Liberalism at work in Illinois

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

So you think a girl saying yes at any time should give a guy free reign to do whatever he wants for any amount of time?

I think basically what dazzleman was trying to say is that, if a woman is able to decide she doesn't want sex anymore after penetration has occurred, and if it's considered rape the moment after the woman has decided that she doesn't want sex, then unless the guy is able to teleport out of the female the instant that she decides she doesn't want sex, he's essentially accidentally raping her, and could be charged as such, which is obviously not what such a law is intended to do.  All he's saying is that there needs to be some consideration for the man, instead of making women able to turn men into rapists in the eyes of the law purely through revoking their consent to sex, and I would agree with him.

Regarding the issue at hand where the guy grabbed the child by the arm, I think that the correct response would be to ask "why the hell is restraining a minor a sex offense", and then change it.  No need to inflame the situation by pointing at a large group of people and randomly blaming them for it.

well yeah they can't expect the guy to pull out instantly, but it shouldn't take more than a few seconds and if he goes on for a couple minutes or longer against her will it'd be tough to say it's not rape.

It doesn't really affect me because I usually go girl-on-top.

[dazzleman]

So you think a girl saying yes at any time should give a guy free reign to do whatever he wants for any amount of time?

I think basically what dazzleman was trying to say is that, if a woman is able to decide she doesn't want sex anymore after penetration has occurred, and if it's considered rape the moment after the woman has decided that she doesn't want sex, then unless the guy is able to teleport out of the female the instant that she decides she doesn't want sex, he's essentially accidentally raping her, and could be charged as such, which is obviously not what such a law is intended to do.  All he's saying is that there needs to be some consideration for the man, instead of making women able to turn men into rapists in the eyes of the law purely through revoking their consent to sex, and I would agree with him.

Regarding the issue at hand where the guy grabbed the child by the arm, I think that the correct response would be to ask "why the hell is restraining a minor a sex offense", and then change it.  No need to inflame the situation by pointing at a large group of people and randomly blaming them for it.

well yeah they can't expect the guy to pull out instantly, but it shouldn't take more than a few seconds and if he goes on for a couple minutes or longer against her will it'd be tough to say it's not rape.

It doesn't really affect me because I usually go girl-on-top.

How will a court determine whether the woman or man is telling the truth, if she says she told him to pull out, and he either says he did, or that she didn't ask?  Proof of penetration won't mean anything in this case because she initially agreed.  This is a legal hornet's nest from which only feminazis who hate men can benefit.

[Everett]

BRTD, dazzleman is right. These days you have to be really careful if you choose to be sexually active with various partners, and that's for a lot of reasons besides the rape factor. As much as I disagree with you, I don't want to see you get into trouble for 'rape' when you really weren't 'raping' the woman. False accusations pop up everywhere, and unfortunately it's a fact of life. So just be careful, I guess. It's a tough problem because it's always the woman's word against the man's, and courts are going to have to side with one or the other.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

I'm not saying there's no potential for abuse or anything, I just want to know if he thinks it's OK then for a guy to keep going a significant amount of time after she said stop. He keeps dodging that question.

[dazzleman]

I'm not saying there's no potential for abuse or anything, I just want to know if he thinks it's OK then for a guy to keep going a significant amount of time after she said stop. He keeps dodging that question.

I told you earlier that I agreed with you in theory, so why are you saying that I'm dodging the question?  I just don't think that, in a situation in which all indicators point to consent for sex, there is any framework to determine what really happened if a woman claims she withdrew consent for sex in the middle of sexual intercourse, and wants to press charges for rape.  More than likely in a case like this, the woman didn't like the way the guy treated her after the sex, and brings rape charges to get even, or to extort money from him.  There is simply no way in a case like that to determine whether or not she's telling the truth, and it's too easy to abuse.  The law cannot intervene beyond a certain point, in my opinion.