Women, Rape, Burkas and Rights

[Riverwind]

Not sure about this one, can a woman really claim rape after she said yes and consensual sex has started, I guess if she changes her mind it should stop.... but is it actually rape at that point?

Why wouldn't it be? If you start having consensuel sex, but your partner subsequently asks you stop, but you continue regardless...well, what would you call it?

I would agree with you in an ideal world where it was possible to know exactly what was said when. However, I don't see how anyone could prove 'beyond reasonable doubt' that she withdrew consent since all of physical evidence that would normally support a rape conviction would not be relevant since she consented to the initial penetration. Allowing prosecutions in this circumstance would imply that a man may be convicted based solely of the testimony of a women who could be lying or simply misremembering because of guilt the day after. I see this as a slipperly slope that would lead to many unjust convictions. I think it makes more sense to educate women about making up their mind and learning to say no before hand.

[Black Dog]

I would agree with you in an ideal world where it was possible to know exactly what was said when. However, I don't see how anyone could prove 'beyond reasonable doubt' that she withdrew consent since all of physical evidence that would normally support a rape conviction would not be relevant since she consented to the initial penetration. Allowing prosecutions in this circumstance would imply that a man may be convicted based solely of the testimony of a women who could be lying or simply misremembering because of guilt the day after. I see this as a slipperly slope that would lead to many unjust convictions.

I can understand that, but what would you prefer: unjust convictions (which can always be appealed) or rapists walking free?

I'm also a little disturbed by the persistance of the notion that women will cry rape at the drop of a hat just for kicks. It'd be nice to live in a society wher etheir word counted for something.

I think it makes more sense to educate women about making up their mind and learning to say no before hand.

The point is, though, the circumstances can change. Now in a situation where consent was given and then withdrawn, we can probably assume a level of trust between the woman and her partner, which means that saying yes may have seemed like a good idea at the time, but less so once sex started. So the above advice doesn't really apply.

As a (somewhat) rhetorical question, I must ask: what kind of man keeps on going after his partner tells him to stop?

[Riverwind]

I can understand that, but what would you prefer: unjust convictions (which can always be appealed) or rapists walking free?

In this circumstance I am not sure the label 'rapist' applies (see below). In any case, our entire justice system is based on the premise that it is better to let a guilty person go free than to put an innocent one in jail. I see no reason to change that principal in this rare situation.

I'm also a little disturbed by the persistence of the notion that women will cry rape at the drop of a hat just for kicks. It'd be nice to live in a society where ethier word counted for something.

You miss the point. It may be true that 99% of women would never fabricate a rape change but the court has to operate based on the assumption that 1% of the women would do so. Therefore the court can never simply take a woman's word even if in 99% of cases a women would be telling the absolute truth (as she recalls it which is an entirely different issue).

As a (somewhat) rhetorical question, I must ask: what kind of man keeps on going after his partner tells him to stop?

Depends really on what she did to tell him to stop. Simple moans of 'no, no' or 'stop, stop' are not likely to get the attention of even the most considerate man in the throws of passion. To reasonably argue it was rape she would have physically attempt to push him off. At that point we now have a time factor - is it rape if it takes him 10 seconds to clue in? What about 30 seconds? I could imagine a situation where a man does stop within 30 seconds but the woman thinks it is much longer. Is it fair to label him as a rapist because it took him 30 seconds to realize that concent had been withdrawn?

[Black Dog]

In this circumstance I am not sure the label 'rapist' applies (see below). In any case, our entire justice system is based on the premise that it is better to let a guilty person go free than to put an innocent one in jail. I see no reason to change that principal in this rare situation.

Normaly I'd agree, but I can't think of a more contemptable crime than rape.

You miss the point. It may be true that 99% of women would never fabricate a rape change but the court has to operate based on the assumption that 1% of the women would do so. Therefore the court can never simply take a woman's word even if in 99% of cases a women would be telling the absolute truth (as she recalls it which is an entirely different issue).

Innocent until proven guilty. Yeah. I know. On the other hand, this hands actual rapists a nice big "get out of jail free" card.

Depends really on what she did to tell him to stop. Simple moans of 'no, no' or 'stop, stop' are not likely to get the attention of even the most considerate man in the throws of passion.

First: I don't give a shit about "throes of passion". That argument (that men are just mindless brutes onec they engage their cocks) just doesn't wash. As one blogger put it: most men would have no trouble stopping immediately in the middle of intercourse if their mother walked in on the act. Why, not, then, at the sound of the word "no"?

To reasonably argue it was rape she would have physically attempt to push him off.

So if a rapist holds a gun to his victims head so she offers no physical resistance, well, that's not rape because she didn't fight back? Even in cases where there's not such an obvious physical threat, many rape victims offer no resistance because the threat of violence is implicit in the act of rape. So to expect physical resistance when there's a implicit threat of violence, or when the sex actually started off as consensual and then deteriorated is a totally unreasonable standard.

At that point we now have a time factor - is it rape if it takes him 10 seconds to clue in? What about 30 seconds? I could imagine a situation where a man does stop within 30 seconds but the woman thinks it is much longer. Is it fair to label him as a rapist because it took him 30 seconds to realize that concent had been withdrawn?

Ah, so we're back to a variation of the old "gosh, men are just too stoopid to know what's going on when they're all horned up." My rule of thumb: it becomes rape the instant they don’t want it. It shouldn't take that much time between hearing the word "stop" and stopping. It shouldn't take 10 seconds or 30 seconds o clue in.

[Riverwind]

Ah, so we're back to a variation of the old "gosh, men are just too stoopid to know what's going on when they're all horned up." My rule of thumb: it becomes rape the instant they don’t want it. It shouldn't take that much time between hearing the word "stop" and stopping. It shouldn't take 10 seconds or 30 seconds o clue in.

That definition puts way too much power in the hands of a woman and should never be used to justify a rape conviction. Is it enough for a woman to think about saying stop or does she actually have to say it out loud? If she has to say it out loud how many decibles would it have to be before the onus is placed on the man to stop immediately. Are we going to tell men that they have to be always listening to see if the women whispers stop? No matter what you do there are always going to be situations where a reasonable person would agree that the man did not commit rape because he did not realize concent was withdrawn.

[Black Dog]

That definition puts way too much power in the hands of a woman and should never be used to justify a rape conviction. Is it enough for a woman to think about saying stop or does she actually have to say it out loud? If she has to say it out loud how many decibles would it have to be before the onus is placed on the man to stop immediately. Are we going to tell men that they have to listening to see if the women whispers stop?

See, this is the kind of thing that makes rape one of the most underreported crimes out there. Imagine if we applied the same lofty standards to the victims of other crimes. "Sorry, sir, I know you say you were mugged, but there's no physical sign and really, for all we know, you're hiding your wallet on us."

And I think you know damn well we're not talking about a case where a woman thinks "gee, this is kind of uncomfortable, I wish he'd stop."

As for the rest of your death by a thousand cuts approach, nohing happens in a vacumn. And painting a improbable hypothetical scenario ("what about a happy couple who start having sex, after which she says stop, but he takes a few seconds to stop and the next thing you know the crazy bitch is crying rape! Won't somebody please think of the rapists!") doesn't really make the awful implications of this decision less awful.

Oh: here's the background.

[Riverwind]

Oh: here's the background.

The facts of this case seem to indicate that the consent was conditional on him stopping when she asked him to. That makes it a rape when he did not listen. The mistake here was the attempt to make a general rule. It is rediculous to say that a woman can never withdraw concent. It is also rediculous to say that man is always guilty of rape if a woman withdraws concent and he does not stop immediately. This is another example where the law and common sense are at odds.

[Black Dog]

The facts of this case seem to indicate that the consent was conditional on him stopping when she asked him to. That makes it a rape when he did not listen. The mistake here was the attempt to make a general rule. It is rediculous to say that a woman can never withdraw concent. It is also rediculous to say that man is always guilty of rape if a woman withdraws concent and he does not stop immediately. This is another example where the law and common sense are at odds.

The fact of the case indicate she was raped once (the first culprit plead guilty) and then gave her consent when it was clear the other one was was going to rape her anyway. Hardly consent freely given.

Anyway, you mentioned the "slipperly slope" earlier: I'm far more concerned over the possibility of rapists walking than with the possibility of women fabricating rape charges.

[PocketRocket]

Oh: here's the background.

The facts of this case seem to indicate that the consent was conditional on him stopping when she asked him to. That makes it a rape when he did not listen. The mistake here was the attempt to make a general rule. It is rediculous to say that a woman can never withdraw concent. It is also rediculous to say that man is always guilty of rape if a woman withdraws concent and he does not stop immediately. This is another example where the law and common sense are at odds.

Evidently you did not read through the court manuscript provided in the link.

Quote taken from manuscript....

he asked her permission to "do sex with her", to which she responded "yes", and his cessation of his attempts to penetrate her within five to ten seconds after she said "stop", provides the evidentiary basis for a finding that no rape was committed.

Is five to ten seconds to long a time to stop???

It barely gives time to ask the question "Are you sure?".

She said "stop", and within NO MORE than ten seconds, the defendant had done so.

The "five to ten seconds" was given as a timeframe by the girl.

The defendant said he stopped without any delay.

Either way, the kid stopped, without acheiving orgasm. and did so in a VERY short peiod of time.

[Black Dog]

Evidently you did not read through the court manuscript provided in the link.

Quote taken from manuscript....

QUOTE

he asked her permission to "do sex with her", to which she responded "yes", and his cessation of his attempts to penetrate her within five to ten seconds after she said "stop", provides the evidentiary basis for a finding that no rape was committed.

Is five to ten seconds to long a time to stop???

It barely gives time to ask the question "Are you sure?".

She said "stop", and within NO MORE than ten seconds, the defendant had done so.

The "five to ten seconds" was given as a timeframe by the girl.

The defendant said he stopped without any delay.

Either way, the kid stopped, without acheiving orgasm. and did so in a VERY short peiod of time.

The Hazel Court continues, noting that there is a wide difference between consent and submission to the act. Id. Submission to a compelling force, or as a result of being put in fear, is not consent.

Q. [ASSISTANT STATE’S ATTORNEY]: And what else did he say?

A. He, after that we sat there for a couple seconds and he was like so are you going to let me hit it and I didn’t really say anything and he was like I don’t want to rape you.

Q. So when Maouloud said I don’t want to rape you, did you respond?

A. Yes. I said that as long as he stops when I tell him to, then -

Q. Now, that he could?

A. Yes.

Hmm. That doesn't sound like consent freely given to me, how about you?

[ft.niagara]

he asked her permission to "do sex with her", to which she responded "yes".

Hmm. That doesn't sound like consent freely given to me, how about you?

Yep, 'yes' sounds like concent, 'freely given' would be determined by the use of physical force, (under)age, or impowerment over (President vs aid).

[geoffrey]

That's tough BD. Anyone could spin it so that consent wasn't freely given.

I think the lesson from this, pick your partners wisely... if we followed BD's everyone is guilty until otherwise theory you wouldn't want a vengeful ex.

"I said yes, but I was thinking no." Ugh. Difficult.

The action speaks for itself. Did she struggle? What was her resistence to the action? Just thinking no doesn't really count IMO.... she should express her disagreement.

[Black Dog]

Yep, 'yes' sounds like concent, 'freely given' would be determined by the use of physical force, (under)age, or impowerment over (President vs aid).

Uh. No.

"A. He, after that we sat there for a couple seconds and he was like so are you going to let me hit it and I didn’t really say anything and he was like I don’t want to rape you."

"I don't want to rape you..." but I will. Sounds like a threat to me.

[JerrySeinfeld]

Yep, 'yes' sounds like concent, 'freely given' would be determined by the use of physical force, (under)age, or impowerment over (President vs aid).

Uh. No.

"A. He, after that we sat there for a couple seconds and he was like so are you going to let me hit it and I didn’t really say anything and he was like I don’t want to rape you."

"I don't want to rape you..." but I will. Sounds like a threat to me.

Whats the point of this argument you guys are engaging in?

The bottom line is: This is a thread about the unjust treatment of women by predominantly Muslim countries. Women who's hair and teeth are falling out because they've been living under a burqa most of their lives and blocking the windows from sunlight so that they can't be "coveted" by men.

It's about shooting women in soccer stadiums for adultery.

And it's about Black Dog's feeble attempt to compare a definition of rape verdict in a US state as equal footing with the travesty that is womens rights in Muslim countries.

Don't get caught up in his BS. Its not even worth the response.

[Black Dog]

Whats the point of this argument you guys are engaging in?

The bottom line is: This is a thread about the unjust treatment of women by predominantly Muslim countries. Women who's hair and teeth are falling out because they've been living under a burqa most of their lives and blocking the windows from sunlight so that they can't be "coveted" by men.

It's about shooting women in soccer stadiums for adultery.

Black Dog Nov 1 2006, 12:36 PM Post #23

I'm gonna just put this in here because I don't like uneccesary thread proliferation and because it fits in with the general theme.

News flash, princess: you don't own the threads you start.

And it's about Black Dog's feeble attempt to compare a definition of rape verdict in a US state as equal footing with the travesty that is womens rights in Muslim countries.

Uh no. I added a story that dealt with women and rape into a moribund thread that consisted of a bunch of people stating the painfully obvious fact that Muslim society's have a pretty shitty track record on women's rights. (Wow, you were really breaking new ground there.)

Don't get caught up in his BS. Its not even worth the response.

Yet respond you do...

[scribblet]

Italy is battling with the issue of veils and women's right now, if you read what some Muslim leaders want its an uphill battle, women certainly have the most to lose if governments don't stand firm against the assault on rights.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/6148968.stm

Vatican enters Muslim veil debate y David Willey

Italy has a law against wearing masks in public

A senior Vatican cardinal has expressed concern over the use of some Muslim veils by Islamic immigrants in Europe.

This is the first time that the Vatican has joined in the Europe-wide debate on how women who insist on wearing the veil affect the integration of Muslims.

Cardinal Renato Martino said immigrants must respect the traditions, culture and religion of the nations they go to.

-snip-

The Italian government is trying to draw up what it calls a Charter of Common Values to get local Muslim leaders to help integrate Italy's fast-growing population. But it is hard going.

At one recent meeting, a radical Muslim delegate proposed separate charters for men and for women, and favoured the death penalty.

Equal rights for men and women are guaranteed, and the death penalty is banned, under the Italian constitution.