Posted on 01/06/2003 6:33:57 PM PST by RCW2001
As for "no" always meaning "no", nonsense. "No" is often but a part of the dance.
You would like to believe it was as you say, if you take it that he was the insistent aggressor and she was yelling and screqaming and pushing him away. Create the scene that way if you want. But you are willfully inisisting on failing to apply what you must know about human nature ---even your own experience. Why it is that you have placed yourself in that place, on that rather limited choice of all the various ways it could have happened? The answer as to why you want to be in that position is itself interesting---but it does show that your chief interest is not the truth--or being fair.
Don't you have exeperience about how people, men and women, do complex things and then may wish it to be a certain different way after the fact. This is the alleged "date rape" scenario. She apparently entered into a certain sexual relation with this person, when it "goes beyond what I[she] hoped it to be, maybe what I [she] hoped before the event; OR maybe what I [she] now hopes after the event since I [she] now have regrets and now "believe" that it was he who insisted on it happening --and that I [she] was really innocent.
Do you really think that a just and fair legal fact-finding and analysis can be applied to such a situation? The older jurisprudence refused to be drawn into this quagmire--for very good reasons. Now, the contemporary mind--prejudiced by and for feminists--leaps into this quicksand and truth and justice are the victims.
During the 90 seconds it took the boy to stop, the woman said "I should be going now", and "I need to go home". If she really wanted the boy to stop, she sure had an odd way of showing it. I can neither see nor imagine any reason that she would be unable to say something like "Stop it. Stop It! STOP IT!" And if she'd said such a thing and he'd continued for any significant period of time after the third utterance I'd have no problem with a rape conviction. No such utterance on her part has been claimed, however, and the fact that she had the presence of mind to make both of her utterances suggests she should have had the presence of mind to say "STOP" if that was her actual intention.
I wonder, does she always keep a stopwatch in one hand while having sex?
I see, so you think that a male getting raped is wimpy... it's his own fault... no crime here... he should be happy he got some. Sounds like blaming the victim and condoning taking advantage of the weak to me. You're all class. It's also nice to know that you think that justice actually does depend on a person's physical attributes. Were your ancestors big fans of slavery and Jim Crow laws?
Maybe the girl was paid to frame the guy.
Maybe she was mad at him because he looked at some other girl earlier in the evening.
Maybe she already had her "O" and was now bored.
Maybe... Maybe... Maybe...
She said.....I should be going now"
He heard....."I'm about to c*m"
She said...."I should be going now"
He heard...."That's it. You're hitting the spot."
If the girl was trying physically to stop the boy's actions and he overrode her efforts, that would be grounds for a rape charge whether or not she said anything; were that the case, though, it would almost certainly have been mentioned.
Also, I just have a really hard time with the notion that a girl who was being raped would say "I need to go home". It sounds much more like something that might be said by a girl who was having second thoughts about whether she should be having sex, but that is very different. Further, in most other contexts, a statement like "I need to go home" means "I'm in an extreme hurry; wrap things up quickly." And I don't doubt the guy was trying to do precisely that (though I'll admit I find it a bit odd that a 17-year-old would take 90 seconds... thought they were faster than that).
No, it's not the same, but as soon as the intercourse becomes non-consenual - the woman changes her mind for whatever reason...it is rape. The boy who committed this crime got 6 months at a juvey hall. A rapist who pulls a woman into an alley and rapes her would get a harsher sentence. Nobody has the right to violate a person, even if they consented at first. There have been cases of rapists raping prostitutes, husbands raping wives - rape occurs when someone starts or continues intercourse against someone elses will and that is the bottom line.
If someone steals a wallet, it is a theft - a crime. If someone robs a bank, it is a theft - a crime. Both victims are entitled to go to court to see that justice is served.
Also, just because someone claims they were 'ignorant' while committing a crime - such as 'not understanding' that the girl wanted him to stop or that 'they didn't know it was against the law to trespass on that private property' it doesn't mean that they are not guilty. Ignorance is not an excuse to break the law.
"Honey, the curtains are on fire."
Oh, yeah, baby, oh yeah, on fire, oh yeah!
"Now the cat's throwing up on your Babe Ruth rookie card" (worth thousands)
whatever does it for ya, honey. oh yeah! Go kitty go!
Also add in the fact that they went through ALL of the motions, all of the build-up , all of the conversation, permission, and desires to get where they were. A minor comment of "I gotta be going soon", after all the build-up plus some time in the act itself... minus any physical efforts to stop him... minus any screaming in pain or for help... 90 seconds seems rather quick to me.
THIS IS PART OF A MUCH LARGER PROBLEM OF HOW OUR SOCIETY GETS PUSHED IN BAD DIRECTIONS UNDER FALSE FLAGS OF FLIMSY LANGUAGE.
Sure it is ... right up until the initiation of the act itself. After that point "no" means ... well, you figure it out.
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.