means no, it doesn't mean maybe and it doesn't mean yes if the act has already started. She said no, he continued he's in the wrong. I find it disturbing that anyone or any law could for an instant believe that it's okay to continue a sex act when one of the participants has said no.

reply to post by hotbakedtater




You say "NO MEANS NO" well I say "STOP MEANS STOP" .I say if a man is doing a woman and she says stop then it is game over. He must stop when she says stop to continue on after is nothing less than rape..

Originally posted by hotbakedtater
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.

She probably led the guy on like so many other women in this world. Who tease men and try to control them using sex and then when it's time to give it up they try to control further by telling the guy stupid one liners like "no mean no". Half of the women out there who do this stuff deserve what they get and I have no sympathy for them. The other half, who present themselves in a proper manner.......they certainly don't deserve it, but the women who play games with mens minds and manipulate them sexually........I would walk by and let the guy continue if I knew she had sexually manipulated him in any way. Women today don't have a use for men anyway right? Feminism has made us men obsolete......so when bad things happen like this.....fix it yourself!

Originally posted by hotbakedtater
Withdrawing consent after the act begins can definitely be construed as entrapment and lying by the defense.

This is also a good reason to really get to know your sex partner before you have sex with them.

I completely disagree. How on earth is that entrapment and lying?? Please give more details on this.

When sex begins there is NOTHING in any law that says it must be finished to completion. Nothing. The entire time during sex both parties have the right to stop when they want.

Im really really boggled at your stance on this.

reply to post by Phenomium

I would walk by and let the guy continue if I knew she had sexually manipulated him in any way. Women today don't have a use for men anyway right? Feminism has made us men obsolete......so when bad things happen like this.....fix it yourself!

That's cold...

I would agree, women of today have no use for *boys with attitudes like this...