California Supreme Court says rape begins when woman says stop

Associated Press / SFGate

[RCW2001]

Monday, January 6, 2003
©2003 Associated Press

URL: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/news/archive/2003/01/06/national2027EST0776.DTL

(01-06) 17:27 PST SAN FRANCISCO (AP) --

The California Supreme Court defined rape Monday as continued sexual intercourse by a man after his female partner demands that it stop.

The 7-0 decision reverses a 1985 ruling by a lower court.

"This opinion is significant. It appears the California Supreme Court has clearly rejected an opportunity to revisit past barriers to rape convictions," said Douglas Beloof, an attorney with the National Crime Victim Law Institute.

The 2000 case involved two 17-year-olds who had sex in a bedroom during a party. The boy testified that the sex was consensual and that he stopped when the girl demanded. She testified the boy kept having sex with her for about a "minute and a half" after she called it off.

The boy was convicted of rape and served about six months in a juvenile facility. The high court affirmed that conviction Monday.

Justice Janice Rogers Brown, while agreeing with the majority on what constitutes rape, dissented on whether the boy was guilty. She wrote that the girl never clearly said stop, instead saying "I should be going now" and "I need to go home."

Brown also wondered how much time a man has to stop once a woman says stop.

"Ten seconds? Thirty?" she wrote.

©2003 Associated Press

[Dianna]

Strippers take their clothes off for men all of the time and give them lap dances - they aren't giving the okay for every man in the bar to rape them.

In this situation the rules are VERY clear. Unlike dating.

Ummm, no actually I don't "screw with this rule all of the time" - if you do then maybe you are part of the problem - don't confuse your actions and/or behavior with that of others.

Women do, in general, all the time. Since I became an adult, I have become much more straight forward in my dealings with all people. I have known many women who are ambiguous in all kinds of dealings because being straight forward can be construed as "not nice", aggressive or bitchy. It is as simple as the first time a boy places his hand on her breast, she shoves it away, does the same a second time, but the third time, she leaves it there. She's just taught him that all he needs to do is be persistent.

Some men might think that a woman winking at them or wearing a low-cut shirt is a woman "acting like a skanky slut" - and yes if he rapes her he should be locked up in a prison like the animal he is. And yes, a man should be "in complete control" over his body at all times, aren't you?

Most reasonable people can agree that a wink or sexy dress does not constitute hanging out the wanted sign. I am concerned about situations like the one above, where we have a girl who is so weak and wishy washy that she cannot firmly state her wishes. That, combined with two boys who had been drinking, simply leads to disaster.

By sticking firmly with the party line that no matter what, as soon as a girl says no, or something which could possibly be construed as no, or body language which could be construed as no, you are giving young ladies license to act badly. They are learning that there is no reason to act safely or with common sense because the boy is ALWAYS SUPPOSED to stop.

I'd like to teach our young girls (and our boys) a higher standard. I'd like them to use their brains, take responsibility for themselves and the signals they may be giving out. That "NO!! STOP!!" should be their last line of defense, AFTER not getting drunk, not placing themselves in overheated situations, and not leading every man to believe that they "might" say yes.

But all these discussions revolve around, "Did she say no?" We never seem to get around to the rest because we are afraid it is blaming the victim. I don't think we are doing them any favors. As standards of behavior get worse these problems crop up more and more and more young women are being hurt.

[going hot]

Has anybody addressed the question as to how long they were going at it prior to her telling him she must go? Five minutes,? Ten? twenty?

If it was just a few moments, then she may have a stronger case. The longer they were going at it prior to the fateful statement, the less strength the statement carries.

[HiTech RedNeck]

It is the Judge who says the girl never clearly said to STOP.

One judge on the supreme court -- nothing mentioned in this news article about what the others said.

Is this the rule in CA, that the appellate courts can rule on facts as well as on law? It was the trial court that apparently decided that what she said was tantamount to "stop."

(Such are the expected tangles of sex before marriage; but one hopes that the same rule doesn't apply to a wife who gets huffy with her husband in mid whoopee and tells him to stop.)

[Dianna]

they figure that if they just scream and run with the wallet that the crazy man might do more than 'just' take their money,

This doesn't even make sense. If walking out of the room could make this crazy lust starved criminal throw me to the floor, beat and rape me why would I even try to say no? Wouldn't the crazy guy be just as crazy if I simply refused?

There are all kinds of situations out there. A small percentage of guys are evil, crazy rapists and you are probably screwed if you ever find yourself alone with one.

Then you've got the dating couple where the guy is thinking "she let me kiss her, but not touch her breast; then she let me touch her breast but not get under her clothes; then she let me get under her top but not her pants"...we've got this progression thing going on. If she is meanwhile thinking suddenly as he tries to get into her pants "ohmigosh he's crazy rapist man and now I can't say anything or he'll beat me and rape me anyway" this is a ludicrous, unnecessary situation. The guy isn't evil, he's simply doing what she has taught him is ok behavior with her. And if this actually happens, she isn't evil either. But it is a terrible misunderstanding.

And then we have the "everybody is drunk and no one quite knows what happened thing" where all the drunk people are to blame.

I've been in two precarious situations. One was entirely my doing. I deliberately pursued the situation thinking I could control it. Luckily for me, the guy was decent. And had he not been, I would have been responsible for placing my person in harms way. I learned that lesson quickly.

In the second, I was much less responsible for my situation and I got rescued. Lucky, because that guy certainly seemed like crazy rapist man, emphasis on the crazy.

[HiTech RedNeck]

[Approved for posting by Mrs. Boot Hill.]

I don't think there was a call for you to flirt with Dianna to prove your point, whether or not wifey concurred.

[Boot Hill]

Don't be an ass.

[HiTech RedNeck]

Well sure it's an old song but if it wasn't cited as a flirtation-to-prove-a-point given the context then what WAS it? You were not replying to a "Susan" or a "Joan," but a "Dianna."

[Boot Hill]

My post in 202 had nothing to do with "flirtation" and it had nothing to do with "proving a point". My post there began with a quote from something Dianna had said in a previous post that I thought was stunningly brilliant and something unsaid by any other posters on this long and difficult thread. I wanted to "sing her praises" for that display of lucidity and logic and so I did a quick Google search using keywords "diana" and "lyrics" to see what I could find. Of what Google returned, the closest I could come up with was the Paul Anka hit, "Diana".

Sorry about the coarseness of my reply to you, but I found the thoughtlessness of your post charging "flirtation" to be extremely irritating.

--Boot Hill

[xm177e2]

The problem is that she never clearly told him to stop. Mumbling something like "I need to go home" does not constitute withdrawing consent any more than saying "I don't need to go home" is consent for sex.

[HiTech RedNeck]

Sorry to get you misconscrewed. Hee haw.

[HiTech RedNeck]

Once the condom was in place, defendant left the room and Juan got on top of Laura. She tried to resist and told him she did not want to have intercourse, but he was too strong and forced his penis into her vagina.

So why'd the question of her saying something that might or might not have meant stop "during" the sex act, ever come up. She said stop before it began. Given these facts I don't know why the boy even bothered to appeal the case.

[visualops]

she never clearly told him to stop

Never told him to stop, period.
There's been a fair amount of speculation as to state of mind and what 'really' happened.
I submit it could easily have been the culmination of an evening of teasing and game-playing.
Perhaps she was laughing and giggling 'I need to go home'.
Point being, if you don't want to have sex with someone, the time to decide that is not after he's got his dick in you.
One should be taught to say what you mean and mean what you say, to be responsible for your behavior, and have the sense to not party and fool around and then wonder 'geez, how'd that happen' doh!

[Boot Hill]

I posted the "FACTS" portion of the Supreme Court decision in order to clear up the poor reporting in the newspaper article that started this thread. However, the language employed by the justices tended to murky up the water more. The following is an example.

Your quote from the decision:   "Once the condom was in place, defendant left the room and Juan got on top of Laura. She tried to resist and told him she did not want to have intercourse, but he was too strong and forced his penis into her vagina.."

Then you asked:   "So why'd the question of her saying something that might or might not have meant stop "during" the sex act, ever come up. She said stop before it began.."

Both the article and the Court's decision are about "John Z." and not about "Juan" (another participant in that evening's drama). Notice in your court quote, that the defendant (John Z.) had left the room and that the non-consensual act of intercourse described in that quote was committed by Juan.

Here is what Laura said, on cross-examination, about the intercourse with John Z.:

"...Laura testified that when defendant entered the room unclothed, he lay down on the bed behind her and touched her shoulder with just enough pressure to make her move, a nudge. He asked her to lie down and she did. He began kissing her and she kissed him back. He rolled on top of her, inserted his penis in her and, although she resisted, he rolled her back over, pulling her on top of him. She was on top of him for four or five minutes, during which time she tried to get off, but he grabbed her waist and pulled her back down."

Notice the absence of any "no" or "stop" prior to or immediately after penetration, in fact, not for the first eight minutes. Note too, she states that she was on top of the boy engaging in intercourse for "four to five minutes", but claims she was unable to pull out. If you don't find that claim credible (and I don't), then how much else did she falsely testify to?

So the issue on appeal for John Z. (not Juan, who copped a plea before trial) boils down to:

1. After more than eight minutes of intercourse, when Laura finally said to John Z. that "she needed to go home", did she effectively communicate the end of consent with her words?
2. Does the refusal to immediately honor a retraction of consent during the midst of intercourse, amount to rape?

If we accept Laura's testimony as reported by the Supreme Court, then the answer to the first question is, yes. But remember, Laura's truthfulness is in serious doubt here, as I outlined above. More over, in such a case (a demand to cease during intercourse), there is ZERO evidence that such a demand was ever made, other than the complainant's own word.

As to the second question, while I feel that John Z. was a royal jerk for not stopping, in no way do I feel that his failure amounted to rape. Think back to why we even have a crime called "rape", rather than simply charging the perpetrator with the crime of assault and battery. There is one hell of a big difference between the heinous act of forcible penetration and "Oops, I've changed my mind".

Regards,

Boot Hill

[Yeti]

I think no means no.

I do think women are encourage to use the current ambiguity in our social mores in fickle and capricious ways.

Although you didn't say it, the tone of your post seems to imply that maybe men can ignore "no" under some circumstances. Well, maybe, but it had better be a well established relationship wherein the guy can be confident that "we are playing that game."

A woman who tries to play those head games with me won't get laid. That's asking me to risk a lot to enhance her little nut, and I won't get anything but annoyed.

I do agree that rights and responsibilities should go hand-in-hand, and the way they have been decoupled in the last 30-40 years breeds wickedness.

I don't have time to scan the all of the posts right now, but while looking for 189, I noticed someone posted a clarification regarding the facts of the case. I hate it when that happens!

[lavaroise]

I have had many women (more than 2) tell me to stop when they enjoyed it and they specificaly were telling me to continue while they would say stop - it fitted their arousals, go figure. So in the eyes of the California court I am the rapist while I was the one being raped in fact... well, sort of.. LOL...

Autonomy is something the government is against and the government will seek to divide families and lovers at every turn, giving the option to the female party to complain if she is not satisfied one way or the other.

[HiTech RedNeck]

Both the article and the Court's decision are about "John Z." and not about "Juan"

Well gee, that was a lot of words to tell me "Dummy... wrong person!"

[lavaroise]

Saying no means no? So I guess the CA court must agree that raping youngins that cannot say no or do not know better someone is stealing their innocence is consensual sex... Yep, the pedophiles win and the liars win.

[goldstategop]

LOL!!! Men are not terribly good at reading a woman's mind. And mind you if she is ambiguous in her answer, the poor guy can't figure out what she wants. He's damned if he does and damned if he doesn't. Its not fun having a relationship or even going to have sex for the first time if a lawyer has to invited in bed before the congressing couple begin to make sure all the i's and t's are dotted. Sure, a woman has every right to change her mind after sex begins but men hate being manipulated into giving up a good thing. If a woman wants to be a relationship killjoy, she can be one by the simple expedient of interrupting sex once its under way and leaving the guy in the dust, if she doesn't decide to go to the police afterwards. We used to pretty sure before the California Supreme Court's decision as to what constituted rape and now they've moved the goalposts. Message to men: go ahead and have sex at your own risk.

[AEMILIUS PAULUS]

One way to avoid the problem is to be chaste.