Illinois Rape Law - Woman can No at any time

Durandal · Post by **Durandal** » 2003-08-01 02:48pm

innerbrat wrote:Rape trials are also a bloody pain, even when the defence is on your side. If it does boil down to 'my word against yours' then the victim (be it the actual vicitm or the falsely accused) can be dragged to Hell and back. The purpose of this law is simply to make cases like that Calfornia case quicker to move the courts, so that a veridct can be arrived at quickly and cleanly.

Should it still be a case of 'my word against yours' the burden of proof is, as always, still on the accuser.

The goal of a trial is not to arrive at a "quick and clean" verdict. It is to arrive at the correct one.

Stark · Post by **Stark** » 2003-08-01 09:53pm

innerbrat wrote:Rape trials are also a bloody pain, even when the defence is on your side. If it does boil down to 'my word against yours' then the victim (be it the actual vicitm or the falsely accused) can be dragged to Hell and back. The purpose of this law is simply to make cases like that Calfornia case quicker to move the courts, so that a veridct can be arrived at quickly and cleanly.

Should it still be a case of 'my word against yours' the burden of proof is, as always, still on the accuser.

Rape accusations are also extremely damaging to the accused - and I think the point many are making with regard to this law is that it makes such accusations much easier to make.

On a side note, could any of our female members enlighten me on why an appartently vast proportion of all rapes are never reported? Also, since rape is simply non-consenual sex, and I imagine consent is removed much more often by the woman, is this at least partially the responsibility of unrealistic expectations, particularly with regard to virgins?

For the record, back in school I never went through any ritual of literally *asking* for permission with each step in the dance, but whenever the girl said no that's where it stopped (although they usually changed their mind on their own accord). If this is a common experience, it says something about sexual politics, in that its usual for the male to make a 'request', responded to by the girl...

h0rus · Post by **h0rus** » 2003-08-03 02:32am

ffs. if you're having a problem with a big dick learn to use common sense. if you're complaining about the act not being devoid of any discomfort, then use your fingers and piss off. obviously sexual intercourse is not for you.

InnerBrat · Post by **InnerBrat** » 2003-08-04 08:31am

Durandal wrote:The goal of a trial is not to arrive at a "quick and clean" verdict. It is to arrive at the correct one.

But in this case it was the correct verdict. It was drawn out so long on a legal technicality that has now been removed.

InnerBrat · Post by **InnerBrat** » 2003-08-04 08:34am

h0rus wrote:ffs. if you're having a problem with a big dick learn to use common sense. if you're complaining about the act not being devoid of any discomfort, then use your fingers and piss off. obviously sexual intercourse is not for you.

Oh excuse me. I didn't realise it was the woman's responsibility to be slick and lubed all the time for the man's comfort, or to just shut up and take it.
I have the right to change my mind at any time if I was mistaken about how relaxed I was, and you can just fuck right off.

Frank Hipper · Post by **Frank Hipper** » 2003-08-04 08:54am

h0rus wrote:ffs. if you're having a problem with a big dick learn to use common sense. if you're complaining about the act not being devoid of any discomfort, then use your fingers and piss off. obviously sexual intercourse is not for you.

Amazing.

Illuminatus Primus · Post by **Illuminatus Primus** » 2003-08-04 11:08am

h0rus wrote:ffs. if you're having a problem with a big dick learn to use common sense. if you're complaining about the act not being devoid of any discomfort, then use your fingers and piss off. obviously sexual intercourse is not for you.

Dipshit, sometimes my girl needs lube and sometime, and sometimes things just aren't right and it hurts.

But I sincerely doubt you've ever had sex, so what the fuck do you know?

SPOOFE · Post by **SPOOFE** » 2003-08-04 11:53pm

if you're having a problem with a big dick learn to use common sense.

I'm sure your entire body of sexual information is derived solely from cheap porno stories one finds all over the Internet, but the average woman's vagina is NOT capable of taking in a foot-long. Half that is pushing it for some.

And it may not even be a matter of pain or discomfort; it can be something as simple as changing her mind. People aren't allowed to change their minds anymore?

Sam Or I · Post by **Sam Or I** » 2003-08-05 02:20am

I agree with the law. If the girl says no anytime, then it is rape. I have never had a girl say no (hey the best way to get laid is to have the girl want it more than you). 99% of the time you can tell by body language. I disagree with alot of stupid laws, but I see this one making sense.

The most common senario I see is

Guy: oh oh oh

girl: do you have a condom on?

guy: no just a second..........

ect....ect....ect....

I agree with the law, except the immediate part, it may take the guy alittle while to relise she is saying "no", because when a guy is going he is on instinct.

SPOOFE · Post by **SPOOFE** » 2003-08-05 03:05am

I agree, Sam Or I. Sex is a very emotionally charged moment, and in the heat of the moment it's very possible to misunderstand what a woman might be saying or why she might be saying it. Remember the old adage: "One penis, one brain, not enough blood to work them both at the same time." There should be a certain leeway, and I hope that any cases tried under this law will take that into account.

Some guys like it rough... this might scare some girls, and make them want to abort. On the other hand, some girls like to be dominated... a (presumably very small) number actually go so far as to have rape fantasies, where they get turned on by force (similar to BDSM).

On average, however, people enjoy their sex very straightforwardly, and I think this law is designed around that. The only time we should really hear any big hubbub about this law would be in the exentuating circumstances mentioned above.

Sam Or I · Post by **Sam Or I** » 2003-08-05 03:16am

Actually on of my roommates ex-girlfriends enjoyed the whole "role playing rape", and I was talking to him about it. Even then they worked out a key word which meant "in real life stop" I think it was something like "grandma".

Just a side story.

SPOOFE · Post by **SPOOFE** » 2003-08-05 03:28am

The concept of a "safety word" is pretty widespread among softcore BDSM communities. Hardcore BDSM fans, however, allow their sexual lifestyle to take over every aspect of their day-to-day behavior, with some people even living, acting, and responding as a pet to their dom. Very weird stuff. I wonder how this law would deal with a situation like that?

InnerBrat · Post by **InnerBrat** » 2003-08-05 04:57am

SPOOFE wrote:The concept of a "safety word" is pretty widespread among softcore BDSM communities. Hardcore BDSM fans, however, allow their sexual lifestyle to take over every aspect of their day-to-day behavior, with some people even living, acting, and responding as a pet to their dom. Very weird stuff. I wonder how this law would deal with a situation like that?

In many scenes, the safety word is not for the sub to exercise control, but to alert the dom when something is seriously wrong - e.g. chest pains.

The law would, I hope, allow a slave to change their mind and leave the service of their master/mistress.

The Duchess of Zeon · Post by **The Duchess of Zeon** » 2003-08-05 05:05am

SPOOFE wrote:The concept of a "safety word" is pretty widespread among softcore BDSM communities. Hardcore BDSM fans, however, allow their sexual lifestyle to take over every aspect of their day-to-day behavior, with some people even living, acting, and responding as a pet to their dom. Very weird stuff. I wonder how this law would deal with a situation like that?

Hopefully that will be recognized as cult behaviour, and if it is not, it should be. Goreanism in particular should be recognized as cult behaviour.

SPOOFE · Post by **SPOOFE** » 2003-08-05 01:28pm

Hopefully that will be recognized as cult behaviour, and if it is not, it should be.

Which just opens up a whole 'nother barrel of worms. Legally, there's not much difference between a religion and a cult... so if someone's sexual kicks, no matter how weird they are, get "protected" under Freedom of religion, what might that do for any court proceeding?

Peregrin Toker · Post by **Peregrin Toker** » 2003-08-05 02:36pm

The Duchess of Zeon wrote:
SPOOFE wrote:The concept of a "safety word" is pretty widespread among softcore BDSM communities. Hardcore BDSM fans, however, allow their sexual lifestyle to take over every aspect of their day-to-day behavior, with some people even living, acting, and responding as a pet to their dom. Very weird stuff. I wonder how this law would deal with a situation like that?
Hopefully that will be recognized as cult behaviour, and if it is not, it should be. Goreanism in particular should be recognized as cult behaviour.

I knew somebody would say the G-word...

InnerBrat · Post by **InnerBrat** » 2003-08-05 05:53pm

Simon H.Johansen wrote:I knew somebody would say the G-word...

Don't draw attantion to it, and no one'll notice...