Woman Can't Say "No" After 'Start Of Sex'

29 posts / 0 new
Last post
Refused's picture
Refused
Offline
Joined: 28-09-04
Nov 1 2006 10:12
Woman Can't Say "No" After 'Start Of Sex'

http://www.thewbalchannel.com/news/10198629/detail.html

Quote:
ANNAPOLIS, Md. -- An appellate court said Maryland's rape law is clear -- no doesn't mean no when it follows a yes and intercourse has begun.

A three-judge panel of the Court of Special Appeals Monday threw out a rape conviction saying that a trial judge in Montgomery County erred when he refused to answer the jury's question on that very point.

The appeals court said that when the jury asked the trial judge if a woman could withdraw her consent after the start of sex, the jury should have been told she could not. The ruling said the law is not ambiguous and is a tenet of common-law.

Jesus fuck, that's insane.

Joseph Kay's picture
Joseph Kay
Offline
Joined: 14-03-06
Nov 1 2006 10:15

tbh i think they've just ruled that to avoid the farce of laying down in case law exactly what reaction time to a mid-coital 'no' constitutes rape

ftony
Offline
Joined: 26-05-04
Nov 1 2006 11:06

crumbs. that's scary, whatever justification they might use

Refused's picture
Refused
Offline
Joined: 28-09-04
Nov 1 2006 11:07
ftony wrote:
crumbs.

neutral

ftony
Offline
Joined: 26-05-04
Nov 1 2006 11:08

Joseph Kay's picture
Joseph Kay
Offline
Joined: 14-03-06
Nov 1 2006 11:10

penfold always reminds me of hans blix neutral

JoeMaguire's picture
JoeMaguire
Offline
Joined: 26-09-03
Nov 1 2006 11:14


Ill get you Hans.....

JDMF's picture
JDMF
Offline
Joined: 21-05-04
Nov 1 2006 11:17

sorry, just to verify, was this verdict saying that if you say yes in the start, then say no, but the person still continues, that wouldn't be rape?

does anyone have any other sources for this?

Joseph Kay's picture
Joseph Kay
Offline
Joined: 14-03-06
Nov 1 2006 11:20
JDMF wrote:
sorry, just to verify, was this verdict saying that if you say yes in the start, then say no, but the person still continues, that wouldn't be rape?

that's how i read it

(nicely back OT JDMF wink)

Refused's picture
Refused
Offline
Joined: 28-09-04
Nov 1 2006 11:21

I don't have another source but it says at the bottom of the page that it's an Associated Press story.

Grace
Offline
Joined: 19-07-05
Nov 1 2006 22:53

There's a document about the case on the Maryland Judiciary website here - http://www.courts.state.md.us/opinions/cosa/2006/225s05.pdf

Lazy Riser's picture
Lazy Riser
Offline
Joined: 6-05-05
Nov 1 2006 23:10

Hi

Quote:
tbh i think they've just ruled that to avoid the farce of laying down in case law exactly what reaction time to a mid-coital 'no' constitutes rape

You're such a misogynist.

Love

LR

Joseph Kay's picture
Joseph Kay
Offline
Joined: 14-03-06
Nov 1 2006 23:11

nope, just studied law and it scarred my peceptions for life

Lazy Riser's picture
Lazy Riser
Offline
Joined: 6-05-05
Nov 1 2006 23:14

Hi

In my book consent can be withdrawn up to 5 years after initial penetration, otherwise you've just got to put up with it.

Love

LR

Joseph Kay's picture
Joseph Kay
Offline
Joined: 14-03-06
Nov 1 2006 23:16

like a sort of sale of goods act for sex? your market logic knows no bounds tongue

Lazy Riser's picture
Lazy Riser
Offline
Joined: 6-05-05
Nov 1 2006 23:18

Hi

That's nothing. I think the allowable time limit for an abortion should be extended to 1560 weeks. I'm thinking of the Royals here mostly.

Love

LR

Andy L.
Offline
Joined: 20-10-06
Nov 1 2006 23:20

Hi
my first time on line!
thought i'd see how it works...

all this sounds like legally sanctioned rape to me?!

Lazy Riser's picture
Lazy Riser
Offline
Joined: 6-05-05
Nov 1 2006 23:21

Hi Andy

How long after saying "yes" do you think one should get before they can't withdraw it? Ha ha. No pun intended.

Love

LR

Andy L.
Offline
Joined: 20-10-06
Nov 1 2006 23:32

Hi LR

i find this whole issue completely shocking!

When I first read the subject on the forum list, I feared it was "very clever" proposeing an abstract discussional point.

But, its for real!

On your question, can you rephrase it please, I can't get what youre asking?

Andy

Jacques Roux's picture
Jacques Roux
Offline
Joined: 17-07-06
Nov 1 2006 23:47
Andy L. wrote:
On your question, can you rephrase it please, I can't get what youre asking?

Don't worry - you'll get used to it from LR! wink

Welcome to the forums!

Lazy Riser's picture
Lazy Riser
Offline
Joined: 6-05-05
Nov 2 2006 00:19

Hi Andy

Quote:
On your question, can you rephrase it please, I can't get what youre asking?

Say you asked me to suck you off, and I did. How long after your initial penetration have I got before I can change my mind and do you for rape if you don’t get your cock out of my gob?

I say five years.

It just goes to show how totally misogynistic and heterosexist the Law is when you consider that if I withdrew consent and you decided to give me a facial instead then I could only do you for sexual assault rather than rape. Christ, I hate this male dominated heteronormative culture, it’s so oppressive.

Love

LR

madashell's picture
madashell
Offline
Joined: 19-06-06
Nov 2 2006 06:33

Lazy riser, exactly how clever do you think it is, trolling a thread about rape?

Lazy Riser's picture
Lazy Riser
Offline
Joined: 6-05-05
Nov 2 2006 09:03

Hi

Trolling is in the eyes of the observer, my reactionary friend. Get off my case and check out the misogynist ranting of JK.

Love

LR

jef costello's picture
jef costello
Offline
Joined: 9-02-06
Nov 2 2006 12:25

What constitutes "the start of sex"? Do they distinguish between oral/anal/vaginal sex?
This is insane and not good at all.
What happens if she consents to the withdrawal method but he doesn't withdraw?

Lazy Riser's picture
Lazy Riser
Offline
Joined: 6-05-05
Nov 2 2006 12:35

Hi

Are you trolling there Jef? I'm wondering when they think sex ends. Presumably it's up to the jury to decide.

As far as I know, for rape to occur then there's got to be oral/anal/vaginal penetration, else it's a mere sexual assault. Heteronormative scum.

Love

LR

Joseph Kay's picture
Joseph Kay
Offline
Joined: 14-03-06
Nov 2 2006 12:56
Lazy Riser wrote:
As far as I know, for rape to occur then there's got to be oral/anal/vaginal penetration

which means that on the basis of this ruling, if you give somone a blowjob they're allowed to rape you eek

now thats a lacuna begging to be penetrated wink

jef costello's picture
jef costello
Offline
Joined: 9-02-06
Nov 2 2006 13:00

I'm not trolling, just picking up obvious points of contention with the ruling.

Ramona's picture
Ramona
Offline
Joined: 19-09-03
Nov 2 2006 13:09
Joseph K. wrote:
which means that on the basis of this ruling, if you give somone a blowjob they're allowed to rape you eek

Actually it means if you give someone a blowjob, they cannot rape you, because you've given your consent to sex. This is assuming they take oral penetration to mean intercourse, which they might not.

Joseph Kay's picture
Joseph Kay
Offline
Joined: 14-03-06
Nov 2 2006 13:11
zobag wrote:
Actually it means if you give someone a blowjob, they cannot rape you, because you've given your consent to sex. This is assuming they take oral penetration to mean intercourse, which they might not.

yeah thats what i meant, they could rape you, but legally it would be consensual and so not rape, assuming the court held that oral sex was 'intercourse'.

talking about this stuff in legalese is giving me flashbacks. there was one obscenity case and the transcript was hilarious, all this technical legal jargon, latin and the works, concerning an incident of "mutual fellatio-cunnilingus, carried on in such a manner as to cause a public nuisance and assault public morals" or something tongue