Its nice to think that sexual intercourse is a very linear process... but often it simply is not.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

It's ugly law - probably because it's archaic: that's what "common law"means. Might have to be changed by statute: shouldn't be too hard, as most men would agree that it's offensive.

People are entitled to change their minds, especially about something as intimate as sex. What it IS, barring a good reason like "ouch", is rude. He's entitled to be offended, but he's not entitled to keep going - that goes way beyond rude.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

is that, while a woman may of course say the word "no" or "stop" during the start of sex, the man is not legally required to heed her request.

So, that's it ladies -- your bodies are only there for men to enjoy. It IS all about men! Didn't we know that already?

/snark

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Wow.

Here are Maryland's laws... I'm working to find the exact ruling- does anyone know where I can read the actual text, rather than reporter's versions?

http://www.mcasa.org/F/2/F2.htm

You don't think of Maryland as being like this... whatever that means...

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

http://www.senate.gov/~sarbanes/pages/email.html

http://mikulski.senate.gov/mailform.html

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

this is something you'd expect in some backward country in the Middle-East. But, shockingly, this type of "law" and legal decisions are also being made in the UK. I recall (I can't find the link now) about a 'controversy' over rapists getting away with it in the UK because the women were drunk and "consented" (though she could not recall this fact the judge threw out the case for no evidence.) I think, luckily, the UK is over-hauling its rape laws to deal with the situation of binge drinking in women. I think it passed and now a drunk person cannot consent. Of course, this will prove problematic if both people are very drunk and there are no witnesses but at least its a step in the right direction.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

You are not going to get me to go along with sending someone to prison for 20 years because someone said "yes" and then started, and then said "no". Bullshit head games. Maybe an assault, equivalent to a punch in the face, if it can be shown that the alleged assaulter had reasonable time to clear out. But no way I am convicting on "rape".

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

So, until there are State Certified Consensual Sex Referees to witness and call the 'fouls' ... how exactly does a legislature task juries to determine if consent was obtained in the first place, and then withdrawn at some point "during but not after" the sex act ?

Or, do we want a statute that holds EXPLICITLY that consent MAY ... perhaps within a stated number of days ... be withdrawn retroactively -- turning what may have been an ambiguous situtation into a felonious one.

Or just take the Dworkinite position: if there was penetration and there was a man involved ... it was by definition rape -- EVEN if the woman says otherwise.

There *was* an issue here, but it got really short shrift from the author. Another tone deaf attempt doing the cause more harm than good, and who's to say it wasn't an honest mistake?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

That is pure bullshit. The courts are another messed up affair in this fascist country we live in. Screw all the judges and screw all the laws. Carry a gun and defend yourself!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Let's see here...according to one of the comments thus far...
a woman ,having wrapped her lubricating tongue massaging mouth around the man's erect penis, is dumbfounded as to why he would want to proceed to fuck her.
Golly Gee 'Emma'....I can't imagine why her stimulating actions could possibly have been so horribly misconstrued as sexual invitation.
According to some women, 'NO' means an unqualified unambiguous statement of absolute unwillingnes and should be instantly without hesitation interpreted and observed as such by the man..but 'YES' has only whatever desultory,switch up, this minute it's this next minute it's that butt wipe vacuity of meaning the woman wishes to fuck around with .

This is just plain crap..it is not a legal issue at its root..
It is entirely a matter of simple common sense...a
'NO' uttered by a woman to a man who is in the midst of
humping the crap out of her AS SHE PRERSUMABLY GAVE
INVITATION TO DO....is neither a credible nor realistic 'NO'.
How the fuck are the Courts to begin to sort out the details of
who authorized who to do what in a given sexual episoide,
that began in mutual acguiesence?? This is madness.
OF COURSE..if she says stop..he should stop....
But responsibility is a TWO way street....
Women shouldn't expect to be the vixen/vamp one minute...
and play poor abused choir girl the next.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I agree the law is absurd. I wonder what possbile reasoning was behind it. I tell you what, instead of making it legal for men to force themselves on women, we ought to come up with a criminal category for cruel and unusual teasing. I bet everyone here has known some girl who gets her jollies by saying yes then no after the fact.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I'm thrilled to see so many "blonde moments" within the feminist movement. Finally the tide is changing and society
is seeing these FemiBigots for what they truly are.
The above article is a perfect case in point.
Those women that find the court ruling "scary," are following to true dumb blonde stereotype.
How So? Well, the "scary part" for these dumb blondes is that Women are no longer in charge of their bodies. The reality is the court has said that ONCE A WOMAN HAS AGREED TO ENGAGE IN COITUS SHE CAN NO LONGER CLAIM RAPE!!!!!
For the intellectually challanged FemiBigots out there this means that if someone is hurting you while you engage in sex and you decide that you want to "disengage," you will have to learn legal words other than the four letter word rape!
Yes FemiBigots you will have to increase your legal vocabulary and do what the rest of us do.
You can file charges of assault/battery, spousal abuse, and a host of other legal charges that protect you and your personage from being hurt by other males or females--in case you've forgotten, that is what the definition of "Equality" really means!--and that--according to you FemiBigots is really what you are espousing--remember????
What the law does not allow you to do is to unilaterally accuse a man of rape because you are linguistically challenged to the point that you don't know any other bigger words or are too busy to bother because you're afraid you'll miss the next episode of Sex in The City or Deperate HouseWives.
Now just shut up and go back into the kitchen and get me a beer while I pat your cute asss and leave the thinking to Daddy...

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

(full disclosure - I'm a 26 year old female who enjoys sex, has never been raped, and has never before posted to Alternet)

I'm hoping that some of the comments I've read from people agreeing with this ruling are coming from the fact that the original article was framed as a gender issue. Although the analogy of letting your neighbor borrow your ladder only to have him take ALL your tools was a good one, let me see if I can give you all an example that actually uses sex:

Say a man and his partner (a woman for the sake of pronouns) have decided to spice up their sex life with a little experimentation. First - some light bondage, so he has his hands tied. Next - he agrees to some anal penetration. At first, the sensation is interesting, and it is exciting to try something new. But after a few minutes, he realizes that he doesn't enjoy the sensation. It doesn't hurt, but he just doesn't want it to continue, so he tells his partner to stop. Because his hands are bound and he's in a somewhat compromising position, his female partner can overpower him physically, and she decides that she's having too much fun to stop. How long can she continue before all you naysayers admit that this man is being raped?

There are all sorts of reasons a woman (or a man) might tell you to stop in the middle of the act. Pain was already mentioned above, though just not enjoying what is happening is an equally valid reason. Some women lose some muscle control during intercourse, so she may be telling you to stop before she urinates/defecates in your bed. Something you've said or did might have triggered a negative memory (you've grunted just like the Uncle who molested her as a child, or your dirty talk is the same thing her ex-husband used to say). And to the poster who thought that if a woman was performing oral sex on him, of course she was consenting to intercourse - some women enjoy oral sex exclusively, because there is no chance of getting pregnant. The two acts can be mutually exclusive.

I firmly believe that ANYONE (man or woman) has the right to call off ANY sex act at ANY time. The pain and suffering of not getting yours is temporary; the pain and suffering of being forced into something you no longer want to do is devastating.

There are all sorts of reasons a woman might change her mind. There are all sorts of reasons a man might too. A person's body is their own, even if they're kind enough to share it with you for some intimate pleasure.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

For instance if the woman has agreed to penetration, it's a little to late to call it off after she's been penetrated. It's sort of like telling a diver to wait for the judges after he's already off the board.

On the other hand, if for some reason things change during foreplay, then it is perfectly legitimate to change your mind and call it off.

In the particular case in MD, what was the situation?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

As for mviscid's clarification of the order of sexual 'battle' that characterized her
friend's trauma....then we now have two counts, i.e.
1) Aggravated cock teasing as already discussed
2) Felony Sexual theft by deception...you (man) get me off..then after you have
satisfied my needs...screw you and your (obvious) aroused wants.
In opposition to the counts...
Only..Only an American woman under say 40 could come up with this type of
horseshit summarized in mviscid's ramblings.

What strident logic. How is it cock teasing or sexual theft if he agreed to her pre-touching caveats of oral-only? And didn't ask her to perform on him?

Of course there's plenty of room for misunderstandings, as with any joint human endeavor. But if a partner doesn't stop when their partner says to (i don't have a set position on "reasonable time to clear out," but let's say fairly quickly, 5 seconds max), it's forced sex. Like the poster above said, if a woman forces a physically vulnerable man into acts he didn't want, it's the same thing. It's too bad the term rape in this instance inflames you so, but it's considered appropriate by the people who're being forced. Rape is so underreported and underprosecuted (versus its occurance rate), I can't help but be suspiscious as to your motivations for such vehemence. If you're threatened by women getting the underdog vote in this, I'd examine that.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]