Page 3 of 7
Posted: August 4, 2004 4:01 pm
by MojosMama
ragtopW wrote:buffettbride wrote:ejr wrote:CaptainP-I do understand your point. But even if she had sex with someone else right before and right after she did with Kobe, no is still no and it would still be rape. That is the law and that is what makes her behavior irrelevant.
When exactly does "no" take effect? When can I invoke my "no" powers? In theory, it would be at any time during the course of an encounter, but what if I consent to some sexual activity but not others?
and when the loving is going on when does NO not sound like OHHHHH
When it's screamed....with the words Oh God Please in front of it.
Posted: August 4, 2004 4:02 pm
by ejr
CaptainP wrote:
Like I said, she can't prove she said "No" anymore that he can prove she didn't. Other factors HAVE to be involved.
No, her sexual history does not-but this is why rape is such a difficult thing to prove.
juries seldom have a case where it is clear cut-usually it calls for a judgment as to who was more credible and, having sat in the jury room twice, that is an agonizingly difficult responsibility.
And, that is why I say that she would probably be wise to drop the criminal case as it is almost impossible to prove.
Posted: August 4, 2004 4:02 pm
by rednekkPH
ragtopW wrote:and when the loving is going on when does NO not sound like OHHHHH
It's all in where you put the commas. There's a big difference between "No, don't, stop" and "No, don't stop".
Posted: August 4, 2004 4:04 pm
by CaptainP
ejr wrote:
And, that is why I say that she would probably be wise to drop the criminal case as it is almost impossible to prove.
That's why I started this thread. Sounds like she will.
Posted: August 4, 2004 4:05 pm
by ragtopW
rednekkPH wrote:ragtopW wrote:and when the loving is going on when does NO not sound like OHHHHH
It's all in where you put the commas. There's a big difference between "No, don't, stop" and "No, don't stop".
That was my point but I'm talking about just oh oh oh oh
yeah I am thinking about someone in my past life
but she can't be the only...
Posted: August 4, 2004 4:06 pm
by buffettbride
LIPH wrote:buffettbride wrote:When exactly does "no" take effect? When can I invoke my "no" powers? In theory, it would be at any time during the course of an encounter, but what if I consent to some sexual activity but not others?
From Black's Law Dictionary - In criminal law, the term refers to a sexual assault in which an offender forces an
unconsenting victim to engage in sexual acts . . . (emphasis added)
Any sexual activity you don't consent to is rape. End of story.
I completely agree (not like I have a choice, it's the law
) But I also think there is an area of "unwilling consent", or the inability or fear of saying no.
Take Mojos example of inviting a couple buddies to join in. I may be having fabulous consensual sex with my partner, but not want to participate when my partner invites his 3 friends to join in. But because of the circumstances was afraid to say no because of the potentially overwhelming physical power of 3 vs. 1. Is having sex simply to get oneself out of a situation without actualy SAYING no considered rape?
I'm kind of playing devil's advocate here...
Posted: August 4, 2004 4:07 pm
by CaptainP
buffettbride wrote:LIPH wrote:buffettbride wrote:When exactly does "no" take effect? When can I invoke my "no" powers? In theory, it would be at any time during the course of an encounter, but what if I consent to some sexual activity but not others?
From Black's Law Dictionary - In criminal law, the term refers to a sexual assault in which an offender forces an
unconsenting victim to engage in sexual acts . . . (emphasis added)
Any sexual activity you don't consent to is rape. End of story.
I completely agree (not like I have a choice, it's the law
) But I also think there is an area of "unwilling consent", or the inability or fear of saying no.
Take Mojos example of inviting a couple buddies to join in. I may be having fabulous consensual sex with my partner, but not want to participate when my partner invites his 3 friends to join in. But because of the circumstances was afraid to say no because of the potentially overwhelming physical power of 3 vs. 1. Is having sex simply to get oneself out of a situation without actualy SAYING no considered rape?
I'm kind of playing devil's advocate here...
Oh, goody. More grey area. Just what we need. Thanks, Mal.
Posted: August 4, 2004 4:10 pm
by ragtopW
buffettbride wrote:LIPH wrote:buffettbride wrote:When exactly does "no" take effect? When can I invoke my "no" powers? In theory, it would be at any time during the course of an encounter, but what if I consent to some sexual activity but not others?
From Black's Law Dictionary - In criminal law, the term refers to a sexual assault in which an offender forces an
unconsenting victim to engage in sexual acts . . . (emphasis added)
Any sexual activity you don't consent to is rape. End of story.
I completely agree (not like I have a choice, it's the law
) But I also think there is an area of "unwilling consent", or the inability or fear of saying no.
No idea guys asked to have their friends play I would rether have.....UH never mind
Take Mojos example of inviting a couple buddies to join in. I may be having fabulous consensual sex with my partner, but not want to participate when my partner invites his 3 friends to join in. But because of the circumstances was afraid to say no because of the potentially overwhelming physical power of 3 vs. 1. Is having sex simply to get oneself out of a situation without actualy SAYING no considered rape?
I'm kind of playing devil's advocate here...
Posted: August 4, 2004 4:11 pm
by buffettbride
ragtopW wrote:No idea guys asked to have their friends play I would rether have.....UH never mind
It happens. Trust me.
Posted: August 4, 2004 4:14 pm
by Lastplaneout
buffettbride wrote:[quote="ragtopW]
No idea guys asked to have their friends play I would rether have.....UH never mind
It happens. Trust me.[/quote]
"Uh Never mind"
Hehehe...had to say somethin' aboutt that...
Posted: August 4, 2004 4:17 pm
by buffettbride
Posted: August 4, 2004 4:18 pm
by LIPH
buffettbride wrote:I completely agree (not like I have a choice, it's the law
) But I also think there is an area of "unwilling consent", or the inability or fear of saying no.
Take Mojos example of inviting a couple buddies to join in. I may be having fabulous consensual sex with my partner, but not want to participate when my partner invites his 3 friends to join in. But because of the circumstances was afraid to say no because of the potentially overwhelming physical power of 3 vs. 1. Is having sex simply to get oneself out of a situation without actualy SAYING no considered rape?
I'm kind of playing devil's advocate here...
I'm not a criminal lawyer but if the woman doesn't actually say no I'm sure the first thing the defense attorney will argue is that it was consensual.
Posted: August 4, 2004 4:20 pm
by CaptainP
LIPH wrote:
I'm not a criminal lawyer but if the woman doesn't actually say no I'm sure the first thing the defense attorney will argue is that it was consensual.
That's their entire case! He says she consented, even says she was the aggresor.
Posted: August 4, 2004 4:21 pm
by buffettbride
CaptainP wrote:LIPH wrote:
I'm not a criminal lawyer but if the woman doesn't actually say no I'm sure the first thing the defense attorney will argue is that it was consensual.
That's their entire case! He says she consented, even says she was the aggresor.
Gray, gray, and more gray!
Posted: August 4, 2004 4:21 pm
by PHBeerman
I really cannot think of any other defense than that.
Posted: August 4, 2004 4:23 pm
by BottleofRum
PHBeerman wrote:Translation. The civil case will be much harder if I lose the Criminal one.
This is not true. Civil cases are far easier to prove than criminal cases. Many people have been found not guilty in a criminal case only to lose the civil case...........
Just as OJ Simpson!
Posted: August 4, 2004 4:23 pm
by rednekkPH
LIPH wrote:I'm not a criminal lawyer...
Aren't all lawyers criminals?
Sorry, couldn't resist
Posted: August 4, 2004 4:24 pm
by PHBeerman
BottleofRum wrote:PHBeerman wrote:Translation. The civil case will be much harder if I lose the Criminal one.
This is not true. Civil cases are far easier to prove than criminal cases. Many people have been found not guilty in a criminal case only to lose the civil case...........
Just as OJ Simpson!
Keep reading. You will get to that on page 2
Posted: August 4, 2004 4:30 pm
by BottleofRum
PHBeerman wrote:BottleofRum wrote:PHBeerman wrote:Translation. The civil case will be much harder if I lose the Criminal one.
This is not true. Civil cases are far easier to prove than criminal cases. Many people have been found not guilty in a criminal case only to lose the civil case...........
Just as OJ Simpson!
Keep reading. You will get to that on page 2
Opps I was just lazy and jumped the gun and never read past page 1 .........
Posted: August 4, 2004 4:31 pm
by PHBeerman
BottleofRum wrote:PHBeerman wrote:BottleofRum wrote:PHBeerman wrote:Translation. The civil case will be much harder if I lose the Criminal one.
This is not true. Civil cases are far easier to prove than criminal cases. Many people have been found not guilty in a criminal case only to lose the civil case...........
Just as OJ Simpson!
Keep reading. You will get to that on page 2
Opps I was just lazy and jumped the gun and never read past page 1 .........
I do that all the time.