>>My point is this, if some two people start having consenting sex and then one suddenly says ‘no’ then that does NOT make it non-consensual... at that point, whether or not the other stops is irrelevant to whether the act was consensual because IT WAS.
>>
>>Just like a credit card means agreeing to an “I will pay at such and such date” buying things and then deciding that you don’t want them does NOT absolve you from having to pay for them. (Though there are stores and such with return policies that does not refute my argument.)
>
>So the woman has a change of heart and says “No, stop, I don’t want to do this. Please get off of me” and the man continues to have sex with her, he’s NOT raping her?
We’re defining rape as non-consensual sex, right? So, if it started out as consensual how can it be wholly non-consensual? You are completely ignoring the premise I set up.
>Riiiight. Sorry, but “Please get off of me” means “Please get off of me”.
I didn’t say it did, did I?
>Not “I’m not happy with this but go ahead anyway.”
Ah, now we’re getting to your argument. You’re saying that the agreements, be they verbal and/or action, of the past have NO relevance to the present; I disagree with that premise.
>And to compare a woman who did not want to have sex and was eventually raped to a credit card purchase?
Note that you are changing the premise when you say “who did not want to have sex,” I very clearly stated that the condition was one in which they DID want, and therefore consented to, having sex.
Returning to the case which I present would it be better to charge the ‘rapee’ with fraud? {After all isn’t that what we call it when something is agreed/promised and not-delivered?}
How is my analogy flawed? Isn’t a ‘Yes’ to “Let’s have sex.” an agreement to do the act? Precisely, isn’t it an agreement to FINISH the act implicitly? Therefore, how is it different from promising a future pay-in-full on a credit card?
It is the right of either party involved to change their minds and if the other party decides to disregard that demand they have ultimately decided that their needs and desires are superior to their partner’s basic human rights.
Maybe you can defend a man’s refusal to stop (lack of self control, raging hormones, complete disregard for human beings...whatever exactly happens in a man’s mind) but I can’t.
So let’s set something up with your scenario.
Two people consent to sex. Three minutes into it, the woman is in pain, uncomfortable, struck with some morals...whatever. She tells the man to stop, he refuses. She tries to get up and leave, but can’t move under a man’s strength, or worse, he’s holding her down.
That’s not rape? Under your scenario it wouldn’t be.
So yes, that is my argument. Sex isn’t a lock solid contract...it can be broken, especially if one person feels demands it to stop.
I’m not talking about women who feel guilty afterwards or falsely cry rape because they want to get back at an ex-boyfriend. Those women disgust me. However, like I said first, if one party refuses to oblige the other party’s request, at best it’s vile and disrespectful...at worst it’s definately rape.