Stanford student gets six months for rape

[NecCat]

One word: "Entrapment". And don't tell me it couldn't happen.

Additionally, as s_stabler points out, what is "clear withdrawal of consent"? Take the phrase "Don't Stop". Written out, its meaning is clear.

However, "Don't stop" is different than "Don't, stop."

You object to the ability to withdraw consent during previously mutually consentual sex because police officers will have sex with people, then withdraw consent part way through so they can arrest partners who don't stop? (That wasn't sarcasm, I'm legitimately curious what you meant).

As for your second scenario, that actually happened to me. He said "....don't.....stop.. ". So I stopped and he said "No, I said don't stop!", so I resumed what I was doing. It was hardly a difficult, traumatic or life changing moment. Certainly not one worth specific legislation.

[NecCat]

That said, legally speaking that's all true because of the presumption of innocence under the law (which is universal.) The idea that someone could play a legal game by the withdraw of consent actually becomes very real if people default to what some people are vocally demanding at this point and that is believing the victim (which by extension actually means the presumption of guilt). d

I think that's the biggest problem with rape cases. In other types of crimes no one usually doubts the victim. No one tries to claim the guy who had his car stolen or wife killed is making it up, just because they are trying to claim the accused isn't guilty. When the only choices are to presume innocence of the alleged perpetrator or to presume guilt of the alleged victim and require full proof either way, it's a huge problem. I agree with s_stabler: lawyers probably really hate defending accused rapists.

[mjr]

You object to the ability to withdraw consent during previously mutually consentual sex because police officers will have sex with people, then withdraw consent part way through so they can arrest partners who don't stop? (That wasn't sarcasm, I'm legitimately curious what you meant).

In a way, yes. If a man is having sex with a woman, and she changes her mind midway through, and tells him to stop, he must do so immediately. Right? If he doesn't, then at that point it's rape, even if he continues for 2 or 3 more seconds. She can then say she was raped, when the sex was initially consensual. Correct? That's MY understanding. I'm talking about regular sex, not BDSM or those sorts of sexual encounters.

As for your second scenario, that actually happened to me. He said "....don't.....stop.. ". So I stopped and he said "No, I said don't stop!", so I resumed what I was doing. It was hardly a difficult, traumatic or life changing moment. Certainly not one worth specific legislation.

Ok...but did you stop and dismount immediately?

[NecCat]

MY understanding is that no one is going to question if it took you 2 seconds or 3 seconds to disengage after someone told you to stop, and try to gauge whether 2 seconds is considered the same as immediately. The law generally deals with things real people can accomplish, it doesn't usually try to trap people with impossible standards that no one could meet. If someone tells you to stop, you stop. Depending on what you're doing and general reaction time I would think that could legitimately take as long as four seconds even.

[TheHuckster]

Also, I don't know about anyone else, but at least in "normal" sexual situations, when something unexpected happens, my normal reaction is to pause. It doesn't even have to be my partner saying "stop." It could even be her sneezing or coughing, or some crashing sound outside. Anything that really isn't expected.

I mean, I know surprises during sex can be great, but not those kinds of surprises.

I will say that I've actually had the situation where I had a partner tell me to stop in the middle. It was just natural for me to heed her direction and stop. I did immediately ask if she wanted me to pull out, since I wasn't sure if the reason she was telling me to stop was because she wanted me to change my position or motions, and she told me that, yes, she wanted me to pull out. I pulled out, and that was that. No harm, no foul. The total time between her saying stop and me pulling out was probably 5 seconds, including the quick clarification.

What people are talking about here is not whether someone delayed their halt by a couple seconds, but whether they intently respected their partner's wishes to stop, and didn't say, "Well, I'm like a minute away from coming, so I'm going to continue like a pig" or "Hey, you said you were alright with this in the start. That means you have no control now." Those are two completely different things.

[NecCat]

TheHuckster - thank you, you put it much better than I did

[Kheldarson]

In a way, yes. If a man is having sex with a woman, and she changes her mind midway through, and tells him to stop, he must do so immediately. Right? If he doesn't, then at that point it's rape, even if he continues for 2 or 3 more seconds. She can then say she was raped, when the sex was initially consensual. Correct? That's MY understanding. I'm talking about regular sex, not BDSM or those sorts of sexual encounters.

As immediately as humanly possible. The law does make allowances for us not being machines, you know.

So, you know, if hubs and I are going at it, and something he does ends up hurting, I tell him stop or ow or wait. If he's mid-move, I'm not going to be upset if he can't stop right away. I will be upset if he keeps going after that point.

And it doesn't matter if it's regular sex or otherwise. If someone withdraws their consent, however that is done in context of your encounter, you stop as soon as possible.

And if you have any questions about whether or not your partner will be an unequivocal yes throughout, or doubt your ability to stop if they ask you to, maybe you shouldn't have sex.

[TheHuckster]

As immediately as humanly possible. The law does make allowances for us not being machines, you know.

Heck, even if I wanted my computer to abruptly shut down, I still have to hold the button down for 5 seconds.

[Kheldarson]

Heck, even if I wanted my computer to abruptly shut down, I still have to hold the button down for 5 seconds.

Or you just pull the plug

[KabeRinnaul]

Or you just pull the plug

So many CompSci majors just cringed at those words.

[Kheldarson]

So many CompSci majors just cringed at those words.

Love you, dear.

[s_stabeler]

to be fair, it's doing a hard shutdown- that is, pressing the power button for 5 seconds or pulling the power cord- that generally does the damage IIRC, not just pulling the power cord. Still, it's not something i'd like to do just to shut it down quickly.

[Canarr]

One word: "Entrapment". And don't tell me it couldn't happen.

Additionally, as s_stabler points out, what is "clear withdrawal of consent"? Take the phrase "Don't Stop". Written out, its meaning is clear.

However, "Don't stop" is different than "Don't, stop."

No, I don't think Entrapment would happen. At least not in the legal definition of the word. Think about it: it would require a police agency to set up a sting operation where they actually need to order their officers to start having sex with people, in order to withdraw consent - all to maybe(!) catch people who would take long enough to stop that a prosecutor would want to bring it to trial. Doesn't make a lot of sense.

While I'm not sure about US law, under German law, the legal term "immediately" means "without any negligent delay". How long that is, depends on the issue, of course; but I doubt that you could successfully mount a prosecution on the question whether Party A absolutely needed 6 seconds to stop, or if they could've done it in 4 instead. As long as you don't go the "keep going for the minute I need to finish" route TheHuckster mentioned, but stop as soon as you heard and understood the "Stop!" request, it shouldn't be a problem.

[D_Yeti_Esquire]

@NecCat - I agree that's the problem.

When the only choices are to presume innocence of the alleged perpetrator or to presume guilt of the alleged victim and require full proof either way, it's a huge problem.

Other crimes like theft or murder don't hold a secondary question of "did theft or murder actually occur?" Someone is dead. A vase is missing. But you can prove sexual contact occurred and that still doesn't necessarily prove rape.

That sort of dynamic is pretty much why I don't think judicial equality can ever exist for that charge.

[s_stabeler]

it doesn't help that it is a serious crime- with serious consequences for someone convicted. As such, in some ways, there's no right answer. Either rapists will get away with it, or people will be wrongfully convicted of rape- which in some ways, can be as devastating as for someone raped (death threats, for example, aren't unheard of in cases where rape allegations have become widely known about.)