Serious Issue of Rape

[Johnny Mayberry]

Being in a hurry to get home isn't "No", but it should have been enough out of the ordinary for him to least wonder what was going on with her. Alcohol was mentioned numberous times and was probably a deciding factor in the boy's decision.

Sad that something like this has to happen for teens to realize that there are consequences for their actions, for both parties involved.

So, this post descibes an insensitive jerk, but i don't see how we can so easily make the leap from 'jerk' to 'rapist'...it just doesn't follow.

 

[Guest]

 

[Freya]

In my opinion, this all comes down to semantics. Had she said "Hey we need to stop, I gotta get home", I'd agree he should have stopped. Had she said ""I have to go right now", then he should have stopped. The very bland statement of "I need to go home", does not give a strong enough statement, to later claim he should have stopped immediately. I used to say "I need to go home" at parties when I was 16 (not in the middle of sex necessarily), and it didn't always mean right that very second. It very well could be interpreted as, "We need to hurry up and finish, so I'm not late for curfew". In that case, him saying "Let me finish first", makes sense. When drinking, and in the midst of the heat of sex, a minute really doesn't seem like a great amount of time to ask for - you can make that minute up on the ride home by driving a bit faster.

Now, had she actually said anything different from that, I'd tend to weigh in on the side of the "It was rape" crew. But as long as that's what she said, I have to say, in my opinion, it was not rape. Frankly, if you want someone to stop something you've already let them begin, it's your responsibility to be very clear on that point.

And Frimost - your opinions and posts are a very good reason why not too many people will post their views agreeing with this train of thought. Having you as a spokesperson for any side, really makes people want to change their opinions. Your comments about pussy and cock points are some of the most rdiculous I have ever heard, especially when you say it in regards to PC. As little as I like or respect him at times, I do have to give him credit for always speaking his own mind, and not doing so to earn points from anyone.

 

[Monazwx]

The fact that he asked her to wait until he was done, confirms that she wanted him to stop, however I wish there was a transcript for the 90 sec. in between. There are so many lingering questions.

 

[Johnny Mayberry]

When we take into account the facts (an ambiuguous 'no', he continues), the age of teh two people, and the drinking, I find it hard to describe this guy as a rapist. He was wrong, but it was more a matter of poor judgement than criminal intent, and I think we should weigh that as well.

 

[Guest]

 

[HeavyStick]

I think you are soooo hot!

Are you propositioning me?

 

[HeavyStick]

I just went to Frimosts homepage.


You forgot the T in nightmare

He misspelled "etc".

Sunstruck should have edited his webpage.

 

[Lost Cause]

Personal thought...

I've been in those positions where the foreplay was so intense, you naturally expect to fuck next. I've had females say that they had to get going, or they don't want to go any farther at that time, and I honored every one. I still got off when I go home, or on the way home in the car. The important thing to me is, sex with a female isn't just for the orgasm, if it is, then you're treating them like nothing more than a toilet to dispense your fluids. I go for the meta-physical experience of good muff poundin' and a female doing the nose sleigh ride on my face!

 

[RawHumor]

Re: Personal thought...

The important thing to me is, sex with a female isn't just for the orgasm, if it is, then you're treating them like nothing more than a toilet to dispense your fluids.

Not a toilet - a jerkoff rag.

 

[Monazwx]

So, this post descibes an insensitive jerk, but i don't see how we can so easily make the leap from 'jerk' to 'rapist'...it just doesn't follow.

Most rapists are insensitive jerks.
However, in this case, it is easy to see how the semantics that Freya2 mentioned could have been misconscrued. My question is, he said he asked her if he could finish right? Does anyone know how (or if) she answered? Or did she answer by telling him that she needed to leave. I figured that the first thing he would ask if "Right now?" where she could respond, "Yes, immediately!"
But of course, that didn't happen.

Frimost, I've been trying to ignore your posts, but this weak defense for the boy has to stop. It's unfortunate that he got slammed but he got slammed for a reason.

 

[celiaKitten]

This thread is quickly turning into a gender debate where it shouldn't.

This isn't about men and women, girls and boys .. it's about any gender in any combination, any number of people and being able to stop sex.

Some of the things that are coming out of people's mouths honestly frighten me.

There's a term called: heresay .. ever heard of it?

As silly as the law might seem sometimes - there's usually some measure of common sense behind it. The law won't spiral to where "it's rape if she says so".

My advice to a few of you: Quit trying to make this argument into some long, pathetic whine about how men are being stomped on - because it isn't. If you see it that way - you've got issues.

 

[Freya]

This thread is quickly turning into a gender debate where it shouldn't.

This isn't about men and women, girls and boys .. it's about any gender in any combination, any number of people and being able to stop sex.

Some of the things that are coming out of people's mouths honestly frighten me.

There's a term called: heresay .. ever heard of it?

As silly as the law might seem sometimes - there's usually some measure of common sense behind it. The law won't spiral to where "it's rape if she says so".

My advice to a few of you: Quit trying to make this argument into some long, pathetic whine about how men are being stomped on - because it isn't. If you see it that way - you've got issues.

psst Celia...one of them in particular could turn a debate about the inconsistencies of hotdogs to hotdog buns, into a pathetic whine about men being stepped on.

 

[zipman]

The tangible evidence is that they had sex, which neither denies. The only issue is whether or not what she said maens the same thing as 'no'...and it is certainly a fuzzy area. If you say 'no', I quit, period. If you say, 'I need to get home', and I'm close to orgasm, I'll likely take that to mean you want me to hurry, and continue. If, however, at any moment you use that words 'no', or 'stop', I'm off you in a heartbeat. If you say 'I'm tired', is that the same as saying 'no'? If you say ' I have to get up early tomorrow', is that the same as 'stop'?

Based on the limited information that was introduced as "the facts" in this case, I would have ot agree with this.

I think that assuming that the boy in this case should have interpreted her statement of "I need to get home" as being equal to either "no" or "I don't want to do this anymore" is too much of a stretch to convict him of a crime that will send him to jail.

Everyone agrees that no means no. But convicting someone on failing to correctly interpret an ambiguous statement in the middle of a sex act seems a little extreme to me.

One could just as easily state that after he asked for a minute to finish and she didn't say "no, stop right now" that she gave tacit approval to continue.

This is not a black and white case, and the facts we do have are too vague to decide that it was definitely rape.

 

[Guest]

 

[bridgeburner]

"The only person (male or female) in any country, city, time, or culture ultimately responsible for their own welfare and safe being is themselves"

Smoke less crack, man.

If some whacko runs you down in the crosswalk just remember that it's your fault you're a paraplegic.

 

[Guest]

 

[zipman]

I can agree with this.


what I cant agree with is frimost saying that men have a right to finish even if a girl says no. He kinda off topic now.

I agree with you that if a woman say's no or stop, that regardless of how much a man wants to continue, he should stop immediately. Period, end of story.

 

[bridgeburner]

Johnny M,

It's been mentioned already, but I thought it worth stating again that the boy admitted he was fully cognizant of her desire for him to stop. He knew she wanted him to quit but he claims he couldn't quit because he was drunk. That's a far cry from "I didn't know she wanted me to stop."

Whatever she said ---- and we don't know because the article doesn't say ---- she was clear and precise enough to let him know that she wanted him to pull out right then and stop fucking her. He admits this. There is no question of it. He's claiming that he didn't stop because he was physically impaired. For a minute and a half he knew she didn't want his dick in her and he kept pumping her anyway.

Why? Because it felt good to him and he didn't care that she wanted to quit.


This whole thing is a mess, but at least they're both being honest. She admits she consented initially and then changed her mind. He admits that he knew she wanted him to stop but he kept on until he was ready to quit. I imagine the parents did have something to do with charges being brought, but they might not. We don't know. I think both kids and society would've been better served by community service and some kind of educational program to show them why their actions were wrong or irresponsible.

None of that changes the fact, though, that he didn't stop when he knew she wanted him to and that makes it rape.

 

[zipman]

On what page of this thread is the link to the article?

 

[celiaKitten]

he yheheh

I like this guy.

Welcome to LIT!

I agree, that statement was fucking funny.

Welcome to Lit..lol. You should fit in just fine.

 

[bridgeburner]

Thanks for the welcome! I'm having a great time except for this fucking bootemail pop-up that's getting on my last nerve.

 

[crysede]

On what page of this thread is the link to the article?

I think it was page 5 – here's the link anyway: When Yes Turns to No: Advocates Hail Calif. Rape Ruling; Critics Say It Ignores Primal Urges.


Those asserting that the article gives us the 'fact' that all the girl said is “I need to go home” need to go read it again - the article does NOT tell us what she said. It informs us that:

• The girl's counsel asserts that she did say 'no.'
• Based on the full evidence, the court determined that she did, in fact, say 'no.'
• The boy's counsel states that it is irrelevant whether she said 'no' or not, and anyway she didn't 'really' say 'no.'
• The journalist doesn't tell us what she said, but implies that she did nothing more than mention that she needed to go home. (She could have said “Stop! I need to go home,” or she could have been pleading with him, or crying, or screaming – we simply don't know.)

What you see as being the 'facts' here, depends on what you feel you can trust to give you the facts: statements by attorneys, rulings made by judges, or implications made by journalists. Not knowing any of the facts myself, nor knowing anything about any of the parties personally involved to prejudice me towards believing one of the individuals over the other – I'll go with judges first, journalists second, and lawyers third as a matter of rational principle.

No way in hell I'm ever going to take a journalists word over a judges without having some good reason for thinking that the judge is misrepresenting the facts. Judges have to make their reasoning explicit, they are constrained to working only with the facts on hand, and we know for a fact that they are familiar with all the evidence in the case. The journalist may never have attended the trial (may never even have read the transcripts!) – and hasn't given anything more than innuendo anyway.

 

[bridgeburner]

Zipman,


http://more.abcnews.go.com/sections/gma/goodmorningamerica/GMA030109_Calif_Rape_Ruling.html


Of course I just re-read the thing and noticed that I hadn't read to the end of the article. What the defense lawyer says doesn't quite jibe with what the dissenting court justice says.

The defense lawyer claims the girl never said no but ALSO that the boy knew she wanted to quit but wasn't given reasonable time to control his "primal urge". The justice states only that the girl did not specifically say "no".

So at this point I'm throwing my hands up. If she didn't say no or quit or stop then it's reasonable for him to claim that he didn't know she wanted him to stop. If, however, he claims to know that she wanted to stop and he continued anyway then that seems pretty clear to me that he knew he was in the wrong.

What kind of shitty lawyer did he have to even bring up the issue of how long it should reasonably take him to stop once he knew he was unwelcome? He either knew or he didn't know. If she didn't say then he could claim not to know but that doesn't seem to be the argument they used. What a moronic cow.

Demerits all around for the whole gang of clowns.

 

[HeavyStick]

into a pathetic whine about men being stepped on.

You make that sound bad yet kinky