High Court Urged To Set 'No Means No' Rape Standard

Zeb_Carter

.-- - ..-.
Joined
Jun 15, 2006
Posts
20,584
ANNAPOLIS, Md. -- Two women's advocacy groups have urged Maryland's highest court to establish that consensual sex can become rape even if a woman says no after consensual sex had begun.

Story Link

What are your thoughts on this, should after consenting to have sex and you change your mind and tell him no, should he be considered a rapist?
 
Zeb_Carter said:
ANNAPOLIS, Md. -- Two women's advocacy groups have urged Maryland's highest court to establish that consensual sex can become rape even if a woman says no after consensual sex had begun.

Story Link

What are your thoughts on this, should after consenting to have sex and you change your mind and tell him no, should he be considered a rapist?

Well... the more I think about it, the more I would say yes...
If I was having sex and, for any reason, asked him to stop, then I would expect him to stop. If he didn;t then he'd still be forcing me against my will, wouldn't he? Think about it - you wouldn't keep on after she'd asked you to stop, would you?
x
V
 
This is the way it's been here for a number of years. We generally don't have a problem with it, however, it has stemmed a number of court cases where "yes" became "no" after the sex was over. It's added another dimesion to rape investigations.
 
Vermilion said:
Well... the more I think about it, the more I would say yes...
If I was having sex and, for any reason, asked him to stop, then I would expect him to stop. If he didn;t then he'd still be forcing me against my will, wouldn't he? Think about it - you wouldn't keep on after she'd asked you to stop, would you?
x
V
Personally, no. But, what if the word 'NO' was used at that moment of no return? eg. "Oh, God, no, no, god that feels so fucking good!" Would I then become a rapist for not stopping?
 
Zeb_Carter said:
Personally, no. But, what if the word 'NO' was used at that moment of no return? eg. "Oh, God, no, no, god that feels so fucking good!" Would I then become a rapist for not stopping?

I think perhaps it would have to be a request to stop, rather than a simple 'no.' What if she started going "oh god - that hurts, ouch, ow, ow please."? The word 'no' is not actually uttered, but not many men would keep going, surely?
x
V
 
Zeb_Carter said:
Personally, no. But, what if the word 'NO' was used at that moment of no return? eg. "Oh, God, no, no, god that feels so fucking good!" Would I then become a rapist for not stopping?

In a word.
Yes.
 
This is a tough one. I'm aware women prey on men for court settlements and cry rape. And that's unfortunate and I sympathize with the guy that got sucked into a blackmail scam.

That being said, the point of no return for a guy is something I'm afraid I don't really buy, if someone is in distress or hurt. That's why a simple backward motion takes care of that.

Really, it's an orgasm. If you're not adult enough to defer your pleasure because someone else is in distress, then maybe the courts can make you slightly less selfish.

Or maybe you need a rubber companion who doesn't complain.
 
Zeb_Carter said:
Personally, no. But, what if the word 'NO' was used at that moment of no return?
Obviously, like anything, this sort of law can be abused. A girl could, conceivably, say yes, then say "no" in the middle and claim rape. But, for the most part, I think the intent here is to re-affirm that even if the petting is getting hot and heavy, "No, I don't want to!" mean's "No." Or even if a virgin is giving it a try and finds that first moment of penetration too painful and asks a guy to stop--even then, I think a gentleman would stop, and would be able to stop.

Realistically, it's rare that a woman says "no" when they're both wet and in the throws of pleasure and the guy is about to ejaculate. For her to do that, something really wrong would have to be happening. She'd have to be smothering or feeling her appendix burst.

Now I know guys can pull out before they ejaculate. Guys do it all the time and come on a woman's stomach instead of inside. So...where is this "point of no return" that the guy has no choice but to keep hammering away inside a woman even if she's shrieking at him to please stop, she's in terrible trouble? :confused:
 
Jenny_Jackson said:
This is the way it's been here for a number of years. We generally don't have a problem with it, however, it has stemmed a number of court cases where "yes" became "no" after the sex was over. It's added another dimesion to rape investigations.

There is a horrible moment, in the dawn of a really good party, when you realize you have probably vomited and some studmuffin has had sex with you. You don't feel real good, you are a bit appalled at yourself and you want to lash out.

Been there, felt the vibes, got the T-shirt.

If we want, as women, to claim an equal playing field, we have to accept that sordid, drunken couplings are usually not rape but just appallingly bad and drunken judgement, by both parties. 'I know I said yes but I wish I hadn't'.
 
3113 said:
Obviously, like anything, this sort of law can be abused. A girl could, conceivably, say yes, then say "no" in the middle and claim rape. But, for the most part, I think the intent here is to re-affirm that even if the petting is getting hot and heavy, "No, I don't want to!" mean's "No." Or even if a virgin is giving it a try and finds that first moment of penetration too painful and asks a guy to stop--even then, I think a gentleman would stop, and would be able to stop.

Realistically, it's rare that a woman says "no" when they're both wet and in the throws of pleasure and the guy is about to ejaculate. For her to do that, something really wrong would have to be happening. She'd have to be smothering or feeling her appendix burst.

Now I know guys can pull out before they ejaculate. Guys do it all the time and come on a woman's stomach instead of inside. So...where is this "point of no return" that the guy has no choice but to keep hammering away inside a woman even if she's shrieking at him to please stop, she's in terrible trouble?

Who said anything about being in trouble, ah yes Vermilion mentioned that didn't she. My example had nothing to do with being in trouble or in pain, just a good old orgasm where the word 'No' is used. If you're going to quote me, quote my whole post, not just the part you want to use. :(
 
Jenny_Jackson said:
it has stemmed a number of court cases where "yes" became "no" after the sex was over.

I think that is an entirely different situation, altogether. If she changes her mind after it is all said and done, and they are ready for, in the process of, or already cleaned up and going home, and then says "No," than she should be thrown into a psyche ward because she's got problems.
 
Zeb_Carter said:
Who said anything about being in trouble, ah yes Vermilion mentioned that didn't she. My example had nothing to do with being in trouble or in pain, just a good old orgasm where the word 'No' is used. If you're going to quote me, quote my whole post, not just the part you want to use. :(
I didn't use your quote because you were being facetious--and you know it. If you're giving a woman a marvelous time, or a "fantasy" where she plays at resisting and says "no" and the two of you are in clear agreement that this means "yes"...then this isn't going to come up in court, and of course, you're not a rapist.

What I was focusing on, however, was your use of the "point of no return" excuse. Which is often used by guys when they get that "no" somewhere along the line. "What could I do, your honor? I was at the point of no return!"

The question isn't whether you're a rapist if some woman utters the word "no" in a playful or passionate manner during sex. The question is, *is* there a point of no return for ANY guy during sex--meaning he can't pull out if the woman is in distress over ANYTHING...if she really, and truely, means "NO!"?
 
TheeGoatPig said:
I think that is an entirely different situation, altogether. If she changes her mind after it is all said and done, and they are ready for, in the process of, or already cleaned up and going home, and then says "No," than she should be thrown into a psyche ward because she's got problems.

What I should have said...
TheeGoatPig said:
I think that is an entirely different situation, altogether. If she wasn't drunk, changes her mind after it is all said and done, and they are ready for, in the process of, or already cleaned up and going home, and then says "No, I was raped!" than she should be thrown into a psyche ward because she's got problems.
 
TheeGoatPig said:
I think that is an entirely different situation, altogether. If she changes her mind after it is all said and done, and they are ready for, in the process of, or already cleaned up and going home, and then says "No," than she should be thrown into a psyche ward because she's got problems.

I think you are completely right.
 
3113 said:
I didn't use your quote because you were being facetious--and you know it. If you're giving a woman a marvelous time, or a "fantasy" where she plays at resisting and says "no" and the two of you are in clear agreement that this means "yes"...then this isn't going to come up in court, and of course, you're not a rapist.

What I was focusing on, however, was your use of the "point of no return" excuse. Which is often used by guys when they get that "no" somewhere along the line. "What could I do, your honor? I was at the point of no return!"

The question isn't whether you're a rapist if some woman utters the word "no" in a playful or passionate manner during sex. The question is, *is* there a point of no return for ANY guy during sex--meaning he can't pull out if the woman is in distress over ANYTHING...if she really, and truely, means "NO!"?
But you see I wasn't talking about the guy, that's why the example had the woman gasping the 'No' word. I know as a guy the excuse for not pulling out is lame, but it may make him think she is playing a game where she uses the word 'No' even if that game was not discussed before hand, or she may just be being a bitch just to see him squirm.
 
having been a rape victim
and having had rough consensual sex
and having initiated something that proved I couldn't go That Far...
There really is NO and it really can become rape if the other party refuses to comply for whatever reasons put forth
there are many reasons for the other party to not get it... the No part...
drugs, alcohol, anger, jealousy and simple selfishness to name just a few
But its no excuse to not listen and comply with the stated desires of their "partner".
While there have been a few women cry foul after the fact it does not mean nor should it ever mean that all women would do that.
I resent the hell out of any man who tries to paint the woman as a whore, or say she was begging for it, becuase she might have gone along with it at first and either got scared, or it hurt or whatever and asked the person to stop (how ever they phrased it) and they Didn't respect her or themselves enough to stop.

NO means NO ...expecially when she is pushing you away or trying to close her legs or some other action that indicates NO
 
christabelll said:
having been a rape victim
and having had rough consensual sex
and having initiated something that proved I couldn't go That Far...
There really is NO and it really can become rape if the other party refuses to comply for whatever reasons put forth
there are many reasons for the other party to not get it... the No part...
drugs, alcohol, anger, jealousy and simple selfishness to name just a few
But its no excuse to not listen and comply with the stated desires of their "partner".
While there have been a few women cry foul after the fact it does not mean nor should it ever mean that all women would do that.
I resent the hell out of any man who tries to paint the woman as a whore, or say she was begging for it, becuase she might have gone along with it at first and either got scared, or it hurt or whatever and asked the person to stop (how ever they phrased it) and they Didn't respect her or themselves enough to stop.

NO means NO ...expecially when she is pushing you away or trying to close her legs or some other action that indicates NO
I am sorry to hear that you have been a victim of an asshole with a dick.

If you consented to have sex with a person and changed your mind shouldn't that then be considered an assault at that point?

rape
1. the unlawful compelling of a woman through physical force or duress to have sexual intercourse.
2. any act of sexual intercourse that is forced upon a person.
3. statutory rape.
4. an act of plunder, violent seizure, or abuse; despoliation; violation: the rape of the countryside.
5. Archaic. the act of seizing and carrying off by force.
–verb (used with object)
6. to force to have sexual intercourse.
7. to plunder (a place); despoil.
8. to seize, take, or carry off by force.
–verb (used without object)
9. to commit rape.


As the definition states it the forcing to have sexual intercourse that is considered rape. As you have already consented, wouldn't it then be an assault.

Just asking.
 
Any clear and hard rule is going to fail in its intent. The world's too complex for simple rules.

We're going to have to handle this sort of thing on a case by case basis and pray to God we get it right.
 
Zeb_Carter said:
I am sorry to hear that you have been a victim of an asshole with a dick.

If you consented to have sex with a person and changed your mind shouldn't that then be considered an assault at that point?

rape
1. the unlawful compelling of a woman through physical force or duress to have sexual intercourse.
2. any act of sexual intercourse that is forced upon a person.
3. statutory rape.
4. an act of plunder, violent seizure, or abuse; despoliation; violation: the rape of the countryside.
5. Archaic. the act of seizing and carrying off by force.
–verb (used with object)
6. to force to have sexual intercourse.
7. to plunder (a place); despoil.
8. to seize, take, or carry off by force.
–verb (used without object)
9. to commit rape.


As the definition states it the forcing to have sexual intercourse that is considered rape. As you have already consented, wouldn't it then be an assault.

Just asking.

And if she changes that consent to 'no' and he keeps forcing the intercourse then it is still rape.
Each time he thrusts he is penetrating her again and after she has withdrawn her consent each of those penetrations is a rape.
x
V
 
Vermilion said:
And if she changes that consent to 'no' and he keeps forcing the intercourse then it is still rape.
Each time he thrusts he is penetrating her again and after she has withdrawn her consent each of those penetrations is a rape.
x
V
While I agree in principle, it's just that she did consent to the initial penetration, she did consent to have "sex" with him would that then negate the rape aspect and the continuation of the act, which had been consented to, by him just be a case of assault?
 
Zeb_Carter said:
While I agree in principle, it's just that she did consent to the initial penetration, she did consent to have "sex" with him would that then negate the rape aspect and the continuation of the act, which had been consented to, by him just be a case of assault?

I understand what you're saying and it's an interesting point, but I still hold that each time he penetrates her after she says no he is perpetuating a rape. Not an assault.
x
V
 
When I was a bit younger, there was a girl who couldn't come to terms with having sexual intercourse. She had to screw if she wanted to be a social girl and she did. She developed a strategy. She would go out on a date with a tee-shirt dress that barely covered her and no underwear. She would let the guy put his hands pretty much anywhere he wanted and let him get her and him worked up. He would then strip her and mount her. Just as he was mounting her, she would cry, "No!" He would keep right on with the program and screw her. She would never report it, but she had been offically 'raped' and she was still a good girl. [After not all that long, the rest of the girls were giving her a lot of trouble, because the boys had gotten the idea that, "No!" actually meant, "Stop it some more!" The situation careened back and forth for a while and everybody was unhappy with things.]

If "No!" is to mean "No!" then "No!" always has to mean "No, stop it now!"
 
it is a fine line. Indeed it is...
I have recovered very well :)

but it should be handled on a case by case basis. And no painting anyone blacker than the other. FACTS are necessary.

No still means no. And an example of yes turning to no.
Penetration achieved but it hurts. It doesn't get better. It gets worse. Ow. no stop. and that doesn't stop. pushing away. stop stop ow. your hurting me. Doesn't stop. keeps going pinning, forcing etc.
That then becomes RAPE NOT ASSAULT

Assault is a different category.

What about spousal rape? any comments on that?
 
He would then strip her and mount her. Just as he was mounting her, she would cry, "No!" He would keep right on with the program and screw her. She would never report it, but she had been offically 'raped' and she was still a good girl.

Damn. I knew a girl like that too. SHe was more fuckedup than the rest of us.
SOmetimes I really hate how society twists such a natural and beautiful and necessary function into something that is hateful and bad and damning.
 
R. Richard said:
When I was a bit younger, there was a girl who couldn't come to terms with having sexual intercourse. She had to screw if she wanted to be a social girl and she did. She developed a strategy. She would go out on a date with a tee-shirt dress that barely covered her and no underwear. She would let the guy put his hands pretty much anywhere he wanted and let him get her and him worked up. He would then strip her and mount her. Just as he was mounting her, she would cry, "No!" He would keep right on with the program and screw her. She would never report it, but she had been offically 'raped' and she was still a good girl. [After not all that long, the rest of the girls were giving her a lot of trouble, because the boys had gotten the idea that, "No!" actually meant, "Stop it some more!" The situation careened back and forth for a while and everybody was unhappy with things.]

If "No!" is to mean "No!" then "No!" always has to mean "No, stop it now!"

What is your point? That since you once knew a troubled, slutty young woman, that lifts responsibility on everyone to stop when they are told "No"?

You spend an inordinate amount of time, RR, looking for and articulating legalistic black-and-white circumstances which you then use to absolve responsibility for some really heinous activities. Execution, torture, rape...

Seriously, have you ever been examined for symptoms of PTSD? That would explain a lot.
 
Back
Top