Md. Appeals Court: It's Not Rape If a Woman Changes Her Mind
ROCKVILLE, Md. - If a woman consents to sex and changes her mind mid-act, that's not considered rape, according to the Maryland Court of Special Appeals.

A Montgomery County teen was convicted of rape by a circuit court jury after an 18-year-old woman testified that he continued having sex with her after she said she was having pain. The woman had just had sex in a car with the teen's friend.

The appeals court ruled that Maryland law does not consider consent revocation the same as rape.

Do you feel this interpretation of the law is harmful to women and in fact even allows rape to legally occur or be legalized?

Should the law recognize that women's choice to sexual intercourse proceeds penetration?

Do you feel this interpretation of the law is harmful to women and in fact even allows rape to legally occur or be legalized?
I think the law has to draw the line somewhere, it has even been discussed here (DK), whether or not it is rape if a woman invites a man to her home, letting him believe she is open to sex, and then changing her mind. I think it is. But changing her mind in the mid-act is not rape, in my opinion. Also one must consider the change in the minds chemistry when a person is sexually excited. The reason that the human race continues to reproduct, and teenagers always find out how to have sex, nomatter how poor the sex education is, is that the body acts on it´s own in this changed state of mind, that occurs when we get aroused. And it is a bit tardy for a change of heart, I think.
Should the law recognize that women's choice to sexual intercourse proceeds penetration?
This would produce more problems than it would relief, I think.

I wanted to add that you can read the opinion here

And that the most upsetting conclusion of that opinion to me is this bit:

But, to be sure, it was the act of penetration that was the essence of the crime of rape; after this initial infringement upon the responsible male’s interest in a woman’s sexual and reproductive functions, any further injury was considered to be less consequential. The damage was done. It was this view that the moment of penetration was the point in time, after which a woman could never be “re-flowered,” that gave rise to the principle that, if a woman consents prior to penetration and withdraws consent following penetration, there is no rape. Maryland adheres to this tenet, having adopted the common law, which remains the law of the Land until and unless changed by the State’s highest court or by statute.

So MD rape law was evolved from viewing women's chastity as property of the responsible male party, anything after that is a meaningless consequence. Such sickening and truly archaic logic was used to justify this opinion. So I feel I must worn those who support this interpretation as to where and how such a definement was made and what interpretation of women was being used.


Several analysis I have read believe the court was placing this decision so that the higher court would have to address the root problem, being that women's chastity should no longer be recognized as property in the law.

This is awful.

I define rape as having intercourse with someone who does not want it. Whether this occurs before or partway through is irrelevant. If at any point one is penetrating a woman against her will, one is raping her. Simple.

I agree with Quark.

Apparently it happens, but I personally don't understand sex without the finer nuances of intemacy, tenderness, good will, and possibly humor.

Any unwanted penetratioin is rape.

Bucket- as awful as this is- if, to make sure justice is equal for everyone, and doesn't ensnare the innocent- the burden of proof and what is moral and ethical don't meet. This would be one such instance. Now, not knowing the specific mechanics of this whole case- how, after intercourse, do you prove rape? IF you have consentual penetration, and then change the mind afterward- how does the accused prove innocence, IN ANY CASE FROM THEN ON?

Just as thier are victims, there are also con artists, that extort money from these situations specifically. So, if the situation is slightly different, and, after sex, you find out I am married- so you accuse me of rape- how do I prove I was a cad vs a rapist? Do you think the cad's behavior is sufficient to throw him in jail for 15-20 years? A divorce maybe, and all the nice things that come with it- but nevertheless- where does the burden of proof lie?

A normal person would probably stop after the other party is not enjoying it and has said so, I wouldn't think unenthusiastic performance would be a good thing during sex- however, at some point, the accused has to be able to prove in front of reasonable non-biased poeple that he/she is innocent. And this crosses the line, unfortunately, if I have all the facts of the case.

Defining rape as unwanted penetration does not nullify a defendant's rights.

All procedural and substantive legal safeguards still apply. One is always innocent until convicted by jury or he/she enters into a plea agreement.

Well then let´s hang the raping 17 year old bastard, who is having intercourse with a young, inexperienced girl, who all of the sudden changes her mind midways. It will open up fatal new ways of getting back at your ex.
I am not afraid to admit, while being a kind of soft and gentle type, that I sometimes have experienced rather hard and dominating women, who made me wish I´d never gone into it. But I have always seen it as being my own responsibility, to finish what I have started myself. And with a person you don´t know well, there´s always a chance this person might be uncontrolled in some aspects, and try to border your limits.
Where is the individual responsibility in this? Should girl´s be able to throw their sex in the face of everyone, with no consequences, untill right in the middle of the process, and then direct a crushing blow to the unfortunate lover, as another black widow, sending him to the gallows/jail.
No doubt the sexuality of men and women is very different. The sexuality of men is much more agressive, I think most people will agree with that. This is a by nature given difference, which among other things insures the continuation of our species. Civility comes next, not before in nature´s book of laws.
Sexuality is a power which can be compared to an element as fire, which if controlled can make people warm and feel nice, and if not controlled, can cause great damage.
This must be taken into account when making legislation, otherwise we´ll just have oppression of the male sex instead.

Do you feel this interpretation of the law is harmful to women and in fact even allows rape to legally occur or be legalized?

Well, first of all, I don't know if I'd call this an "interpretation" of the law, or that rape has been "redefined". It is the law, regardless of whether or not we want it to be.

But as to the question itself, I agree in the abstract that it's not a good law, but that doesn't necessarily mean I disagree with the outcome of this case. At least from the Washington Post article linked to, it appeared that the defendant made every effort to respect her wishes, and only, in the heat of the moment, kept going for (according to her testimony) about five seconds after she asked for a halt. First-degree rape is definitely a gratuitous charge for that.

Should the law recognize that women's choice to sexual intercourse proceeds penetration?

The law should be updated in that direction, but certainly not to the point where continuing it during intercourse is treated as every bit as abhorrent as initiating intercourse without her consent, especially if the continuation occurs in the absence of an agreement between them that it would stop at her request. In fact I would probably come up with a different term for it than rape, because it's really in a different category. And as others have pointed out, it won't (or at least shouldn't) make much of a difference operationally, seeing as how lack of consent is often hard enough to prove even before the onset of intercourse, and will be even harder once consensual intercourse begins. At least it would reflect a better attitude, but if due process is respected, it will still be more symbolic than anything else.

The law, by the way, should also not be so rigid as to deny that in the middle of the act, the man's state of mind isn't going to be the same as before it begins. That won't automatically excuse his actions, because the consequences to her of the act continuing against her will can be more severe than the consequences to him of getting shut off mid-thrust, but the court shouldn't be denied the option of considering it an extenuating circumstance. Men aren't robots who can be turned on and off instantaneously at command.



Good point, and that only further underscores the reason why no matter what changes to the law are made, due process has to be respected, which among other things means that there should be at least some attempt to show that the girl or woman truly was traumatized by the man's actions, and wasn't just cutting him off solely for the entertainment value of watching him cringe.

Do you feel this interpretation of the law is harmful to women and in fact even allows rape to legally occur or be legalized?

Yes. If a women tells a guy to stop that should be it really. For a guy to continue on besides anything else is basically nothing more then a by force denial of that persons liberty.

Should the law recognize that women's choice to sexual intercourse proceeds penetration?

Weird question if you ask me.

I haven given more than enough reading material on this case that it is surprising some are still so confused or unclear about the circumstances.



Read the opinion it gives a full account of this particular crime. The boy asked if he could have sex with a young woman who was intimidated and testified to the fact she felt she had no choice and said yes because she felt she should "do whatever they say" Take note of the they as there were 2 boys involved not one.
I have to really question anyone's moral aptitude who could read the testimony on this case and believe that rape did not occur, and now the state of MD has told these two boys that what they did was not illegal or punishable by law.

The fact you choose to focus on women misusing rape laws seems to completely miss the entire point of protection, prosecution and social need of rape laws to begin with. It seems your argument could be applied to any and all cases of rape, so why bother with any law against rape at all?

I can think of numerous instances when consensual sex could turn non-consensual.
Also this interpretation of rape does not specify if the act continues for 5 seconds or 20 min after a change of consent.




It is a interpretation of rape laws, each state is different. I also feel it is redefined because as I and others have said here already this does not match what our own interpretation of rape and consensual sex are.


As I already said above I gave plenty of resources on particulars of this case, so I feel you really have no excuse for such a poor understanding of the details involved. The story told in court does not give one the idea or belief that this boy was at anytime acting out of a "respect for her wishes" that is why a jury found him guilty. His appeal was awarded not because of any of the conditions or details of the testimony of what occurred but instead for the fact that MD does not believe that once consent is granted for penetration you can revoke it. Even if it is painful, even if you feel your partner is not going about the act as you first agreed to it, even if your partner becomes violent, or even if you discover your partner is not using birth control and so you wish to prevent ejaculation and possibly pregnancy. According to the state of MD, a state I FUND, women do not have any control over their bodies once a penis has consensually entered them.





What a grotesque portrayal you make of men. You in fact seem to support the idea men are robots and once sexually activated with the consensual ON can not be appealed to morally and ethically end their physical output with a simple NO.



How is that ever a "good point" in a modern discussion on rape laws? Women don't get to do as they wish with their bodies is the gist of that "point". Women can not be expected to always have full control and consent of their bodies at all times...nope don't see nothing good about that at all. And the fact we can't discuss this without conceding to the idea that first and foremost and all importantly women are vindictive liars is a sad indication as to why laws like this are still being employed.

I hate to transfer this argument into the abortion debate but so often we hear how women have full control over their bodies when it comes to sexual reproduction by remaining either abstinent or using birth control, so the need for abortion or medications like the morning after pill are not necessary. The only exception to this logic, if there is even an exception, is rape. Yet here we see even rape being defined without again full and consensual control of the woman. This is to me a true lack of choice, even in the most strict interpretation of choice.

Generally, I agree with bucket's characterization of Blackstone's words. Whether it's rape or something else, there are some men who seem to let the little head overrule the big head. The long, long list would include Bill Clinton, Jimmy Swaggart and now Ted Haggard.

Here's the Maryland opinion. I wish I had more time to respond to the debate questions, but for now I'll note that, after a quick scan according to this opinion a North Carolina court was the first to state "consent cannot be withdrawn". What a poor choice of words. And what a poor defense I’ve read here. I’ve been fortunate enough to be with men considerate enough and sufficiently in control of themselves to stop/pause because I hurt. I can’t believe I’m an anomaly in an egalitarian country.

Consent was never given. When a guy says “I don’t want to rape you”, and you tell him he can do whatever he wants as long as he stops when you tell him to stop it’s not consent.

The opinion, unbelievably enough, extrapolates to include Assyrian law:


The Maryland appeals court may’ve deliberately explored the question of removed consent to get legislative or judicial results higher up, but in my opinion they passed the buck in the process.

Bucket- I understand it is a horrible situation- but still- how does one prevail in a he said/she said situation? Doesn't this give carte' blanche' easy rape allegatiions for revenge? Usually, in a rape case- you have the physical evidence and ability to give consent-

so, first

you determine a sex act has been done- and, if possible, ascertain to some degree wether it was forced through violence or appeared consensual-

then, could consent be given- for instance- the rufie knockout drug- so the victim didn't struggle, but didn't consent either

then - this is where it gets into that gray area- she gave consent, she said she said know half way through the event, the man says he didn't interpret it that way.

How do you stop abuse of this final point? It would be so easy to just say, after some consensual sex "oh, he raped me, I told him to stop mid way through, and he didn't"?

Point taken. Truly at this point no real method exists for that past making people were cameras all the time. So you can take one or the other side, so if we say a women cannot claim rape after consent, then that means exactly that and women will technically be forced to have sex outside of choice in those situations with the other person having to bear no responsibility to such, and on the other end yes you can have situations in which the law is abused to unjustly imprison an individual if either side wins its case in respects to whatever the law has to say on it of course.

I think it would be silly personally to say a woman logically cannot desire to stop the sexual act though, so I think that’s why logic rests with it I would hope. Basically say if a female wants to stop having sex it should be her choice to be able to do that, for her partner to deny this and force sex on her I cant see being anything past rape, beings its forced sex against her will. Regardless of how it came about that simply should be illegal, if not for much more then one of the most basic forms of having ones liberty taken away, and then from that base sense of it you can move out into other areas of such in my opinion.

Not to detract from it though, but a women could simply claim rape anyways, and just state she did not struggle under the pressure of fear, no real difference in my opinion though I could be wrong.

A little presumptive there, don't you think? Your debate questions didn't ask us to examine the details of this particular case. If they had, I would have researched them more thoroughly. I only included my initial impression of the case in order to provide a little context to my answer to the question you actually did ask. That's because as we're about to see below, this subject tends to lead some people to ignore context.


There's only one possible way you could conclude that from my statement, and that is by completely and utterly ignoring the rest of my paragraph. I think I made it clear enough that I'm not condoning continuing against her will.


No, it's not. Again, please re-read my post, and this time without adding to it anything that I didn't say.

Hardly presumptive at all. You decided to take the topic beyond the debate questions and give your opinion on the details of the case, which I felt were horribly erroneous and so I not only pointed out your errors but I also felt they were inexcusable as I already provided the details of this case with this warning ..."So I feel I must worn those who support this interpretation as to where and how such a definement was made and what interpretation of women was being used."


Your opinions are your own, you have ownership of them and I feel it is a little assumptive for you to expect me to take responsibility for what you have written.

First, let me say that I think this decision was wrong. According to the facts of the case, the rape began much earlier than the moment at issue. This young woman very clearly asked them to stop even before the first young man had sex with her. To then be approached by the second young man and give consent to the act does not condone the act in the first place. Her consent to the second act may have been a part of the trauma of the rape. In her testimony this exchange occurs:



I find it difficult to believe that she didn't agree to fondling – yet the young men did it anyway... she didn't agree to sex with both young men – yet, they tried to do that anyway... and yet, she actually consented to sexual intercourse. Might her consent have been mere submission to a rape that was occurring already in order to make it easier on herself? The appellant's statement that he didn't want to rape her was ridiculous – he'd already started down that path.

Do you feel this interpretation of the law is harmful to women and in fact even allows rape to legally occur or be legalized?

I believe this ruling was misguided and ignored the entire act only to focus on the second penetration in what was a rape by two young men.

Should the law recognize that women's choice to sexual intercourse proceeds penetration?

I think this is shaky territory. Personally, I believe that when a woman says, "no," that this means the sexual intercourse stops regardless of whether penetration has occurred. I do understand that this also opens the door to abuse from someone who might regret an act of consensual sex. I think that post-penetrative rape would and should be more difficult to prove, though I do believe it is possible to commit. I must also state that this was clearly not a case of post-penetrative rape.

This argument keeps coming up a lot. I personally don't understand it's validity as a woman could lie about and abuse rape laws as they now stand in MD. This loophole if anything allows the perpetrator more room for revisionism as they could claim that sex was at first consensual and only turned non-consensual after penetration. As was obviously done in this case, it was difficult to prove that the woman involved was not acting consensual at certain time periods of this rape. What many of us read and interpret as protective, self preservation, others interpret as complacent or even enabling behavior. So the fact that rape is interpreted as something that can not occur after penetration seems to allow the male to abuse the law not the female in regards to this case. So I have to wonder why everyone still keeps focusing on the female's likelihood to abuse the law when this case illustrates the opposite.

The MD law stipulates that women are not permitted the legal recognition to alter their consent once penetration has occurred. It is a legal limitation of a female's choice in sexual relations and yet here all the focus is retained to how the man will suffer under a reinterpretation of the law.

Post-penetration, there is, at least, evidence of sexual activity that could be traced back to the perpetrator. If consent is withdrawn before penetration, the evidence of penetration can be used against the man. If consent is withdrawn after penetration, the evidence of sexual activity provides no evidence of rape.



I'm sure many men make the claim that the woman consented. In this case, the woman clearly admitted to consenting and withdrawing consent after penetration. Of course, I believe that she was in a state of mind such that the consent wasn't valid given the prior denial of consent and the continuation of activity despite that denial.



First let me say that I agree that a woman should have the right to say no even if penetration has already occurred. Yes it is a legal limitation on a woman's choice in sexual relations, but to provide for the withdrawal of consent post-penetration does raise some concerns. How would you deal with those concerns, bucket? In the case of a pre-penetrative denial, you have the penetration as evidence that, at least, the act occurred. In the case of the post-penetrative denial, both parties agree that the pentration was consensual... so what evidence do you provide beyond he said/she said that the penetration became non-consensual. If there was a struggle and evidence of a struggle... I'd say there'd be evidence, but absent that, bucket... what evidence?

The Maryland law itself does not mention pre or post penetration consent. It simply mentions consent. It seems to me that this issue could be dealt with legislatively by clearly dealing with the issue of consent. Other states, like Illinois, have already dealt with this issue:



False reports do occur, bucket... they do. This type of law will result in more false claims - that is a simple fact. So, how do you deal with that?

And, I will add this: if she did actually mean to consent and then withdrew consent in the manner described, then this individual did not rape her. Five seconds to absorb the reality of a denial is reasonable. Now, I don't believe this was the case... as I stated earlier, these young men were raping her long before this particular event.

Aren’t all cases of rape when the woman involved has ever shown some action that could be interpreted as consensual..going to a man’s hotel room, wearing seductive clothing, having a reputation for promiscuous behavior, prostituting herself, having a prior or even current relationship with the accused ...are these not always conditions where the penetration is not the evidence of rape but rather the conditions of consent are?

You seem to advocate with this view that rape laws have far too much of a burden of evidence in particular situations where consent could be possible or where consent is expected, that their value is diminished or their importance is unjustified. To a woman this is a horrendous thing to hear, but something we are more than familiar. We know the argument that at some point and time the law will no longer protect us or even bother to recognize our rights to protection because we were acting foolish, dangerous or inappropriate. That at some point in time women loose ownership of their bodies whenever they act contrary to social demands or participate in behaviors deemed undesirable.


But what you neglect to consider is that when trying a court case like this, a woman’s reluctance to fight, or flee or even just her action of permitting these men into her car is enough evidence for many of her peers, that would be jurors, to concede that she was in fact acting consensually. So the case has to rely on the exact moment when she finally felt enough pain, or enough discomfort or displeasure to forcibly and loudly voice her refusal to consent. The fact this demand was made after penetration allows the MD court to decide that this was not rape.



The concerns can be and would be dealt with in court, as they should be, they should at least be considered and yes even acknowledged. As the law currently stands in MD they are neither. Penetration is only undeniable evidence in the most extreme cases of rape, which often seems to be where woman are most likely to find the will for their rights upheld, in the extreme...abortions only granted to save a mother’s life and rape only recognized when it is performed at it’s most violent and forceful form. To only recognize that woman are raped at the point of penetration only affirms the basis of this case, which is the only rights we need to afford or protect women in our society is their worth or value as chattel. Once entry has been gained, once access to the vagina is permitted the value and concern decreases, because a penetrated vagina is not as valuable as one that has not been penetrated.



I already answered this, they would be dealt with in court, I doubt any recognition for consent to be withdrawn post-penetration would somehow deny any man accused of his rights, but the lack of such a recognition does deny women their rights being validated by MD law. I know false reports occur, I don't recall denying this and I don't believe that validity of the argument that recognition of consent after penetration would deny this either.
Did you know rapes occur? Did you need me to emphasize this fact, and patronize your argument in this manner? Do you need to be reminded that rape is a far greater crime , violent act and social problem in our society than false rape reporting is? Again I don’t understand the importance you place on this argument, I find it to be an extremely male centric view which in return comes off as insensitive when considering the subject matter and the forum I placed this discussion in.



The fact that the jury felt that her “just don’t hurt me” response was worthy of consent should illustrate to you how small of a voice, indication or message a woman is thought to have to make in order to be considered fair game in our society. I can only hope that such a realization would lead you to understand why rape laws need to be ready and capable to consider a large variety of circumstances and that such a broad protection would not eliminate the burden of proof or the male's access to his rights and protections in the law too.

Here I bring forth an incident for discussion, one that is not merely played out on the streets of this nation, but in it’s court system, it’s judicial branch that exemplifies how a woman’s worth and protection is only based on her value to the responsible male, meaning owner, and the response to this is focused on and almost entirely discussed as to how men would be harmed if the law was redefined.

I have MAJOR problems, just on premise with both of these statements. Wow! As if . and what exactly do you mean by' throw their sex in the face of everyone '- with no consequences'? What consequences should be hers ? Is the consequence rape in your mind?
If a woman,( or a man says), ' its hurting me, or I no longer desire to continue' FOR WHATEVER REASON is it just too bad, especially because he's on a roll?
EVEN IF she was leading him on- changing ones mind is always an option. Ending a sexual relation is NOT being sent to the GALLOWS, its being sent home to a cold shower. Sex ALWAYS needs to be consensual THROUGHOUT, for BOTH and ended if and when EITHER PERSON says they want to quit. Can we agree on that or would YOU as men like to be forced to have sex after you have decided you dont want it? How would a little anal penetration after saying 'no' due for you?

The other problem I have is: "Men cannot be turned off like robots, etc..." Myth and lie.
Oh yes they can, because sex is not anyones right when the other person doesnt want it, at any time during the act.
This attitude is really some neanderthal idea of primitive man taking his needs, because she was a sleazy whore who threw it in his face, the 'old' - ' what was she wearing' technique of defending rapists in the past, assasinating her character and excusing his alleged lack of control.

I do agree with Cruising Ram on the difficulty of proof in law after penetration. It becomes a 'he said , she said' situation and this case is a bad precedent to have on the books because she was very ambiguous to say the least.
But I am once again ASTOUNDED by the response by some that a girl or woman deserves what she gets if she decides to stop a sexual encounter midway. Its absolutely scary for me to hear that idea perpetrated by anyone, as if a man has no stopping point. Mature individuals know that all of us have a stopping point. Sex is not , or lets say ending a sexual encounter Before it harms someone has a definate stopping point.
I think Bucket is right, that this comes from a history of ownership and male 'right' over womens bodies. And my ,my, my, how this doesnt conjunct adequately with the thread on discrimination we have still going on the board.



Wait, I had to edit on this.... whaaat? How does this matter in the least? No means no, stop means stop...whether she was 'entertaining you, or not' .....doesnt no mean no for YOU? Is YOUR MOTIVATION QUESTIONED? or is this right exclusively in default and overridden if youre female?

Well, buckets, I didn't realize that expressing some concerns regarding the effect of a change in the law counted as being insensitive regardless of the forum and the discussion. The question was about a change in the law. If you wanted a blanket agreement with your argument, you should have made that clear in your original post.

Now, I've already stated that when a woman withdraws consent even after penetration, the man should stop. I've already stated that I believe the decision in this case was wrong and that the woman was raped. The Maryland law makes no specific reference to when consent can be withdrawn... the flaw is not in the law, but in the court's interpretation of the law. And, as others have also stated, there are concerns that arise when you include post-penetration rape in the law. If you didn't wish to hear that side of the argument... again, you should've made that clear in your original post.

Artemise,

I completely agree. It is disturbing to read some of the statements made in this thread. I will say, regarding the "men cannot be turned off like robots" statement, if it takes a few seconds for a man to absorb the denial when consent was initially given, I don't think those few seconds should be considered rape. If – and I don't believe this was the case at all – this young woman was actually in the right mind to give consent to penetration, the five or so seconds it took for the young man to stop should not be considered rape. Again, in this case, I believe (as she claims) she was simply submitting to a rape and the consent was given for purposes of self-preservation – her previous requests for the young men to stop went unheeded.

I draw a deep sigh of relief in reading this, ´cause I was misinterpreted too in this thread. Whenever you bring the subject of law into the matter, it becomes general. I was in my initial post making a fictive example, not commenting on the actual case.
This is a touchy issue, and emotions tend to rule rather than reason. I find rape to be one of the most hideous crimes along with murder and child abuse, but I have also seen young men being labelled rapists for life for having consensual sex with an experimenting early matured teen. And I don´t think we need to open up for more possibilities for legal misinterpretation in an area, that´s already hazy enough as it is.
Rather should we improve in guiding our teens in the walks of life (and sex).

Well, I must admit I am one of those who is possibly misinterpreting you, because the answer to this question...



if the guy refuses to stop when she's withdrawn that consent, is definitely yes, she should be able to do that.

As a guy, if you agree to have sex with a woman and mid process it turns out that she wants to do something you don't like or you just aren't feeling it... do you have the right to stop in the middle? Can the woman force you to continue? Let's say, you've agreed to some light bondage and are tied up. You agreed to it, you become uncomfortable with it, you ask to stop and be untied and she doesn't stop or untie you... are you then being raped? Yes, you are. You may have chatted this woman up at the bar, invited her over with the intention of having sex with her, but you changed your mind after you started having sex with her. You always have the option of changing your mind, that is your right. It is no less a woman's right. It makes no difference that a woman wanted to have sex with to begin with... It makes no difference if the sex is in progress... She is always free to change her mind. If the man doesn't comply within a reasonable amount of time (a few seconds) and chooses to continue, he is guilty of rape.

What is most important is that we teach young men to respect young women and to understand that sex is not the be all and end all here. Sex can be confusing – physically as well as mentally and emotionally, especially for those just beginning to explore it. We need to teach young men and women to understand, anticipate and respect the unexpected and surprising denials that result from such confusion.

You completely edited your post..regardless..



More patronizing, how surprising, yes I just come here to a debate board in order to find blanket agreement. Obviously not or I would not have started this debate and continued it even after quite a lot of hostility and just outright lack of respect towards the topic was shown from the beginning.

I asked you why this was the focus of your concerns, I never said it was not something to be concerned about, I just feel it is minor, why do you feel it is so important?



As the law stands woman are seen as chattel...
But, to be sure, it was the act of penetration that was the essence of the crime of rape; after this initial infringement upon the responsible male’s interest in a woman’s sexual and reproductive functions, any further injury was considered to be less consequential. The damage was done. It was this view that the moment of penetration was the point in time, after which a woman could never be “re-flowered,” that gave rise to the principle that, if a woman consents prior to penetration and withdraws consent following penetration, there is no rape. Maryland adheres to this tenet, having adopted the common law, which remains the law of the Land until and unless changed by the State’s highest court or by statute.


It is the law, the court says the law requires this interpretation and that they can not interpret this law any differently until the law is changed. Yes it is insensitive to not recognize that this view of women that is retained legally in the state of MD as something of not only an offense to woman as a whole, but perhaps a little more concerning than your current focus on the rights and legal protections of men in Maryland.
Does the law in Maryland claim men's bodies to be "less consequential" and the protection of their sexual organs to be solely in the "responsible female’s interest" ?
No? So why are you focused on how men will suffer if the law was to change? What on earth are you doing defending such a archaic and demoralizing view of women as having any value to our society in any form?


You have also continued to focus on the concern and belief that men’s rights will be violated by broader rape laws. So even if you personally feel it is rape, you seem to feel there is a dilemma in allowing the law to recognize it as rape. So you seem to be less concerned with and less sensitive to the need to legally recognize a woman’s right to consent and total control of her body through out sexual relations.



Why am I not permitted to disagree with you?
The burden of proof is always there, whether a woman removes her consent before or after penetration. You seem to be insensitive to the fact that woman have a hard time proving their consent was never given in the first place, as consent is often defined very loosely, unlimited and considered to be subjective.
Why do we allow this interpretation of consent without concern of it’s misuse but believe that the act of removing consent needs to be so well defined and timed?

You don’t understand the relevance of the fact that even though the woman in this case never actually said yes, her consent was given, how does one give consent without out actually giving it? That is what I am asking you to consider, how consent is often legally recognized and how the burden of proof is always placed heavily upon the woman. And that our society accepts an ideal that woman may not always actually say yes, but must always promptly, loudly and forcibly say no.

Wow. okay.

Who completely edited what post?

I've made my position clear. You think that position is insensitive. I disagree. I am not the only person who raised the concern regarding a change in the law reflecting post-penetrative rape. I don't see you calling Artemise insensitive... I don't see you calling Cruising Ram insensitive. All I did was raise a concern. I did not say that the law shouldn't be changed because of that concern. The concern, however, is relevant to the discussion.

I read your post before I left for a meeting and when I came back it was different.


I have exchanged PMs with Artemise, and have stressed what I place importance on regarding this issue with her and why. I think Cruising Ram already knows I feel he is insensitive to women's issues, and I generally avoid involving myself in discussions with him because of it.

I really wish you would stop focusing on me so much and my own personal actions, or presumed motivations and answer the questions I have asked of you and debate the actual topic and defend your position.

Why won't you discuss why you feel a law that recognizes women as chattel needs to be focused on, or as you say concerned about, how male rights would be affected if changed?

I think the fact women are only seen as property of their responsible male in Maryland rape laws is and should be solely focused on the advocation for women's rights and I have a really hard time believing concern or even sensitivity towards this issue from anyone who does not believe this is THE focal point or the main concern of this court's opinion.

You won't even address it, or discuss it or acknowledge it. In fact you won't even admit you were and still are wrong to have claimed that ... "the flaw is not in the law"

Is that what you believe then? Since even when asked to consider the facts of how and why Maryland rape law is written, you still continue to focus on the belief men will be treated unfairly. Do you then feel having the law recognize women as chattel is not a flawed view? Or of any greater importance then men facing, and still having access to a fair trial mind you, falsely reported rape charges?

Bucket- I tend to be insensitive a bit because of the bad things I see poeple do- it comes with the territorey, and I have seen so MANY "bad" women use false allegations to get themselves out of wrongdoing- it has nothing to do with my general feeling towards women OR men, usually men, when doing bad things, are more blunt, women tend to use manipulation in crime, men use blunt force- notice I used the words "in crime"- so I am not dealing with angels here, no normal poeple trying to make the best lives for themselves and thier families here.

So, as entspeak has done, I am a firm believer in putting sex criminals behind bars for life, if not the death penalty for serial rapists and sex criminals- so I have NO empathy whatsoever with the sex criminal, male or female.

But, in law, when it comes down to protecting the innocent and prosecuting the guilty, there HAS to be a line drawn somewhere as to prevent fraud at some point- as distasteful as that may be.

I am not certain, but did the perps admit that they KNEW she had said "no more" and continue anyway? In that case, with an admission by the perps that they UNDERSTOOD that the victim had said "NO" and continued anyway- I say throw the book at them, and the line should still be drawn at consent of the victim. I, however, think that, if the perp DID NOT understand that she was saying know, and holds to the idea that the act was consensual- the burden of proof, after the act has consensually started, should lie upon the victom (male or female) .

To be clear bucket- I agree on other points of rape law completely- such as the idea that the defense can not use provactive dress or some other stupidity as lines of defense against rape circa 1950s and 60s, or you can not force sex through threats (she complied with the threat so didn't struggle, but did not give consent) or through drugs (slipping the rufies to an unsuspecting girl)- but I also don't want to see an avenue for the unscrupulous to exploit, where it puts the burden of proof on the accused- I am not being unsensitive here, and it is just another example of man's inhumanity to man (using Man in the generic)-

I hope you don't think I am unsensitive to sex crimes here bucket- I am most certainly not, and it takes every ounce of proffessiolsim I have some times to deal with truly bad, bad poeple in a proffesional manner and do my job when facing poeple like this day in and day out, but I also understand a great deal how unscrupulous exploit others when the burden of proof shifts from innocent until proven guilty, with reasonable doubt, to the accused basically starting from the guilty until proved innocent due to very circumstancial and flimsy evidence being allowed.

Bucket- do you agree that most bad law starts from good intentions? Say- the patriot act was, by some, written as a response to "keep America safe from terrorists"- that premise is good, that is a reasonable aspect of any goverment- national security- but the legislation has horrible parts on it that allows goverment abuse-

and therein lies the difficulty with rape laws and burden of proof and making sure the innocent accused are given a reasonable defense strategy and the guilty are punished.

I am NOT saying men "are not robots" defense- I don't buy that AT ALL.

NO human being should be considered "chattel" and the presumption of the law that a woman is chattel is wrong and, if this truly is the basis of this ruling, then legislative change needs to rectify this stupidity.

However- if it is a burden of proof issue- then the accused needs to have a reasonable defense- male or female.

These statements do not contradict. Her right to do so isn't even being questioned. That doesn't mean that the nature of the man's transgression is exactly the same when it's done mid-act as opposed to at the beginning. It's not of the same nature in both cases.

By rough analogy, I have the right to kick you out of my home at any time, but that doesn't mean if you delay leaving for a short period it's then automatically appropriate to charge you with breaking and entering.


I suppose I would be too, if you can find anyone here who said that.


It matters in determining the degree of crime that was committed, and hence the type of punishment that's appropriate. Nowhere did I say that her rights are completely overridden.

We have "degrees" when it comes to murder/homicide, and it's reasonable that there should also be degrees when it comes to sexual violations.

I see, so I get accused of being insensitive in the forum and you just exchange PM's with the Artemise who expressed the same concern. Okay. Perhaps, I am getting a better idea what this is about.



Here is a link to Maryland Statutes regarding crimes against other persons – including sexual assault. Please show me the one that refers to women as chattel. If you can't find it, it's because it isn't there. The court is adhering to an outdated interpretation of the law. I've already stated that. The flaw is in their interpretation and not in the law itself. So, no I won't admit I'm wrong, because I'm not – the court is wrong.

Besides, as I've stated numerous times, this rape was occurring long before penetration ever occurred.

I brought up the concern about men's rights because it is something that is affected by the change. You jumped on me for bringing it up. You are claiming that I am insensitive because I am looking at all the ramifications of the change in the law. Again, I have never stated that the law shouldn't be changed because of this concern.

Sure, like 'motive?' So, just for fun and absolute and clarity for 'debates sake', what was 'his' , 'motive',...... if 'for example' her motives were, 'just cutting him off solely for the entertainment value of watching him cringe' , and this would reflect on the crime at hand, wouldnt his motives to be getting some superficial sex be as likely a moral and motive question determining 'his' character as well?

OK, here is the problem with that. What if a man rapes a woman in the middle of her giving him a hand job, or in the middle of her going down on him? After all, some degree of sexual contact appears to have been consentual, and the man is clearly aroused and "cannot be turned of like a robot". They have engaged in acts of consentual sex, does that mean from that point on any rape would be this undefined 'lesser' charge?

What about kissing? Not peck on the cheek stuff but really passionate, backseat, use-of-tongue kissing? Lord knows that can be incredibly arousing, and clearly there is consent up to that point, shall we then call any subsequent rape 'not as bad' as if he had dragged an unsuspecting girl into an alley?

If we cut right past all this, are we not talking about a different statute for rape as opposed to date-rape?

This sounds perilously close to (since you seem to like slippery slope arguments) saying "She was dressed in a short skirt and see-through bra, obviously seeking attention and wanting to arouse men who saw her, thus she was asking for it." Thus, a lesser 'asking for it' charge.



That's a pretty rough analogy alright. If it were me I would not equate raping a woman without her consent with "briefly delaying leaving one's house". Rather, to extend that somewhat bizarre analogy, if I invite you onto the lawn, are you then liable to a lesser charge If you break into the house? After all, you got consent to get CLOSE to the house...



We do. Both in the US and Canada tjhere are degrees of sexual assault, based on a dozen different factors.

NONE of those factors however is, nor should be, that the aggressor got consent to some lesser form of sexual activity before raping the victim.

Vermillion

I'm not trying to be condescending here at all, but I think you are debating something no one else is. Rape is and should be considered forced sex upon penetration. A hand job or oral sex is not penetration. Your analogies fit your arguments well, however I can't see where anyone made a statement for you to make such an argument. Blackstone's analogy was right on time.

We are talking about after penetration. While I'm having sex she says "no more" How long do I have to stop before I become a rapist?? What if I ask her for more time, "baby, just give me one more minute" type thing, while still having sex??? Does that make me a rapist for not stopping immediately??

What if she says "I'm sore, we need to stop" and I say "you can't do this to me , now" if she makes no more protests, am I a rapist for continuing?? Was her silence consent to let me continue?? Or can the next day she say, "I was afraid" and now, I'm a rapist? Oh... here is even a better scenario... say we are having sex and we are both completely wasted drunk. If one of us passes out during sex, while the other continues having sex till finished, does that make the person who continued a rapist, after all a person can't give consent when they're passed out... right??

I think most men and women can agree if woman demands a man to stop it is the right and moral thing to do is stop. However, I think that the line should be drawn at consensual penetration for cases of rape. If a women withdraws her consent but simply lays there, I don't believe a crime is being committed. If a woman withdraws her consent and is forced to lay there, she is still not raped in my opinion, but she is being assaulted. And assualt is the crime someone should be charged with.

And from a legal stand point... how long does someone have to stop before they are eligible to be prosecuted for rape?? 3 second, 30 seconds, 1 minute, 5 minutes??

I'm sorry, but you have COMPLETELY misread my entire post. I can't say it any simpler than that.

I am not saying a hand job is rape, nor did I come close to saying that. Blackstone is making the point that there should be some undefined 'lesser' charge of rape is consent is withdrawn once consentual sex has begun. He was referring to penetration having already begun. However, as I made clear, his arguments apply equally to penetrative rape which occurrs after any consentual sexual activity, such as oral sex or a hand job. If You have the right to ignore the withdrawal of consent once penetrative sex has started (because you are not a machine, as Blackstone said) then why can't I ignore a refusal of consent to penetrative sex once she has started going down on me?



Pretty much, yes.

Consent is not a grey area here, it is either given or it is not. If it is NOT giveen or withdrawn, there is no 'waiting period'. You do not get to say 'ah, but there is a 1 minute pause for withdrawal of consent, therefore I get to keep doing you without consent for another 60 seconds.

I mean seriously, what are you arguing here? That once sex has started, you cannot be held accountable for your actions? That your hearing suddenly fails, or your ability to comprehend basic affirmative or negative words is impaired?

Rape occurrs the moment a man makes a decision to have sex without the consent of his partner. I can't see it being any simpler than that. The fact that there may have been consentual activity of ANY level beforehand may make it UNPLEASANT to stop, it may make you not WANT to stop, but those are legally irrelevant.



Irrelevant, the argument you are making is if the above happens, and then she CONTINUES to protest and tell you to stop, it doesn't matter, you have a certain 'lag time' of sex allowed though consent has been withdrawn.




That question doesn't make sense. Once consent is withdrawn, and you make the decision to IGNORE that, it is rape. Otherwise, you are essentially saying people are not allowed to change their minds, and thats just of all it IS is changing minds. If you are hurting the girl during sex, and she says stop, do you really have to stop? If your child walks in the room and she says stop, surely the law can't expect you to LISTEN to her, can it?


If we want metaphors, let us take a more reasonable one. You and I have a boxing match. After a time, you have had enough and throw in the towel. How long am I allowed to continue to beat you bloody after you say stop before it becomes a crime? You GAVE consent for a beating, its not fair that you now withdraw consent. I say I should get, what 2 or 3 minutes of beating the crap out of you on the canvas free before your 'withdrawal of consent' comes into play, right?

Are you sure... I'm sorry if I did



Nor did I say you were saying that



You know what... I don't think I misread you after all. Cause your sliding towards that argument once again. To answer the question I have in bold, the reason you can't ignore penetrative sex just because she gave you a hand job or she went down on you is because (and I think this is self-explanatory) you haven't penetrated yet, and she didn't say you could!! Thus we call this rape. You are forcing yourself inside of her.



Exactly why we shouldn't define rape anywhere after penetration.

"Yes, your honor, I told him 'no more' like ten seconds before he was about to ejaculate and he proceeded to have sex with me for those ten seconds. I was raped"

You can call it rape... I call it ridiculous.



Actually Vermillion they are legally relevant, that's why we are having this debate. When are you legally defining rape of someone. I think the legal threshold should be upon penetration, you seem to believe it should be the second after the girl or guy says "no more".



These are all relevant, because you say there is "no waiting period".. none, note a second, not ten, not the time it takes to try to convince her to change her mind, or the time it takes to ejaculate.

And from a legal stand point this would be next to impossible to prove "beyond a reasonable doubt". Which means more people will be getting locked up due to their feelings.



So does the man have to comprehend that the consent has been withdrawn?? or does consent merely have to be withdrawn?? Which one??

Yeah people can change their mind riding a roller coaster once they start going up the hill... doesn't mean the rides going to stop. And while I do see that comment as insensitive, I think there comes a time when, while things are unfortunate, it doesn't mean it fits a crime. Like I said if a man forces a woman to stay put while he finishes the "do" I'm all for calling it assault or illegally holding a person against her will. But if she simply says "no more" after saying "yes, give it to me" and continues to just lie there I'm not calling it any crime. He was just an insensitive jerk.



I like it... Actually this happens in fights often. The bell rings, but punches are still thrown... people are strting to fall and punches are still thrown. A guy runs in with a towel, but untill the ref steps in front of the other fighter, punches are still thrown.

Now how many of these do we classify as assault??

I was just watching one of Gracie's old fights from ultimate fighting chapionship.

He continued to pull on a man after the man was obviously tapping out until the ref dragged gracie off the man... was that man assaulted, should he be in jail.

You see it's different with men, the perception is different. We're not allowed to be victims as easily as women. When a man puts himself in a predicament...

Let's say I think you are a punk, so I see you, we get in an argument and I sucker punch you a couple of times and make you fall... I jump on top of you not knowing that secretly your wearing your superman tighty underwear. All of sudden you are strong enough to reverse things and be on top of me, and well... I only wanted to punch you... not the other way around. so I say, though I hit you (several times), "you're on top... but I don't want to fight anymore...."

Who's going to start the debate "Oh poor Droop224, he was assaulted and vermillion should be locked up with him." So what Droop started the fight, can't he change his mind?? I know Vermillion heard droop say "please don't hit me, superman"


No something tells me people are going to say something along the lines... "Hey, if Droop didn't want to get hit, he shouldn't have started the fight..."

Maybe it's just a man thing.. though. maybe we're just held to a higher standard of being responsible for the decisions we make.

I am really getting lost in all the tangetal arguments here- from the link:

Baby began to have sex with her, but the woman said she felt pain and indicated that she wanted him to stop. She said he stopped "five or so seconds" after she made the request. Baby testified that the sex was consensual, that he explicitly told her "I'm not going to rape you" and that he stopped as soon as she expressed discomfort.

Okay- 1) she gave consent. 2) he specifically asked her consent on the basis "I don't want to rape you" (which, can mean a couple things- (a) I WILL rape you if you don't go along ( Hey- I don't WANT to be a rapists- I am getting consent here, right?

In her statement- she said "stop" - and he stopped as soon as she expressed discomfort, within five seconds or so of the word "stop"-

Bucket- can you clarify- in your initial post- you complained about women being treated as "chattel" in your post- I read and re-read your post, the link, etc, and the links provided- I don't see anything about this treatment of women- what I see is a very, very complex case based on teenagers awkward, and possibly dangerous (using court talk here, alleged rape- I am not diminishing the young ladies anguish or hurt here)

So- what we have is legal hair spliting over

when consent is given

how fast one has to react to this item

Now- anyone "of an age" here, that has had a few sexual partners in thier time, have you ever, um, mentioned the wrong persons name in the sack? - takes about 5 -8 seconds before the partner just realized what you said- before all hell breaks loose - what I am saying here, there seems to be, upon reading JUST the news articles- a way you could read it either way- the more benign to the defendent is that - heard "no" and stopped as soon as he realized she was in pain and not enjoying it.

Is this incorrect bucket? Do you have further links that gives more detail? What am I missing here that you read into your first post?

Do you feel this interpretation of the law is harmful to women and in fact even allows rape to legally occur or be legalized?

First, the law was not redifened by this case, it merely reaffirmed what has been the law and it really isn't the position of this lower court to overturn it's state supreme court.

It does not "legalize" rape for several reasons. First, it is not "rape" if it is legal, but that is merely parsing the words and stating the obvious. WHat it does do is that it defines when the criminally punishible penetration occurs. It is, to use the common law property term, when there is a tresspass of the close or crossing the line. The offense of rape, like all criminal statutes are narrowly defined with definitions, if you do not meet the definition, then you are not guilty.

It is a sticky situation to answer the jury's question as posed in this case. It is obvious that they discounted much of the complaining witness' version of the events. It is this particular case that leads to many types of errors. An apparently poor quality complaining witness (meaning her testimony was not strong), an overzelous prosecution, and a jury that is "thinking outside the box." It is an old legal maxim that bad facts make bad law.

In the instant case, the accused could still be convicted of various assaultive offenses, but not rape as it is defined by statute and common law.



Should the law recognize that women's choice to sexual intercourse proceeds penetration?

Absolutely. I think the more rational definition of rape is that it is a continuing offense. Then you get into to the factual conundrum of how fast does the withdrawl have to be to not constitute rape. WHen you start leaving the bright line type of test is where you really start getting into absurd results. One court would say half a second is too long where another says that 10 seconds apply. In the end, that would be a question of fact to be answered by a jury in their deliberations based upon the evidence presented, but I am not sure you would be real happy with the results of that either with juries being anything but consistant. What looks good on paper sometimes does not always work out well in reality.

What standard would apply? A reasonable man standard on how long it takes to cease? The jury instruction on that would be a toughie to develop to protect the law and the accused.

J

I just want to make it clear first of all that I'm not talking about making a character judgement of anyone, but essentially, you're right, looking at evidence of his intentions should form some part of the overall analysis of a particular case. It's just like the analogy to being in someone's house versus forcibly entering someone's house. If you're there, and had been invited in, and the homeowner just for no reason, and with no provocation at all, orders you out, it may be natural for you to hesitate, and maybe even try to convince him otherwise. It's a different situation if there was a discernable reason for ordering you out. Then, your delay in doing so is more likely to be actionable and punishable.



Well, I'd hate to see you break your momentum, Vermillion, and you haven't disappointed me yet. I don't think there's been a single thread between us yet where you haven't misquoted me or totally distorted what I'm saying beyond recognition. Is suggest looking up "analogy", and you'll see that it does not mean "equating".


And this has what whatsoever to do with what I was saying? I never said or suggested there should be a lesser charge for a man who gets "close" to penetrating a woman. My analogy to trespassing was based on existing law, not some fanciful scenario that you happen to imagine.

Actually you don’t see, you assume. I was not the one to instigate the PM, I never debate via PM by my own desire, only by default. By default I already expressed my concerns to Artemise by PM ,and so there was no need for me to repeat myself here again.
You keep trying to portray my actions as if guided by some motivations that you clearly “see” and I suppose feel somehow allow you to again portray a man, that man being you, as being unfairly treated. This seems to be a theme of yours which in my own opinion appears to be evidence of the inability, or perhaps just lack of desire, to empathize with political issues women face in this country, as you always want to turn the attention, the concern, back towards men.



There is no link.
Law is more than just what is written in the statue. When the court is asked to give the meaning of a law is that all the do, just read and recite the statues? Or do they look for precedents, higher court rulings and interpretations of the law, or similar case findings? The court in question took guidance and the opinions of the highest court in all of Maryland and found that not 100 years ago, not 200 years ago but 26 years ago (in 1980) the highest judicial authority in the state of Maryland said that the state law relys on the idea women are chattel and upheld that view.

Obviously this is not a major issue for you, you have shown your lack of concern for Maryland women’s access to and legal recognition of their rights by insisting the threat it would bear on the rights of men in Maryland is perhaps too great.

I live here, I am a Maryland resident, I have two daughters who live in Maryland and the fact that my state does not recognize my rights to my body independent of it’s value or worth in the interest of my husband, my owner, bothers me a great deal As does the fact that as a woman I have to sit here in the year 2006 and read this opinion and be told that the courts in Maryland have historically and consistently supported this view and that many men in this nation feel it is a minor issue of debate. ....why am I minority with this view here?

What if the Maryland courts systematically, and continuously defended the law as still carrying the valid idea that a black woman was not a whole person and therefore could not be raped as rape is only defined as occurring to persons...would you think that was not an important focal point of debate too?

Personally I feel it is very difficult to have a man empathize or understand how frightening the idea that consent can not be legally withdrawn post penetration by asking them to consider or imagine themselves in their own non consensual sex act. I think for men this is an unlikely scenario and rape, and the threat of rape, and the reality of rape, just does not exist for men as it does for women. And before I am reminded that men are raped, it does happen, I know it does. I just think it is not as threatening or realistic of an issue for men, at all.

So the best example I have seen made for men to consider is medical consent. If you go to the doctor he must request your consent to give you medical treatment. So let's pretend you give your consent, although not explicitly, as woman are not expected to have to give theirs explicitly in rape cases either, lets say your consent was given casually, or hinted at or perhaps the doctor just interpreted your body language as being consensual. The next thing you know he is shoving something in your anus, you find it painful ask him to stop, you find it humiliating as there are several female nurses watching and so again you ask him to stop, you didn’t know that when you gave consent or made your appt. that it was for a rectal exam so again you ask him to stop and he does not comply. Then let’s pretend he didn’t have to comply, let’s pretend that once you gave him consent or he interpreted your acts as consensual that your body was under his domain until he was ready to relinquish consent.
It does not work this way, medically your consent can be withdrawn at any moment, and we are perfectly comfortable with physicians, doctors, nurses, and the medical system in this country to remain so transparent and accountable to the law and crawling constantly with the burden of the legal system. That's ok, that is for our safety.
Yet sexual relations or exchanges are some how too varied, too dependent upon personal interpretations and personal conditions and far, far too dependent upon circumstantial evidence for us to believe that there is any value to ask the law to uphold the accountability of consent. Apparently somewhere the line needs to be drawn because we all know when it comes to human behavior there is always clear concise lines of adherence. Not to mention that men apparently have a hard time reading and responding to those they are engaged in an intimate exchange with that the rules need to be well defined and written out ahead of time.


CruisingRam. I am hesitant to respond to you because I am not sure if you really need or want further explanations of my argument, or if it is just an attempt to engage me in discourse which will likely end with your usual dismissive attitude towards the real life issues women face in our society.

The court’s opinion says, I have already bolded this and posted it twice:
. . [I]t was the act of penetration that was the essence of the crime of rape; after this initial infringement upon the responsible male's interest in a woman's sexual and reproductive functions, any further injury was considered to be less consequential. The damage was done. It was this view that the moment of penetration was the point in time, after which a woman could never be "re-flowered," that gave rise to the principle that, if a woman consents prior to penetration and withdraws consent following penetration, there is no rape. Maryland adheres to this tenet, having adopted the common law, which remains the law of the Land until and u