Wthdraw Consent Means One Must Withdraw...

Besides the numerous other problems I have with this law, such as the idea of withdrawl of consent 5 minutes into the act, I fail to see how this law could possibly result in anything but a he-said/she-said court battle if a prosecutor chose to bring charges. You will have no evidence of violence, or coercion, or anything, because CONSENT WAS GIVEN, and then WITHDRAWN AFTER the action is underway. Scary stuff.

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.

This is ridiculous. I live right by the border for IL and I know that the state is so far behind in their budget that several pharmacies have had to take out loans to continue filling Medicare prescriptions because the state just doesn’t have the money right now. They should be concentrating on more pressing issues.

To me, it depends on why the person says “no” and what is done about it. If a man and woman start having sex, and the man decides to go in the back door, but the girl says no, and then the guy holds her down and forces his way in, then that’s rape, and there is a good chance of there being physical evidence to corroborate it. I know that if you try to hold me down and rape me, that I’m going to leave a mark or two. And don’t tell me that a girl can’t leave a mark on a guy.

If I just decide halfway through that it’s not for me, then damn, it’s my fault for getting into that situation. Sexual responsibility is a serious thing. If you meet someone, then sleep with them later that same night, I will have a difficult time believing that you’d built up enough trust to sleep with that person to begin with.

I think rape is something that needs to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt, and “I changed my mind halfway through” just doesn’t cut it. So if people would make semi-responsible decions and always leave themselves an “out” (be it a nasty bite to the scrotum), then rape would always be quite evident when it occurs.

I think that’s kinda common sense anyways. I was with one chick I was dating. We went out drinking, things happened, we ended up in the sack. Well, about 15 minutes later, she said, “I don’t feel good about this, I think we should stop.” I immediately did so and told her that very simply if she wasn’t cool with what we were doing, not a problem. We went to sleep and things happened later on down the road, when were sober and the time was right.

The problem I see happening with this new law is people being in a similar situation, that don’t actually have a relationship but are just doing some drunken banging. What happens when someday a girl says, “well I know I consented but then I asked him to stop. I don’t know how long after he did stop but…” This new law may open a world of new shades of gray in the system.

Jared wrote:
I think rape is something that needs to be
proven beyond a reasonable doubt, and “I
changed my mind halfway through” just doesn’t
cut it.

Well, in court cases, it’s a matter of discerning the facts of the situation from the various testamonies, and then deciding if a LAW was broken. If this law is in the books, then it doesn’t matter what, as a juror, your “feelings” are about what took place. And if a jury leans towards that direction, a mistrial will be declared and the whole thing starts all over again.

I sort of agree with Jared NFS on this one. Sort of.

I really think that places need to stop taking the “victim”'s word as gospel. Now, while rape (or any sort of sexual offence) is a hideous crime and should carry a vey very harsh sentence I have to agree that it should need to be proven.

Sorry girls but I just don’t think the woman’s word that it happened should ever be enough to convict someone. Even when there’s clear evidence of intercourse there needs to be clear evidence of rape.

Here’s an example (a little off but it’ll do).

Where I work one of the swim instructors kicked a girl out of HER class for misbehaving. This girl then claimed that she was sexually assaulted by the swim instructor and another instructor at the facility. There was an investigation by the police of course and it turned out there was no possible way it could have happened.

The girl doing the accusing then confessed to making the story up so that her parents wouldn’t be mad at her for getting kicked out of lessons. Well, the issue is that this female instructor now has an education degree. When she applies for a job and they do a child welfare check it comes back “unable to clear” because there was once an investigation (regardless of the results) involving a child.

That means that this instructor can not work as a teacher. 4 years of education down the drain because of one accusation that was proven false and confessed to be false but this instructor can still never work in her chosen profession.

ps. This is why I refuse to do body comp testing on women. While I’d never do anything all it takes is one accusation. . .

That is scary.

“No! Don’t stop!”

She said no. Now she can call rape if you don’t stop.

I think that if some guy were to be convicted because of this then the girl should be sent to a mental hospital for 6 months to treat her schitsophrenia.

I’ve had the situation where a girl doesn’t feel comfortable doing things after it starts getting heated up. As any gentleman would, I consented and said it was up to her. No problem on my side by going by her decisions.

On the other hand, one would have to prove that the girl didn’t want this after it started. This is very difficult to do.

Neil, you are incorrect. If a girl says “No!! Don’t Stop!!” That’s a good thing, and cannot be used as reversing your decision. If you were trying to be funny, don’t, you aren’t.

We may be looking at a similar case with Kobe Bryant. He had sex with her, and she bragged about it a few days afterwards, but now is claiming felony sexual assault. It’s a he said/she said situation. Very very touchy subject.


“Neil, you are incorrect. If a girl says “No!! Don’t Stop!!” That’s a good thing, and cannot be used as reversing your decision. If you were trying to be funny, don’t, you aren’t.”

Yes, it’s a good thing. The scary part is that she did say no, and she could twist it around if she wanted to do something bad to you. Just he said/she said, but now easier to screw up innocent guys’ lives because it makes it easier for a woman to claim rape without even lying.

It’s all retarded if you ask me.

No, don’t stop!
No! Don’t! Stop!

Well, I’d wonder about this from the get-go, considering that stupid journalists mis-reported the california case from the get-go. Actually, it was no contest that the boys raped the girl. She never gave consent. Rather, the California Supreme Court decided to use testimony in the case to then make another decision about whether, in general, consent can be withdrawn during the act. Hopefully trialdog or one of the other lawyers on the forum can explain this better, but the point is the the journalists got that one wrong, so don’t go believing this without reading the actual law.

brider: I meant for my personal definition of rape. As far as upholding the law as a juror, I, nor anybody else, should ever go on what they consider a crime over what the law states, no matter how strange it may seem. I was just bitching about the law. :slight_smile:


True on the CA case. But the ruling, the principle of withdrawing one’s consent, unfortunately, can be applied more broadly than the facts of a case. I’ve yet to see whether subsequent rulings will limit it to the facts at hand there or apply it broadly. I haven’t bothered to look up the actual law yet (I don’t live in IL, so my motivation is lacking), but if it is as reported, then I am disturbed.

MALCOLMZILLA: Your post reminded me of something I saw in a souvenir shop:

Oh! Please do not kiss me!
Oh! Please do not kiss!
Oh! Please do not!
Oh! Please do!
Oh! Please!

Original. Must come from somebody’s real life experience…

Big deal. She changes her mind mid coitus. Pull out, give her a pearl necklace as a parting gift and off you go. What can they charge you with then? Assualt with ropy strands of man goo?

I agree that this is quite disturbing. You apparently can change your mind about sex long AFTER you have committed the act, THEN call it rape (especially if the “rapist” is worth millions)!

Ha Ha Ha! SteelyEyes, that’s classic

SteelyEyes, that’s assault with a deadly weapon.