Post: #1

https://broadly.vice.com/en_us/article/4...law-states


North Carolina is the one state where the law explicitly says you cannot revoke consent once it's given. A bill that would remove this "unacceptable loophole" has little traction.


One May evening in 1977, Beverly Hester was sexually assaulted. According to the summary included in the North Carolina Supreme Court decision State v. Way, she testified that the perpetrator, Donnie Way, threatened to beat her if she didn't have sex with him while hanging out at a friend's apartment. When she tried to leave the bedroom, he allegedly slapped her in the face.

Hester went on to tell the court that Way penetrated her anally and forced her to perform oral sex on him. She said he began having intercourse with her—though she begged him not to because she was a virgin—but stopped when she complained of severe stomach pains. Later, at the hospital, she told her mother she was raped.


Despite her testimony, the jury appeared to be swayed by the defense's argument that Hester initially agreed to have sex with Way. During deliberations, they returned to ask the judge "whether consent can be withdrawn." The judge noted that it could, especially in cases where intercourse has turned violent and thus "no longer consensual." Way was convicted of second degree rape.

The state Supreme Court, however, disagreed with the lower court's interpretation of withdrawn consent. "If the actual penetration is accomplished with the woman's consent, the accused is not guilty of rape, although he may be guilty of another crime because of his subsequent actions," the High Court wrote.

As a result, for the past 38 years, women in North Carolina—like 19-year-old Aaliyah Palmer, who allegedly agreed to have sex with a man at a party but changed her mind when he got violent—have been unable to legally revoke consent after sexual intercourse begins. "It's really stupid," Palmer recently told the Fayetteville Observer. "If I tell you no and you kept going, that's rape."

On March 30, state Sen. Jeff Jackson, a Democrat, filed a bill that would change this horrific law. (He filed a similar bill with two Republican co-sponsors in 2015.) The text of SB 553 is short and to the point, reading, in part: "a person may withdraw consent to engage in vaginal intercourse in the middle of the intercourse, even if the actual penetration is accomplished with consent and even if there is only one act of vaginal intercourse."

Currently, the bill sits in the Senate's Rules Committee, where it is likely to be tabled. Jackson tells Broadly he plans to refile the bill again next year. "This really shouldn't be a controversial matter," he says. "North Carolina is the only state in the country where no doesn't really mean no. Right now, if a woman tells a man to stop having sex he is under no legal obligation to do so, as long as she initially consented. If sex turns violent, the woman has no right to tell the man he must stop."

Jackson says he first encountered this loophole when he worked as a criminal prosecutor, when his office was forced to dismiss a rape charge because of these circumstances. "Very few legislators are aware that this is the current state of our law," he says. "They're very surprised when I tell them. Most of my conversations have been educating our members about this plainly unacceptable loophole in our rape law. I have not had any members defend the loophole. Every legislator I've spoken to agrees we need to fix this."

But traction has been slow in getting this change implemented. He points to one conservative blog as an example for why. In it, the writer ridicules Jackson's work to address the "'rules' of fornication" as "pandering to the Wimmen's Studies Department alumni."

This is a blog that unfortunately carries some influence with many of our conservative members," Jackson says. However, he says he believes this bill will eventually pass. "When it does, my bet is it passes unanimously. No one can seriously defend this loophole in our rape law."


Angelica Wind is the executive director of Our Voice, a North Carolina-based crisis intervention and prevention agency for victims of sexual violence. She says their philosophy is that "consent should be enthusiastic and continuous" and that "allowing women to revoke consent would be transformative for the state of North Carolina."

This loophole tells survivors they don't have autonomy over their body, she tells Broadly. "Aside from perpetrators not being held accountable, when women cannot revoke consent, then we are telling them violence can be perpetrated against them if they consented to begin with and then had a change of heart."

For More Stories Like This, Sign Up for Our Newsletter

The implications don't stop there. The law has also created this notion that when a rape happens, it didn't really happen, Wind continues. "What you're basically telling individuals who have been raped is that it wasn't a rape, and so they're less likely to seek out services … that would put them on a journey to healing."

While North Carolina may be the only state where women explicitly can't withdraw consent after sexual intercourse has begun, most other states see this as a gray area. Only South Dakota, Connecticut, California, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Kansas, and Minnesota affirmatively recognize that consent can be withdrawn at any time during sex; Illinois is the only one that's made it law.

Post: #2

Holy shit Parlay I thought you died ages ago. You're still around?

Post: #3

I don’t have an issue that consent can be withdrawn in the middle of sex. I’m sure we’ve all had an encounter that had to be aborted for one reason or another. My issue is what happens after consent is withdrawn? At what point does it become rape? If she withdraws consent, is it retroactive? What if she withdraws consent mid thrust? Is the bottom half of the stroke rape? What about the out stroke?

Guys have to take some blame for this. You got to be one stupid motherfucker to insist on first date anal and think it’s gonna end well.

Post: #4

(03-12-2018 02:55 PM)Comte De St. Germain Wrote:  Holy shit Parlay I thought you died ages ago. You're still around?

I asked him the same thing about a week ago. He claims he was just lurking the whole time.

A likely story.

I still have a hard time believing it.

We should have someone meetup with him to make sure he isn't a reanimated corpse or David Hogg's dad wearing a FBI jacket.

Post: #5

(03-12-2018 03:05 PM)porscheguy Wrote:  Guys have to take some blame for this. You got to be one stupid motherfucker to insist on first date anal and think it’s gonna end well.

So far so good
Not a ton of repeat dates though

Post: #6

(03-12-2018 02:55 PM)Comte De St. Germain Wrote:  Holy shit Parlay I thought you died ages ago. You're still around?

Yeah I’m still alive. Been working, traveling and banking large sums of cash.
I’ll be partying somewhere behind the Iron Curtain next week. Just looking to drink some absinthe and smash some of my cousins’ hot and poor friends.

Post: #7

(03-12-2018 03:18 PM)Parlay44 Wrote:  

(03-12-2018 02:55 PM)Comte De St. Germain Wrote:  Holy shit Parlay I thought you died ages ago. You're still around?

Yeah I’m still alive. Been working, traveling and banking large sums of cash.
I’ll be partying somewhere behind the Iron Curtain next week. Just looking to drink some absinthe and smash some of my cousins’ hot and poor friends.

Glad to hear you're doing well and excellent choice in liquor.

Post: #8

(03-12-2018 03:15 PM)Cr33pin Wrote:  

(03-12-2018 03:05 PM)porscheguy Wrote:  Guys have to take some blame for this. You got to be one stupid motherfucker to insist on first date anal and think it’s gonna end well.

So far so good
Not a ton of repeat dates though

Fuck yeah I was waiting for this.

Post: #9

It's not a loophole.

It's an acknowledgement that it's logically impossible to criminalize sex after sex has been withdrawn.

If a woman withdraws consent while my penis is inside her vagina, it's physically impossible for me to instantaneously withdraw my penis.

The only way you could criminalize sex after consent has been withdrawn, but after intercourse is already in progress would be to put some sort of seconds guideline on it, like you have 5 seconds after consent has been clearly withdrawn to vacate the vagina or at a minimum require by law that a serious effort be made to withdraw is quickly as reasonably possible and leave it to juries to decide what constitutes reasonably speedy.

Post: #10

Lets say some dude in Winston-Salem picks up some white bitch at the bowling alley...

They go back to his trailer and start fucking. A few minutes in, the girl realizes he has a huge hiv-dripping open sore on his dick. She tells him to stop. Does he refuse and keep on fucking?

At the moment the sore's presence is made public, I believe consent can safely be withdrawn. Its classic bait and switch.

Aloha!

Post: #11

Why is changing that law proving so difficult? As he said, he won't find anyone willing to argue for keeping it the same. Seems like something that should get easy bi-partisan support.

If a girl wants to say no mid way through sex, she can, just like men can. I've gotten a grip of myself a couple of times mid way through a drunken bang with some fugly girl, pulled out and high tailed it. I don't see a problem with withdrawing consent during the act.

What I see as a problem is when consent is withdraw retroactively. That there should be a law against.

Post: #12

I'm okay with revoking consent, I'm just curious to know the legal standard to meet the definition of revoking consent.

Also, in the original court case, she claimed it was rape through and through, and he stated she was good with it at first. It's interesting it's not being presented not only as a loophole in which one can have sex after a partner has revoked consent, but also as a loophole in which a rapist could claim the consent was present at first, despite all the physical evidence pointing to rape

Post: #13

(03-12-2018 11:02 PM)Kona Wrote:  Lets say some dude in Winston-Salem picks up some white bitch at the bowling alley...

They go back to his trailer and start fucking. A few minutes in, the girl realizes he has a huge hiv-dripping open sore on his dick. She tells him to stop. Does he refuse and keep on fucking?

At the moment the sore's presence is made public, I believe consent can safely be withdrawn. Its classic bait and switch.

Aloha!

In this case the issue should not be the consent, but more the act of endangering her life via his disease.

Or next point - they are fucking and then he whispers in her ear: "I have syphilis baby and now you are having it too!" Then he holds on to the bronco as she tries to push him off.

Here again - you don't have to even mention bullshit cases of "withholding consent". The issue is not that he continued to fuck her, the issue becomes something else altogether.

All bullshit cases of women withholding consent and then prosecuting a man are bat-shit insane:

Quote:"Perth resident Kevin Ibbs was having consensual sex with Christine Watson on the night of 29 November 1986. Watson, a close friend of Ibbs's wife, Katrina Carter, was living in the same house with Ibbs and Carter. The sex act was taking place with the full knowledge of Carter who was in the house at the time.

As Ibbs was nearing ejaculation, Watson suddenly withdrew her consent to sex (so she later claimed) and tried to push Ibbs away. He continued for a short time. Too late, he was trapped. He was charged with sexual assault and found guilty under the new law. The judge found that Ibbs had continued sexual intercourse for about thirty seconds without consent (for which he was later dubbed the 30-second rapist). The judge sentenced him to four years imprisonment."

http://thebattlefieldoflove.blogspot.com...apist.html

Quote:"Some years later Watson admitted to police that the whole incident was a set-up orchestrated by Carter to have Ibbs charged with sexual assault to get him out of the house they were sharing.

Christine Elizabeth Watson a.k.a. Christine Elizabeth Wardle and Katrina Ann Carter were subsequently convicted of conspiring to pervert the course of justice. They served seven months in jail.

Mr Ibbs was acquitted in 2001 but the damage was done. He says that his health has been affected, his career as a tradesman has been ruined and the whole affair has cost him over one million dollars."

And that case turned out to be fake rape allegation like soooo many out there. But he did spent years behind bars.

Post: #14

This is good. More reason for me to train in the 'two-pump chump' arts.

It's a race against time. Will she withdrawal consent and regret her decision to fuck me BEFORE I blast my load all over her face?

I play to win, bitch.

Post: #15

It's stupid and unrealistic to expect men to stop fucking during a drunken one night stand right when they're about to blow their load. I know the law expects us to all act like rational robots, but lets be honest; most guys are going to stall for a couple of seconds to finish up. That doesn't make them rapists. It makes them human. If a woman doesn't want to fuck a man than she shouldn't let him put his dick in her in the first place.

(03-12-2018 11:02 PM)Kona Wrote:  A few minutes in, the girl realizes he has a huge hiv-dripping open sore on his dick. She tells him to stop. Does he refuse and keep on fucking?

How would she know that? His dick is already buried deep inside her twat! It's not like she can see his cock. If he tells her during the act she can already go after him legally for 'intentional infliction of emotional distress' whether or not his utterance is true. Also knowingly infecting someone with an STD is already a crime.

(03-12-2018 11:02 PM)Kona Wrote:  Its classic bait and switch.

Bait and switch is part of the dating game! How many times have you met up with a fatty that used deceptive myspace angles or old pictures. Or makeup, a pushup bra, plastic surgery, etc? How about all of the women who get free drinks at the club, or go on "dates" with guys for a free meal and then ditch them? Do you think we should be able to call armed government agents to drag them to jail for doing so?

Post: #16

The fact that some autistic bureaucrats can legislate when and where your penis can be is fucking retarded. What ever happened to social cues? Sex is awkward and clunky sometimes. Especially when you're young. That doesn't mean you're a rapist if you push it in too fast or that you're cool if you keep pile driving a broad who is telling you to stop or slow down.

We've lost our grasp on common sense.

Rape is and always will be violently forcing yourself inside of an unwilling individual. That is the one and only definition.

Bad sex isn't rape. Stupid decisions aren't rape.

Getting rough with a chick that's not into it isn't cool, but it's not by definition rape. And I'm not talking about anything violent, just poor social calibration.

Poor social calibration is punished by having a bad reputation. If you fuck it up no other girl will want to have sex with you.

You shouldn't be plastered all over the news and be forced to introduce yourself as a 'sex offender' 30 years later when you move across the country.

Real rapists should be punished to the fullest extent of the law, but lawmakers should worry about debt, unemployment, crime, and dozens of other real problems facing our cities instead of when a dude needs to pull out.