Posted on 01/12/2003 9:23:37 PM PST by kattracks
I'm going to try to keep this clean, but the recent California Supreme Court ruling that a woman who changes her mind during sexual intercourse qualifies as a rape victim tests one's commitment to decorum.
Yes, you read it right. The 6-1 ruling changes the definition of rape so significantly that a man who doesn't withdraw immediately upon his partner's shift in attitude can go to prison. One young man already has.
A 17-year-old -John Z. -served six months in a juvenile detention facility on a rape conviction following just such an encounter. He and Laura T. were having consensual sex when Laura decided she needed to get home. She didn't say, "Stop." She didn't cry out or struggle.
She merely said, "I should be going now" and "I need to go home," according to her testimony.
Because it reportedly took John Z. a full minute and a half to cease and desist -an act of rare self-control among the primate known as a 17-year-old male -he was convicted of rape. I don't know who was holding the timer during this intimate act. Was the rape victim monitoring her watch's second hand?
With its ruling Monday, the California Supreme Court affirmed John Z.'s conviction. Although Justice Janice Rogers Brown agreed with the rape definition, she dissented on whether the boy had been guilty of rape. She noted that he might have had an "honest and reasonable belief" that the girl didn't waive consent, a defense recognized by California courts.
Honest and reasonable? That sounds right. Given that the girl wanted to have sex, or at least said she did, then proceeded to have sex, and only then said she needed to go home, one could leap to the wild conclusion that the young man may not have divined her intent that he retreat.
I'm sorry, but when did girls get so stupid? In the old days -when girls were apparently both smarter and tougher -a girl who didn't want to have sex didn't have sex. She said no thanks, grabbed her purse and walked out the door. The boy may have been disappointed and frustrated, but he wasn't confused. "No" meant "no."
And "yes" meant yes to the finish line. If you want a guy to stop midway through the first act, pick an older boyfriend. Say fiftyish. Speaking of which, I keep coming back to this: Where's Daddy? Who didn't teach this girl the rules of engagement?
Once upon a time, fathers taught their daughters better. You don't take a boy to bed and then say "no." In a similar vein, as my father taught me, you don't pull a gun on someone unless you intend to kill him. There are certain things you don't kid around with, and hormonally charged teenage boys and loaded guns are among the top two.
I'm not suggesting that girls get what they deserve. So stifle the swoon, sisters. Nor am I suggesting that there aren't times when boys and men fail to listen carefully when girls and women speak. In my vast experience, they mostly pay close attention when food is involved.
But I am prepared to defend males against the sort of insanity that makes them criminals for not being able to read a girl's mind. Who exactly will bear witness to these "he said-she said" debacles? What words will suffice to mean "Stop," if "I need to get home" is enough to convict a boy of rape? What if she'd said, "Oh, gosh, I've got to buy cat food." Would that do? "Clearly my heart wasn't in it, Your Honor. He should have known I meant stop!"
And how quick is quick enough for the man to cease his foul play? A minute? Thirty seconds? The court didn't say.
I hate to be the one to break it to you, fellas, but the gelding of the American male is nearly complete and the message clear: You can do nothing right. As a friend's world-weary 15-year-old son correctly summarized the zeitgeist: "Women good, men bad."
John Z. wasn't guilty of rape; he was guilty of being male. If I were a guy, I'd find another country.
©2003 Tribune Media Services
What the hell? If that's true, that is completely ludicrous. There are laws against spousal abuse but I find it hard to believe even in California that a guy could be charged with spousal rape solely on the grounds that his wife changed her mind halfway through. But I'm no Perry Mason so I could be wrong about that.
But still, the little puke who couldn't control his love thang gets no sympathy from me.
Per another article, that's a gross oversimplification of her testimony. I forget the exact details, but the dialogue was more like:
She used the "N" word at least twice, and if her testimony is to be believed (nb: since the jury apparently believed her testimony, the appeals court is bound to do so) her non-consent was clear and unambiguous.Her: I should be going now. Him: Let me go for a bit longer. Her: No, I need to go home. Him: Just a bit longer. Her: NO, I need to go home NOW.
Well, yeah....unmarried sex brings all kinds of drawbacks with it but in this case the guy was probably a lot bigger and stronger than she was and once she decided she didn't want to continue and wanted to stop she was simply physically incapable of throwing him off the ride.
Well, if a woman indicates she's no longer keen on having sex, including saying "NO" at least twice, continuing after that should be perilous.
I didn't see where she said "NO" anywhere.....
No means no. While there are certain shades of meaning, from "No, not yet, but keep trying to make me say 'yes' if you like" to "No, not now, not ever, get lost you jerk", the "no" word pretty unambiguously means "no" unless it is followed up explicitly by something positive, e.g. hypothetically:
Absent an explicit affirmation as above, though, the word "no" is pretty unambiguously negative.She: I should be going soon. He: Okay, I'll hurry it up then. She: No, no need to hurry. Take your time.
Absolutely amazing that this kind of legal garbage is tolerated. Rape? My eye.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.