Flutterby™! : rescinded consent = rape 2003-01-07 15:01:17+00

rescinded consent = rape

2003-01-07 15:01:17+00 by Dan Lyke 13 comments

California Supreme Court rules rescinded consent is rape. It's hard to tell the details from the article, but it sounds like they got it right.

next: retroactively rescinded consent = rape. "hello johnny? remember last week? i changed my mind - i'm calling the cops" :)

I don't know about a week, but I could be convinced that a day or two grace period is reasonable. Obviously there are lots of implementation issues in that...

Dan, you need to explain that one two me. I can agree that rescinding consent prior to penetration but penetration occurs anyway being called rape. I can see where consent rescinded after penetration but before a climax might be called rape if the act is not stopped immediately but then how many milliseconds after "stop" is called is immediately. I can't understand how consent being rescinded after the act is fully consummated and there is nothing left to stop doing can be considered rape.

Larry, most consumer transactions allow for a return within a reasonable time period if the customer discovers that the product was misrepresented or the customer later feels like they were overly pressured. Perhaps "rape" is too strong, but what do we do when the Circuit City

salesmen take their job to the bars?

I agree with Larry and anser. I can see a spiteful bitch deciding, when he "doesn't call her" two days later, to "make him pay", by calling him up and saying, "Hey, I didn't mean that at all, you jerk, and I'm going to call the cops on you." How absurd. While it's happening, stop means stop, and no-stop could be considered rape -- certainly non-consensual. Once it's over, what's done is done, learn to live with the consequences of what you did, and what you did or did not say. Grow a spine, learn assertiveness.

We're not talking about a consumer product here, Dan, we talking about fucking. If you're stupid enough to fall for a salesman's line, then that's your problem. It's a matter of taking personal responsibility for your life and your actions: surely you don't want me getting back on my soapbox about that one again, do you? :-)

Sorry, I've known too many women of my own gender for whom I've had little respect as reasonable humans. Sad but true. (I don't sound very sympathetic on this one, do I. Oh well.)

So if I offer y'all that, yes, there are some women who are that spiteful and twisted, will you give me that there are men that way too? I don't know that we need to put it in the same category as rape, but I am aware of several situations where a set of pressures were brought to bear to an end result that if it weren't rape, was just this side of it. And in those situations I can easily see why saying "no" didn't come up at the time, but sure did the next morning.

I'll try to figure a way to write something up that protects the privacies of all involved to give you an example. My point is that for every woman who unfairly cries "rape" there's at least one man who claims "I thought we were just having sex." To take a line out of the article that I've heard before in the same context.

most consumer transactions allow for a return within a reasonable time period if the customer discovers that the product was misrepresented

The primary problem I have with this analogy is that it is not at all a fair comparison/representation. Just what is the [man] supposed to "return"? A retailer has a way, in such a scenario, to make the customer happy - to rectify the situation. Allowing a woman - or anyone, for that matter - to retroactively rescind consent leaves the [man] with no such option.

Hasn't there long been this concept of "lover's remorse"? ("Boy, I sure do wish I hadn't had sex with him/her... That wasn't very smart of me/I sure am gonna regret that/What a dumb move/I sure was drunk...") That's not rape, that's poor judgement. Don't try to legislate that away after the fact: that's just part of living and (yes) growing up. Some people are just plain stupid about stuff like that, and refuse to take responsibility for their own decisions.

As I said, "lots of implementation issues". But I also think that until the culture changes a bit there's more going on than just "lover's remorse".

Dan, I'm beside myself here. Are you telling me that women need to be protected from their own decisions? I hope you can understand how sexist this strikes me as being. Do you believe that men need the same sort of protection from bad decisons they may make? There is a lot more here than just implementation issues that I see.

A woman accepts a ride from a guy to the store. She gets in his car and they start off. Somewhere in the ride, she gets uncomfy and asks him to pull over and let her out. He refuses and continues on to the store. Is he guilty of kidnapping? Likely not.... he's perhaps guilty of false imprisonment (a misdemeanor) if anything.

Rape's a big ol' stick to hit this young man with when CA has a law against unlawful sexual intercourse which appears to fit this crime. However, this area of the CA penal code is an interesting read, particularly section 263 which reads:

I wonder if the opinion of the ourt that "Failure to respect their physical and sexual autonomy constitutes rape," could somehow be applied to the efforts of John ASScroft (sorry, couldn't help it) and others to deny a woman's physical reproductive autonomy. Just a thought Andy