Posted on 07/29/2003 5:33:01 PM PDT by Brian S
Edited on 04/13/2004 2:43:06 AM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
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 said it believed the law is the first of its kind in the country.
(Excerpt) Read more at sfgate.com ...
There is almost NO reason for a male to marry a female. A simple lie (HE HIT ME) to police can get a man thrown out of his house and have his assets seized. Maybe black Americans have it right by not marrying the women they impregnate so at least they can only be hit with child support and not alimony. There's no reason to date now as a woman can say 'no' once intercourse has started and even then, the male will probably be charged with rape. Sad indeed.
It doesn't matter how long you've known the person. I know several male friends of mine who have been backstabbed by their wives, whom they'd been married to for a few years and even dated for awhile before marriage.
No, that's called rodeo sex...the longer you stay in the saddle after that, the more chances you have of winning a big belt buckle.
Men aren't protected.
And the mere accusation is enough to prevent the man from being considered for certain jobs, promotions, security clearances, et AL.
About the only solution I see is an ACLU-like organization that specializes in suing women for making false rape charges.
When the cultural atmosphere denigrates fidelity and marriage then of course marriage becomes less of lifelong commitment and more of a temporary convenience, more like having a "girlfriend" or "boyfriend" than holy matrimony or creating a family. So-called serial monogamy - if that.
The more sexual promiscuity of all kinds is first tolerated, then accepted, and now glorified and worshipped, it creates a smog of selfishness and exploitation that hurts everyone. Loyalty means little, steadfastness and lifelong commitment mean little. Instant gratification and shallow attractions become the measure instead.
The movies are way ahead of you on that one. In the movie "Cherry 2000" from 1987, there were no more marriages or regular dating. Lawyers aranged sex agreements between both parties.
They want men and women to be at war with each other so they can't fight against the New World Order.
It's all about problem-reaction-solution.
The politicians create a problem for women by letting violent rapists out of jail and failing to execute those convicted of rape. This creates a reaction where women fear being raped. And of course, the solution is more edicts, like this one.
On the other side, the politicians create a problem for men by passing edicts like this that make it more difficult for decent guys to pursue women. So men are becoming fearful of having a relationship (reaction) out of fear for being falsely accused of rape, or being hounded in divorce court, etc.... So fewer men get married, which creates more single moms and more need for "daddy" (i.e., the gov't) to step in. So the solution here (according to the politicians) is bigger govt.
Sure there is - same reason there always has been - these pathetic political dilettantes are trying to steal something that cannot be stolen. Men love women and women, men, and there is marriage and children and the species continues. It is the fantastic conceit of the arrogant and the stupid that they are in control of this. They can, and will, cause a lot of pain and heartache and broken lives trying to stuff the world into their own cramped, hate-filled little intellectual mold, but they will fail. This isn't even to be dignified with the term "feminism," it's simply insanity.
In fact, it's rape if she says no to someone else.
What's the charge when she says "Keep going" after you're already done?
You've got it backwards. Under Lawrence, the state must establish a compelling interest to prohibit private acts of consensual sex.
I'm perfectly serious - what the state is saying to young men is that the burden is on the man to prove the impossible, and the ability has been given by the state to any female he's with or has ever been with, to accuse him of the un-disprovable, with no recourse and no appeal.
Not at all. The state will have to prove there's a compelling interest in infringing upon his rights, as you outline. This 'law' will be thrown out as a constituional farce.
Cotton Mather couldn't have come up with a nastier piece of legislation.
True enough. Just when do you suppose religious fundamentalists will stop in their efforts to legislate morality?
It's time, imo.
Assault with a dead weapon...
I normally don't wear my hearing aid to bed. What if the guy doesn't hear her?
Is there an assumption, in law, that a "no" is automatically "heard?"
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.