Yes.... err.... Nope... New Rape Law

Drustwyn · Post by **Drustwyn** » July 29, 2003, 11:38 pm

New Illinois Rape Law Protects People Who Change Mind During Sex

Tuesday, July 29, 2003

SPRINGFIELD, Ill. — A new rape law in Illinois attempts to clarify the issue of consent by emphasizing that people can change their mind while having sex.

Under the law, if someone says "no" at any time the other person must stop or it becomes rape. The National Crime Victim Law Institute (search) said it believed the law is the first of its kind in the country.

Lyn Schollett, general counsel for the Illinois Coalition Against Sexual Assault (search), said the law was important to make it clear to victims, offenders, prosecutors and juries that people have the right to halt sexual activity at any time.

"I think it will empower prosecutors in charging cases where the victim and the offender have a sexual history," she said.

But the director of the Victim Advocacy & Research Group (search) in Boston said it would be hard to imagine courts not upholding a woman's right to withdraw consent.

"To me, it's demeaning," Wendy Murphy said. "It's like the old saying: 'If it ain't broke, don't fix it.' I don't think it was broke."

The law was inspired by a California case involving two 17-year-olds who had sex at a party. The girl changed her mind about having sex, but the boy did not stop immediately.

He was charged with rape, and it took years for the courts to decide that he could be found guilty under California law. The California Supreme Court ruled in January that a man can be convicted if a woman first consents but later asks him to stop.

Lawmakers said they wanted to avoid the same kind of long legal battle in Illinois. Gov. Rod Blagojevich signed the law Friday but did not announce it until Monday.

Drasta · Post by **Drasta** » July 29, 2003, 11:47 pm

does "wait a second" count as stop?

Boogahz · Post by **Boogahz** » July 30, 2003, 1:26 am

No, but I think "not THERE!!!!!1!!" counts

Honestly, I can understand the good intent behind this, but at the same time the people making these laws must have never actually HAD sex. Sure they might have children, but they never actually DID it. There are times that it is very difficult to stop once you have started just due to the need to procreate that is inherent to most species that I can think of. Now, if it were something where one was drugged/drunk/etc. I could see a reason for this, but that is the only time.

emmer · Post by **emmer** » July 30, 2003, 3:17 am

was there any mention of the "don't worry, I'll pull out first" clause?

Lohrno · Post by **Lohrno** » July 30, 2003, 3:23 am

You know some girls could use that and be really evil.. say no at the last minute and you have a way to blackmail...

-=Lohrno

Boogahz · Post by **Boogahz** » July 30, 2003, 10:05 am

Lohrno wrote:You know some girls could use that and be really evil.. say no at the last minute and you have a way to blackmail...

-=Lohrno

Hmm, thinking on that, taking that nasty chick home from the bar and then telling her no when she's goin at it might pay off after all. Especially when she stalks you every time you are there! A little jail time might help to keep her away!

Deward · Post by **Deward** » July 30, 2003, 10:21 am

Wow so what if you are doing it, she says no or stop and you pump her a couple more times. Is that Rape? This could put a lot of non-rapists in jail for rape. This is a stupid law.

Deward

Chidoro · Post by **Chidoro** » July 30, 2003, 10:25 am

Hell, the girl doesn't even have to say no to bring up a lawsuit. It will be her word against his and since there doesn't even have to be proof of penetration, it's going to be ugly (because you can't trust a fucking lawyer to do the right thing).

I'm glad I'm married. I'd hate to be out there, single in my 20's again with all of this overly letigious shit out there

Fairweather Pure · Post by **Fairweather Pure** » July 30, 2003, 10:36 am

Just communicate before sex a bit. Develope a safe word. "Red" is a very common safe word. "No" or "stop" are not good safe words because many people may say them, but definately don't mean it

And yes, this law leaves the door wide open for abuse, should the woman be that fucked up.

Kguku · Post by **Kguku** » July 30, 2003, 11:24 am

no... don't stop!

masteen · Post by **masteen** » July 30, 2003, 11:26 am

So a woman can change her mind DURING sex? What kind of fucked up shit is that? I don't know about most of you guys, but when I'm close to my special moment, I can barely understand English. The voice of God Himself couldn't penetrate that endorphin-laced fog.

Mort · Post by **Mort** » July 30, 2003, 12:15 pm

masteen wrote:So a woman can change her mind DURING sex? What kind of fucked up shit is that? I don't know about most of you guys, but when I'm close to my special moment, I can barely understand English. The voice of God Himself couldn't penetrate that endorphin-laced fog.

Bwwwwaaaahahahahahaha..... You sir, owe me a new monitor!

Krimson Klaw · Post by **Krimson Klaw** » July 30, 2003, 12:18 pm

It's getting to the point now that if you want to be totally safe, you have to have a witness sign your partners *consent to penetrate me* form, and STAY in the room until it's over.

Voronwë · Post by **Voronwë** » July 30, 2003, 12:22 pm

"withdrawal of consent" has been around for awhile.

Krimson Klaw · Post by **Krimson Klaw** » July 30, 2003, 12:28 pm

If I were a rich single dude that was constantly boning chicks, I guess I would just video tape all my encounters, with audio.

Voronwë · Post by **Voronwë** » July 30, 2003, 12:32 pm

agreed Krim, guys like that (in Illinois) should be careful who they sleep with.

The rest of us mere mortals probably aren't going to be impacted by this legislation.

Cartalas · Post by **Cartalas** » July 30, 2003, 12:54 pm

Voronwë wrote:"withdrawal of consent" has been around for awhile.

What about "Consent to Withdrawl"

Silvarel Mistmoon · Post by **Silvarel Mistmoon** » July 30, 2003, 12:59 pm

As a woman I am shocked at this law. I could understand it if there was more to it like if a woman OR man say no due to the sex turning rough to where they can't handle it. But if some poor guy or girl yells out the wrong name and their partner says stop ..........well you get the idea.
I think this will be very hard to prove in the courts any way.

Skogen · Post by **Skogen** » July 30, 2003, 1:05 pm

Man, if I was still single, I would just jerk off all the time!

Truant · Post by **Truant** » July 30, 2003, 1:09 pm

Silvarel Mistmoon wrote:As a woman I am shocked at this law. I could understand it if there was more to it like if a woman OR man say no due to the sex turning rough to where they can't handle it. But if some poor guy or girl yells out the wrong name and their partner says stop ..........well you get the idea.
I think this will be very hard to prove in the courts any way.

yeah, because there is such a plethora of witnesses around everytime a couple has sex. heh

masteen · Post by **masteen** » July 30, 2003, 1:16 pm

Truant wrote:yeah, because there is such a plethora of witnesses around everytime a couple has sex. heh

I think Truant is teh exhibitionist! RAWR!

Post by **Sylvus** » July 30, 2003, 1:24 pm

Cartalas wrote:
Voronwë wrote:"withdrawal of consent" has been around for awhile.

What about "Consent to Withdrawl"

What about "Withdrawl[sic] Consent to"

Seriously, what the fuck are you talking about? You don't have to reply to everything, you know.

Chidoro · Post by **Chidoro** » July 30, 2003, 1:44 pm

Silvarel Mistmoon wrote:
I think this will be very hard to prove in the courts any way.

That's the problem, the burden of proof usually falls on the guy's shoulders. Now a women can say she said no w/out ever having said it and it can account for rape.

Morals of the story for guys:
If you're rich and single, don't tell anyone
If you break up w/ someone, never fuck them again because that fuck could be a setup
Tape and document every session so that the broad can't fabricate something
Most important, Have FUN!

Winnow · Post by **Winnow** » July 30, 2003, 3:23 pm

Gilligan's Island! Mr. Howell!

Bubba Grizz · Post by **Bubba Grizz** » July 30, 2003, 8:37 pm

Ok *edited due to stupidity*

Silvarel Mistmoon · Post by **Silvarel Mistmoon** » July 30, 2003, 10:05 pm

That's the problem, the burden of proof usually falls on the guy's shoulders. Now a women can say she said no w/out ever having said it and it can account for rape.

Actually that isn't true. There are a lot of rapes that happen and are never brought to the police or court because it is very hard for the women that go through it.
Yes there are laws on how they can be questioned and such but in court lawyers often bring in things to make the woman look like a whore or to make the jury believe she asked for it.

ANY man out there should think clearly before bedding a woman so if your drunk and can't think clearly go home alone and watch a porn movie or take a cold shower.

Winnow · Post by **Winnow** » July 30, 2003, 10:37 pm

Silvarel Mistmoon wrote:
ANY man out there should think clearly before bedding a woman so if your drunk and can't think clearly go home alone and watch a porn movie or take a cold shower.

Heya Silvarel : )

Well if not thinking clearly, a man should go home alone but they shouldn't take a cold shower! Beat that meat!

Australian scientists have shown that the more men masturbate between the ages of 20 and 50, the less likely they are to develop the disease that kills more than half a million men each year...

"The more you flush the ducts out, the less there is to hang around and damage the cells that line them," Graham Giles, of the Cancer Council Victoria in Melbourne, told New Scientist magazine on Wednesday.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=s ... sturbation

Flush those ducts!

Xzion · Post by **Xzion** » July 31, 2003, 1:44 am

it would be funny as hell if like a 17 yr old guy issued rape for a situation like this...hmm i wonder if you could proove that

Chidoro · Post by **Chidoro** » July 31, 2003, 8:29 am

Silvarel Mistmoon wrote:
That's the problem, the burden of proof usually falls on the guy's shoulders. Now a women can say she said no w/out ever having said it and it can account for rape.
Actually that isn't true. There are a lot of rapes that happen and are never brought to the police or court because it is very hard for the women that go through it.

Actually, it is true. What you stated is that some women are afraid to testify, that has nothing to do with what I said.

Woman testifies, the guy has to prove himself innocent, not the other way around. The guy tries to make the woman look guilty, but that's the only defense available when the case has no material witnesses.

Fairweather Pure · Post by **Fairweather Pure** » July 31, 2003, 9:37 am

The Kobe case is a good example.

Sheryl · Post by **Sheryl** » July 31, 2003, 5:31 pm

Chidoro wrote:
Silvarel Mistmoon wrote:
That's the problem, the burden of proof usually falls on the guy's shoulders. Now a women can say she said no w/out ever having said it and it can account for rape.
Actually that isn't true. There are a lot of rapes that happen and are never brought to the police or court because it is very hard for the women that go through it.
Actually, it is true. What you stated is that some women are afraid to testify, that has nothing to do with what I said.

Woman testifies, the guy has to prove himself innocent, not the other way around. The guy tries to make the woman look guilty, but that's the only defense available when the case has no material witnesses.

any woman evil enough to entrap a guy so she can claim rape would just lie about it anyway. she wouldn't need this extra law to help her pull it off.

though i do think this "new legislation" is pretty stupid, i don't think it'll have much effect. like voro said, withdrawal of consent has been around for a while.

Fallanthas · Post by **Fallanthas** » August 1, 2003, 10:11 am

Oh, it will have an effect. It will drag out every damn investigation and subsequent trial involving a victim old enough to give consent.

Sheryl · Post by **Sheryl** » August 2, 2003, 4:29 pm

Fallanthas wrote:Oh, it will have an effect. It will drag out every damn investigation and subsequent trial involving a victim old enough to give consent.

how do you figure? not every rape case involves withdrawal of consent. and those that do, this precedent was already established in january.

He was charged with rape, and it took years for the courts to decide that he could be found guilty under California law. The California Supreme Court ruled in January that a man can be convicted if a woman first consents but later asks him to stop.

ps - don't get all defensive like i'm ripping on you, i'm sincerely curious

Silvarel Mistmoon · Post by **Silvarel Mistmoon** » August 2, 2003, 11:52 pm

The woman does have to have a med. exam and go thru a lot of questions when she claims rape. With out the evidence of the rape test her chances are very slim. So I guess my point was that woman have always had to prove they were raped to have a chance at winning in a court of law.
Men use to get by with simply saying she dressed a certain way or she wanted it or she asked for it and the woman could be made a fool of on the stand. This was years ago but now there are laws to protect the woman on stand and even the man. BUT once a lawyer lets something slip out of their mouth it will forever be in the mind of the jurors who most likely do consider things said even when told they will not pay attention to the comments.
But this law that is mentioned in the first post is just stupid, that we can agree on.

VeeshanVault

Yes.... err.... Nope... New Rape Law

Yes.... err.... Nope... New Rape Law

hmm...

Re: hmm...