California Supreme Court says rape begins when woman says stop

Associated Press / SFGate

[Chancellor Palpatine]

Complete and utter hogwash.

You might not be inclined to exercise self control, but most people with IQs over retardation level are quite capable of controlling ourselves.

We're not animals.

[John Valentine]

Hogwash seems to be something you have some familiarity with, however you won't find any in my posts.

If you want to digest some REAL hogwash you should try a heaping portion of this California Supreme Court decision.

By the way, all the invective in the world will not change our physiology. And at the level of physiology we are animals, like it or not.

As for your vaunted "self control", why do you think it is that withdrawal is such an utter failure as a means of birth control?

You assume a degree of control over our autonomous functions that even most yogis have not achieved after years of practice.

Theorist, as I surmised.

[Chancellor Palpatine]

Theorist? ROFLMAO.

Only a misogynist or a gay man would make that assumption. Assuming you don't get enough dates to even be a good misogynist, we know where that leaves you.

If you had the reading comprehension of a 5th grader, mouth, you would have noted that we aren't talking about the moment of climax, or anything close to it.

Of course, that might detract from your deeply held conviction that women are evil.

[wimpycat]

Without a doubt, in sex there comes a time when a man cannot stop.

And I daresay that this is true for a woman as well; and that this is a fact accounts for much unnecessary personal anguish and self-doubt among female rape victims.

This needs to stand out on its own. I think it's worthy of framing, don't you, CP?

[wimpycat]

As for your vaunted "self control", why do you think it is that withdrawal is such an utter failure as a means of birth control?

So much for your knowledge of physiology. Sperm-containing semen leaks out to some degree in most men during intercourse and before ejaculation.

[John Valentine]

WOW! Where did all that come from?

[SarahW]

Of course consent can be withdrawn. And it has nothing to do with "ideology"

If you consented to give money to a friend or stranger, said you'd give them fifty, and decided to stop at ten dollars, and they took your other 40 by force, they would be committing criminal theft.

If you were getting a haircut and told the stylist to stop, any further snipping would be a battery.

If I told the gardener he could drive my car across town, and called him on the cellphone and told him to bring the car back, and he drove it across town instead, he would be guilty of conversion.

So why isn't a man who forces a woman to submit to sex when she has revoked permission guilty of rape?

How long does a man have permission to penetrate a woman who has revoked consent? Can he keep her there all night? An hour? THirty minutes? Can he hold her down and refuse to let her leave? Can he penetrate any orifice he wishes?

Sorry, a man CAN stop when asked to stop. It isn't "manners" or "kindness" to stop, he's lost the right and permission to proceed. If she is held and penetrated against her will, that's assault. A sexual battery.

[cynicalman]

Assuming a 6" pee pee

poor fellow. Maybe that's why she said stop. It just was not enough for her.

[John Valentine]

Of course consent can be withdrawn.

Of course when this happens the partner should stop. This goes both ways and I don't have a problem until you want to criminalize it. That causes me enormous worry because it trivializes the concept of the crime of rape. Rape is more than bad manners, and we would all be better off if we don't confuse ourselves on that point.

I would never argue that one sexual partner has a RIGHT to have the other partner complete the act without complaint. Such a position would be stupid.

My only beef is with the idea that such behavior should be criminalized, thus involving the police, the courts, and the prison system.

And the problems of proof! Whew, the potential for abusive prosecution is huge and troubling to me.

I have now grown tired of this subject. Thank God I don't live in California. And thank God my wife and I are considerate of each other and faithful, so for us this is a purely hypothetical situation.

[SarahW]

But sexual battery is a criminal act. Just like stealing, or assault, or simple battery, or kidnapping, or car theft.


See the examples given.

Any given fact situation can effect determination of guilt or mitigate or exacerbate punishment for guilt. But it's still a crime.

[John Valentine]

Well, I looked at your analogies and all they do for me is point up the inherent weakness of arguing from analogy.

ALL your examples have been defined as crimes for donkey years.

The crime of rape has never before been defined in terms of a partner withdrawing consent during the sex act.

This is a new, dangerous, deplorable and counterproductive development.

Sorry, but I simply cannot buy into your point of view.

[Zebra]

I posted this on the other thread on this topic:

This is is the most idiotic thing I have ever read. Whatever your views about the advisability of abstinence (I support it, but recognize the incredible difficulty with teenagers), to charge a 17 year old boy with felony rape under these circumstances is unfairly punitive. As if a 17 year old isn't confused enough about the world and the rage of hormones, he now has to be able to stop on a dime when an equally confused (probably) female partner has second thoughts mid-coitus. And he is supposed to understand the meaning and implications of the utterance of regret instantly or face a felony.

I am glad (a) I don't live in California, where my children would be exposed to this nonsense and (b) I didn't have to grow up in California today.

BTW, I am very interested in the theory of jurisprudence upon which is based the criminalizing of a participant in a legal, consensual act who fails to withdraw immediately when a less than unequivocal expression of withdrawal of consent is given. Consent is an absolute defense to a charge of rape, and the idea that a participant mid-act is strictly and criminally liable to understand and appreciate instantly a withdrawal of consent as "clear" as the one presented in these circumstances is absurd.

Since it is unusual to hear about a rape prosecution in these circumstances (can you ever recall having heard about one like this?), there must be an unspoken collective consensus that this conduct--while perhaps ignoble--is not criminal. Except, I guess, in the Peoples Republic of California.

[SarahW]

Rape has also been a crime for donkey years.

What are you talking about?

If it is stealing to take money from a person who agrees to give, gives part, and then refuses to give the rest promised, it is sexual battery to hold a woman down and force her to have intercourse after she has revoked permission.

The court saw what I see - the crime begins not from the moment permitted sexual activity took place, but from continuing after permission has been revoked.

[Morrigan]

Prepared for a flaming, but I agree with you, Sarah. Admittedly, this case is different from many others. In this one the boy did stop, even if it was after a minute or so. But, in many other cases, men don't stop. They wind up forcing their partners to have intercourse, sometimes brutalizing them physically in the process. This is a crime.

The whole argument of men not being able to control themselves after a certain point is a total copout. My husband has never had a problem controlling his behavior, and neither do I--not even after a few drinks! It isn't can't control, it is DON'T WANT TO. IMO, that is wrong.

I knew a girl that got raped when we were seventeen. But because most people think like a lot of folks seem to on this thread, she never told anyone. So the guy that assaulted her was never held accountable, and for all I know, has done it again. She was really traumatized by that whole event, and refuses to talk about it now. It is sad, really. She told a guy no, too.

My advice to men is, if someone you are with says no, say "Fine." Don't continue no matter what she does. Just say, "Look, I'm not going to play mind games with you. If you say no, then I am going to take it as no." Then you wouldn't have to worry, right?

[John Valentine]

Well, you do have the California court on your side, but I see it as very bad law, and not too likely to be adopted in other jurisdictions. And this is a new definition of rape, make no mistake about that.