if Kobe Bryan ignored her pleas to stop, should he be guilty of rape?

if Kobe Bryan ignored her pleas to stop, should he be guilty of rape?

  • yeah

    Votes: 41 78.8%
  • no, she is a slut.

    Votes: 11 21.2%

  • Total voters
    52
That's pretty much the definition of rape. Unwanted sex. She said no. It's rape.


But since he's famous, he'll probably get ten hours of community service, or some equally stupid sentence. :D Mmm, our justice system at work.
 
yup.

(Btw, her being a slut would not negate it being rape. Being a slut does not make one unrapeable. Give generously to Charity does not make one unrobbable.)
 
I basically agree with sunfox, with one exception. Further, Phoenix is correct also: the woman's history of 'giving it away', (promiscuity, so called) or even prostitution is not relevant.

We don't know the facts, here, but IF

The woman says "Do me, do me" until intercourse begins, then "Stop, stop" in the midst of it, the waters have become muddied.

Since this has actually occurred in r.l. , one can say "The gentleman will stop."

Which leaves open the question, does he become a criminal if he doesn't?
-----

Another point NOT relevant to Kobe, but perhaps to this forum.
Suppose she has made a prior agreement with him: "He is to take me agressively, ignoring any pleas to stop."
 
Last edited:
Thinking....

I just wonder if she really did say "Stop" or saw this as an opportunity to gain publicity and potentially some money. It is sad that we have to question whether she is being honest, but the past has shown that the victims of rape by a celebrity (or well known person) often profits the victim. This profit will unfortunately lure others to make false claims.
 
Outside of a BDSM context, no means no. That's all there is to it. A victim has the right to change his/her mind at any point during a sexual encounter.

Inside a BDSM context, we have things like safewords and SSC and RACK etc.
 
Pure said:
I basically agree with sunfox, with one exception. Further, Phoenix is correct also: the woman's history of 'giving it away', (promiscuity, so called) or even prostitution is not relevant.

We don't know the facts, here, but IF

The woman says "Do me, do me" until intercourse begins, then "Stop, stop" in the midst of it, the waters have become muddied.

Since this has actually occurred in r.l. , one can say "The gentleman will stop."

Which leaves open the question, does he become a criminal if he doesn't?
-----

Another point NOT relevant to Kobe, but perhaps to this forum.
Suppose she has made a prior agreement with him: "He is to take me agressively, ignoring any pleas to stop."

Yes, the situation becomes hazy if up to the point of intercourse, the woman says yes then changes her mind. However, her previous willingness does not mean she has negated her right to say no or stop at any time. She may at any point halt the situation if she chooses and gentleman or not, her wishes should be respected.

The law tells us that if someone is sexually assaulted against their will, even if prior to the assault the victim was willing, the perpetrator has committed a crime. Even the allegation of sexual assault can result in criminal charges and that's the reason Kobe is going through this trial now. Whether those charges are founded or unfounded is for a jury to decide once they have had time to assess the evidence and testimony.

As to your second point, you've just described a consensual agreement to engage in a manufactured/controlled encounter. There is a tacit understanding between the parties to carry out such a scene based on a pre-arrangement. What becomes muddled in this situation is what happens after the act is over and the "victim" decides that their pre-arranged scene wasn't a scene at all, but an actualized rape that they were powerless to prevent. A tough situation to make a call of rape. If i'm not mistaken, there has been a number of cases where this scenario was the subject of a few controversial trials. J, i don't doubt that you will bring up the appropriate references for us to read. If you don't, i probably will.

Good discussion point on the latter.

lara
 
i want my lawyer ...

Pure said:
Another point NOT relevant to Kobe, but perhaps to this forum.
Suppose she has made a prior agreement with him: "He is to take me agressively, ignoring any pleas to stop."
Let's face the brutal truth. Unless an affidavit stating such signed and notarized by witnesses exists, the vanilla world, with the right motivation, can make such an act into anything they wish. i can imagine having such a document created. Brings all kinds of "the state in the bedroom of two consenting adults" issues to mind.

Edited: Oh yeah, if the bastard ignored her legitimate pleas to stop, milk him for everything he's worth in the civil trial after he gets thrown in jail.
 
Last edited:
If you begged me to spare your life, and then I killed you, would I be guilty of murder? Does that help you at all? you're a dumbshit or a Laker fan, which is basically the same thing.
 
"Dumshit", what a nice word to call a person. Very polite. Very intelligent. Slingshot (or how it's spelled niftly), you should consider the forum that the topic is placed in. BDSM play often involves begging and pleading no, which can mean quite the contrary. I think that WriterDom tried to bring in the possibility "rough play" argument that is often discussed in rape trials. I didn't see one presented in the article that Anna Sue directed us to, but somehow I have the feeling it's only a matter of time.
 
If you are setting up a scene, or agreeing to one, I would hope that the parameters are clearly stated. The point of using the safe word is so that the word "no" and other protestations remain as part of the scene; a desired element of the scene, perhaps, while still giving both parties the ability to end the scene and/or recognize that the other person wants to end the scene.

Completely different from actual rape.

To me, the risk of misunderstanding and consequences such as s'lara mentions:

"There is a tacit understanding between the parties to carry out such a scene based on a pre-arrangement. What becomes muddled in this situation is what happens after the act is over and the "victim" decides that their pre-arranged scene wasn't a scene at all, but an actualized rape that they were powerless to prevent"

completely highlights the importance of knowing who you're playing with. Important on the sub side to know that the Dom will stop when the safe word is used, and important on the Dom side to know that the sub is indeed a willing participant.
 
I apologize - didn't consider the forum. I have to plead ignorance now - did she break the rules or are there any rules in BDSM? She's performing the sado-masochistic ritual on her own-she said no to the almighty Kobe Bryant. Oh, sorry for keeping my IRC moniker. I don't know what I'm more ashamed of: the silly way I spell a made up name, or the fact I've never had sex with a family member or farm animal. I can play rough sex with the best of them but, question: if I'm Kobe Bryant, and I can't turn back because I'm about to "muddy the waters", why would she pick that time to start pleading no? Because you're doing her up so good she doesn't know what she saying? I'll stick to consensual perversions and you can pick on my spelling and change the literal meaning of universal words. But I do apologize to the forum, that certainly changes everything...LOL
 
No means no, except in my case, where it means maybe...

Maybe yes,
Maybe no,
Maybeebabee.

LMAO.
I need some sleep... I'm getting kinda goofy. I'm guessing this was actually a serious thread. Sorry Dolly.
 
SliNgSh0t said:
I apologize - didn't consider the forum. I have to plead ignorance now - did she break the rules or are there any rules in BDSM? She's performing the sado-masochistic ritual on her own-she said no to the almighty Kobe Bryant. Oh, sorry for keeping my IRC moniker. I don't know what I'm more ashamed of: the silly way I spell a made up name, or the fact I've never had sex with a family member or farm animal. I can play rough sex with the best of them but, question: if I'm Kobe Bryant, and I can't turn back because I'm about to "muddy the waters", why would she pick that time to start pleading no? Because you're doing her up so good she doesn't know what she saying? I'll stick to consensual perversions and you can pick on my spelling and change the literal meaning of universal words. But I do apologize to the forum, that certainly changes everything...LOL
Hey Bob, your hospital index needs work.

Oh yeah, so does your communication style.

:rolleyes:
 
SliNgSh0t said:
I apologize - didn't consider the forum. I have to plead ignorance now - did she break the rules or are there any rules in BDSM? She's performing the sado-masochistic ritual on her own-she said no to the almighty Kobe Bryant. Oh, sorry for keeping my IRC moniker. I don't know what I'm more ashamed of: the silly way I spell a made up name, or the fact I've never had sex with a family member or farm animal. I can play rough sex with the best of them but, question: if I'm Kobe Bryant, and I can't turn back because I'm about to "muddy the waters", why would she pick that time to start pleading no? Because you're doing her up so good she doesn't know what she saying? I'll stick to consensual perversions and you can pick on my spelling and change the literal meaning of universal words. But I do apologize to the forum, that certainly changes everything...LOL

So, you didn't consider the forum? We have a library... read it or not.

But basically, this is just a bullshit post that really doesn't deserve any further attention.
 
SliNgSh0t said:
I'll stick to consensual perversions and you can pick on my spelling and change the literal meaning of universal words. But I do apologize to the forum, that certainly changes everything...LOL
Fine, and I hope this literal, conventional, non-apologetic request comes through loud and clear.

Go fuck yourself.

No one here would.
 
SliNgSh0t said:
If you begged me to spare your life, and then I killed you, would I be guilty of murder? Does that help you at all? you're a dumbshit or a Laker fan, which is basically the same thing.

Not an accurate parallel analogy. How about she begs Dr. Kevorkian to kill her, says 'I mean it and don't take no for an answer,' and then she says no? Closer anyway, than your example, though I'm sure there is still plenty of faulty logic there. For instance, unlike sex, people don't regularly kill themselves just for fun.

A better comparison would be something more like I want you to wake me up in the morning and say, 'no matter how much I whine, do it anyway, because I have to go somewhere.' So morning comes and s/he whines and refuses to get out of bed so you drag him or her out anyway. Ok, so it's not a crime. But how mad can s/he legitimately be at your not taking no for an answer at that point?
This is for bdsm play of course. For vanilla sex, you have the right to say no at any point. Only gray area I can see, is if you are already fucking for a while when one of you changes your mind. The partner should, of course, stop. But if, mid-intercourse, the partner Doesn't stop, is it rape?
The money analogy works here. You give cash to a street person then change your mind and demand it back. Can you legitimately cry thief if s/he keeps the money and runs? At this point, I don't think so.

And yes, Slingshot there are rules, truly more so than in vanilla sex it seems, for self-protection if no higher motive. For farm animals and incest you will have to go to a different forum. Try the General Board. You may be more comfortable there.
 
Phoenix Stone said:
And yes, Slingshot there are rules, truly more so than in vanilla sex it seems, for self-protection if no higher motive. For farm animals and incest you will have to go to a different forum. Try the General Board. You may be more comfortable there.

Goodness me...don't send him there!!!

(to the GB i mean)

Ok all carry on...
 
Money drives justice. He will walk, but pay out the ass in the civil trial
 
etoile said, (note to phoenix)

Outside of a BDSM context, no means no.

very odd statement. hope you're friends with the DA. nonconsent is nonconsent. often conveyed by 'no.' even among folks at literotica and bdsm forums.


That's all there is to it. A victim has the right to change his/her mind at any point during a sexual encounter.

Inside a BDSM context, we have things like safewords and SSC and RACK etc.



Phoenix,
A better comparison would be something more like I want you to wake me up in the morning and say, 'no matter how much I whine, do it anyway, because I have to go somewhere.' So morning comes and s/he whines and refuses to get out of bed so you drag him or her out anyway. Ok, so it's not a crime. But how mad can s/he legitimately be at your not taking no for an answer at that point?
This is for bdsm play of course.


very nice analogy. but, i don't see it as play at all.


Only gray area I can see, is if you are already fucking for a while when one of you changes your mind. The partner should, of course, stop. But if, mid-intercourse, the partner Doesn't stop, is it rape?
The money analogy works here. You give cash to a street person then change your mind and demand it back. Can you legitimately cry thief if s/he keeps the money and runs? At this point, I don't think so.


another nice analogy. in many formal business cases, and some informal one, there is a moment of 'handing over the cheque/cash.
If you the buy, have stacked it on the counter, but NOT handed it over, then grabbing it is robbery.

The instant it's handed over, the shoe is on the other foot. For you to grab it back is robbery. (a burn in a drug deal).

Admittedly it's tricky with the street person case, but I'd say, the instant your silver dollar hits his palm (youre contributing because he asked/begged, you not being coerced) it's his.

he needn't run, just sit there, hold it. if you pry it from his fingers (to take it back), you're robbing HIM.

there must be some mid intercourse(change of mind) rape cases. i wonder how they've gone.
 
Last edited:
here's a neat little item.
apparently 'change of mind' during intercourse holds weight in California, and Illinois, but maybe not Colorado. Is the POP crucial (point of penetration)???

http://courttv.com/trials/bryant/rapelaw_ctv.html

While withdrawal of consent — saying no after initially saying yes — may seem simple in principle, states have taken divergent approaches to its use in the courtroom.

Illinois recently became the first state to officially address the withdrawal of consent by amending its rape law to include sexual activity after either party says "no."

http://www.courttv.com/news/2003/0730/rapelaw_ap.html

Lawmakers there said the move was in reaction to a precedent-setting California rape conviction that was ultimately upheld by the state's Supreme Court. In that case, two 17-year-olds were having sex at a party when the girl changed her mind during intercourse. The boy continued, and he was charged and convicted of sexual assault.

The Colorado state statutes hold no such provision for a change of mind as in Illinois, and according to one former prosecutor, make it difficult to convict if the initial penetration is consensual.

"Penetration is the key. Up until the point of penetration, no means no," said Norm Early. According to Early, withdrawing consent after penetration complicates a case because of the initial consent.

But to victims rights advocates, the distinction continues the dangerous practice of focusing on the victim's complicity.


"The shift in law has been to treat sexual assault as a crime of violence and to try to move the emphasis away from the victim and what she was doing or not doing and toward the suspect, and what he was doing," said Cassia Spohn, a criminal justice professor at the University of Omaha and co-author of the 1992 book "Rape Law Reform."

Making a specific provision for withdrawal of consent, such as in the Illinois law, goes too far, according to victims rights advocate Murphy.

"You shouldn't have to codify basic principles of human rights, which is what rape laws are all about," she said. "You should never put it into legislation that people have a right to change their mind."

In prosecuting Bryant, Eagle County attorneys are expected to argue that, before penetration, the victim revoked her consent.

Former prosecutor Early called the alleged victim's change of heart a "hurdle, but obviously [prosecutors] don't feel that it's a fatal hurdle."

Ultimately, the question of when and how the victim's consent was revoked is less important than whether her story rings true, says Craig Silverman, a Colorado defense lawyer and former Denver prosecutor. "If you ask me whether it's rape if a woman agrees to some sexual activity and then says no," said Silverman, "that depends on what any particular Colorado jury says on the subject."
 
Last edited:
Pure said:
etoile said, (note to phoenix)

Outside of a BDSM context, no means no.

very odd statement. hope you're friends with the DA. nonconsent is nonconsent. often conveyed by 'no.' even among folks at literotica and bdsm forums.

I seriously doubt Etoile is incapable of understanding that nonconsent is nonconsent. Implying otherwise seems rather catty. Shame on you, Pure.

Since Etoile is not going to send her Daddy to the 'bighouse' for ignoring her protests, because they both enjoy the appearance (as a completely made up example, of course), then for her, inside the context of a BDSM relationship, no doesn't mean no. The safeword, whatever it is... -that- means no.

You knew what she meant. I hardly think it's constructive to pick apart a statement like that.
 
Back
Top