[Movemout]

Ninety seconds of ambiguous signals results in six months incarceration. Who was it that got raped?

[Search4Truth]

According to this case, any women could claim rape after sex. She would simply claim that she said stop at some time during the event, but seconds had elapsed before he actually stopped. Whether it was true or not would be irrelevant. All she would have to do is make the claim and a conviction for rape would be assured.

So continues the war against men. The long-term consequences of which will be severe indeed.

[GretchenEE]

Court defined rape Monday as continued sexual intercourse by a man after his female partner demands that it stop

And how long till the first court case arises over the definition of "demands"? I doubt this will remain a non-issue.

For underage citizens, the conviction-proof barrier could be returned to, hello, their age.

[Mr. K]

wait.. was the act concensual and insertion already accomplished before this woman said "I need to go home now"???

This is not rape then it is torture- by the girl.

These judges are too stupid for their own good.

I am of a mind that no absolutely means no, but to ruin a persons life on THIS set of circumstances is un-believable.

A vague No AFTER the act has begun makes the guy a criminal?

Once the penis is inserted without protest from the woman, consensual sex has begun. Come on people, this boy can go to JAIL for this... If they want to making failing to stop DURING the sex act a crime, then let them try to make that a crime, but call it a new name, not rape.

[doug from upland]

No matter what decisions are rendered by any court in the land, the most famous American rapist is still unpunished.

[lavaroise]

Saying no means no? So I guess the CA court must agree that raping youngins that cannot say no or do not know better someone is stealing their innocence is consensual sex... Yep, the pedophiles win and the liars win.

[AEMILIUS PAULUS]

One way to avoid the problem is to be chaste.

[Zebra]

I posted this on the other thread on this topic:

This is is the most idiotic thing I have ever read. Whatever your views about the advisability of abstinence (I support it, but recognize the incredible difficulty with teenagers), to charge a 17 year old boy with felony rape under these circumstances is unfairly punitive. As if a 17 year old isn't confused enough about the world and the rage of hormones, he now has to be able to stop on a dime when an equally confused (probably) female partner has second thoughts mid-coitus. And he is supposed to understand the meaning and implications of the utterance of regret instantly or face a felony.

I am glad (a) I don't live in California, where my children would be exposed to this nonsense and (b) I didn't have to grow up in California today.

BTW, I am very interested in the theory of jurisprudence upon which is based the criminalizing of a participant in a legal, consensual act who fails to withdraw immediately when a less than unequivocal expression of withdrawal of consent is given. Consent is an absolute defense to a charge of rape, and the idea that a participant mid-act is strictly and criminally liable to understand and appreciate instantly a withdrawal of consent as "clear" as the one presented in these circumstances is absurd.

Since it is unusual to hear about a rape prosecution in these circumstances (can you ever recall having heard about one like this?), there must be an unspoken collective consensus that this conduct--while perhaps ignoble--is not criminal. Except, I guess, in the Peoples Republic of California.