Posted on 01/13/2003 8:55:15 PM PST by LibertarianInExile
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.
Laura testified she "kept . . . pulling up, trying to sit up to get it out . . . [a]nd he grabbed my hips and pushed me back down and then he rolled me back over so I was on my back . . . and . . . kept saying, will you be my girlfriend." Laura "kept like trying to pull away" and told him that "if he really did care about me, he wouldn’t be doing this to me and if he did want a relationship, he should wait and respect that I don’t want to do this."
He rolled her over and continued the sexual intercourse. Laura told him that she needed to go home, but he would not stop. He said, "just give me a minute," and she said, "no, I need to get home." He replied, "give me some time" and she repeated, "no, I have to go home." Defendant did not stop, "[h]e just stayed inside of me and kept like basically forcing it on me."
Four or five minutes? He was probably finished by then.
I was not replying to you or the Chancellor; I was just making sure the other readers who were not on the original threads didn't fall for your nonsense.
Oh, come on. CP when to great lengths to state that his/her opinion was based upon the fact that he/she was a parent, and that basically my opinion is biased because I am not a parent. I think the totality of the posts CP has made shows that he/she is very gullible if he/she thinks teens dont lie their asses off. CP brought up hi/her family experience, not me, which makes it fair game.
was not replying to you or the Chancellor; I was just making sure the other readers who were not on the original threads didn't fall for your nonsense.
So tell us all about your children so we can trash them out like you are doing to other people's.
Which Laura never did. Nor did she testify that she screamed, yelled, left the room, was afraid, was threatened, told someone else at the party, called the cops....... She did mention enjoying two guys fondling her and admitted to lying back down on the bed and kissing John Z. after he re-entered the room naked, but I guess that's irrelevant because it casts doubt upon her claims.
I admit, when I read the first article without the parts of the trial transcript, I though she may have been raped too. The facts of the case, i.e., what she admits to, just don't jive with her other claims that John Z. denies.
Please re-read the sequence of posts I made. My #36 and #37 were to the forumn and Tall_Texan, not to you or CP. Once engaged by you in #41, and once disturbed by CP's disingenuous "bolding technique", I responded.
I apologize for not being as clear as I could have been.
Talk about pressure to perform well! ....(for guys, at least).
Yep, although I wouldn't exactly call those hags at NOW 'ladies'. Perhaps just 'female'....although that's a bit of a stretch as well.
White, Christian, male, heterosexual Republicans are public enemy #1, and will soon be outlawed if the trends in Kali continue.
Ain't that the truth. If you put a woman on a pedestal and try to protect her from the rat race, you're a male chauvinist. If you stay home and do the housework, you're a pansy.
If you work too hard, there is never any time for her. If you don't work enough, you're a good-for-nothing bum.
If she has a boring repetitive job with low pay, this is exploitation. If you have a boring repetitive job with low pay, you should get off your ass and find something better.
If you cry, you're a wimp. If you don't, you're an insensitive bastard.
If you make a decision without consulting her, you're a chauvinist. If she makes a decision without consulting you, she's a "liberated" woman.
If you appreciate the female form and frilly underwear, you're a pervert. If you don't, you're a fruit.
If you try to keep yourself in shape, you're vain. If you don't, you're a slob.
If you buy her flowers, you're after something. If you don't, you're not thoughtful.
If you're proud of your achievements, you're full of yourself. If you don't, you're not ambitious.
If she has a headache, she's tired. If you have a headache, you don't love her anymore.
If you want it too often, you're over sexed. If you don't, you must be seeing someone else.
We fellas just have to realize that there's no winning in this game.
Nah, just another state - California is such a joke on SO many fronts!
And please identify what is so Christian or Republican about the conduct of the two guilty young men (one of whom apparently pled) as was outlined in the actual opinion, as opposed to Ms. Parker's blatherings?
Regarding the subject of the article, under NO circumstances is rape anything other than a crime. In this case, however, intercourse began consentually - at that point it was, therefore, NOT rape. Like the article said, there was herculean effort for the guy to quit prior to climax - don't try tell me it was an easy matter to figure out in mid-act that consentual had changed to "oops, this is a mistake", but he did (in spite of the words "no" or "stop" not being uttered, and in spite of no empassioned screaming), and then stopped.
As the proud parent of four daughters, three of whom are happily married with families of their own, and youngest of whom is an award-winning college junior, don't presume to tell me ANYTHING about the rights of women!
I agree, that is a lot of information she left out. Sort of changes the whole "feel" of her article. (and the situation)
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.