Let's hope the highest court either takes this opportunity to correct the appellate courts error or states implicitly or explicitly as they sometimes do that they'd really like the legislature to step in here and correct the outdated law.

The women-as-property ruling was from 1980? really? Are you sure it wasn't 1908, or 1890?

I mean I was alive in 1980. I don't want to believe such a definition would fly in court. Arghh!

That law is a truly frightening prosect. It seems to ignore the fact that when a woman gives her consent she is consenting to sex. Should she change her mind or it becomes too painful for her and the man refuses to stop then it is rape. That's not what you consented to and I don't see how anyone could claim you did

How could something like this even be possible? Why would this even be an argument???

I agree this is outrageous. I'm not a lawyer, but it seems to me that even if that state is still using very old common law in regards to rape, other offenses involving forced sexual interaction still regard consent crucial. Also, as common law is composed of a set of historical precedents rather than actual written law, it is always open to considerable interpretation. What this all adds up to is that these guys are thinking and deciding like neanderthals not because they have to, but because they choose to. A few years ago, Kentucky finally changed its law to make marital rape against the law. (I know this isn't the same, but the point is that one can and should be able to withdraw consent). If the state of Kentucky can, belately, get the point, why can't Maryland? This is only the tip of the outrageousness iceberg. But if I go on I'll start to rant.

I can't even fucking contemplate this without becoming nauseated. When I think about how many times I've stopped sex once it's started, because I thought I was ready but I wasn't, or because it was starting to hurt, or because I wasn't feeling good, or just because I was tired, I just can't imagine what kind of asshole would think he has some kind of right to continue against my will.

It's rape, obviously. This law highlights exactly what patriarchy thinks sex is: sex is entirely about male pleasure. Sex isn't over until the man decides it's over.

Seriously, not 1890, try after 1382, when the so-called Statute of Rapes went into effect in England. Indeed, the mismosh above sounds like selective readings of the rape clauses in the 1st and 2nd Statutes of Westminster (1275, 1285) and the Statute of Rapes. I wrote some letters to local NOW chapters about the medieval legal basis for the wording, but no one seemed to be interested in a modern American attempt to reinstate medieval English legal precedent.

I agree. Consent does not mean unlimited consent. This is not contract law where the parties can legally agree to a term (say, fifteen minutes of sex). Any such "contract" likely would be void as against public policy, so fundamental is the necessity of the woman's consent. In the linked article, the woman even prefaced the act by saying she would have sex so long as the kid stopped when she said to stop.

According to the report the accused continued to have sex for as little as five seconds after she withdrew her consent. Men, especially young men, can withdraw faster than five seconds. While this delayed reaction should be considered rape, I do not put this kid in the same class of evildoers as someone who brutally tortures and rapes a woman for hours, or days. If I were the judge, I'd take that into consideration in sentencing him.

Now a legal point, which I suspect is the real focus of the appeal. My only problem with sending this particular kid to prison is that if his act wasn't deemed a crime at the time of its commission, I'm not sure how it can be made retroactive in this case, to this particular kid. You criminal lawyers out there, isn't that the rule across the board? Even if that's the case, it is my hope that the appeals court will issue an opinion stating unequivocally that rape occurs whenever there is no consent.

Seriously, not 1890, try after 1382, when the so-called Statute of Rapes went into effect in England. Indeed, the mismosh above sounds like selective readings of the rape clauses in the 1st and 2nd Statutes of Westminster (1275, 1285) and the Statute of Rapes. I wrote some letters to local NOW chapters about the medieval legal basis for the wording, but no one seemed to be interested in a modern American attempt to reinstate medieval English legal precedent.

I hated that ruling so much. I could have understood it if they said 5 seconds is a reasonable time frame to withdraw, but that bullshit about "deflowering" and whatnot saying it's ok for him to keep going no matter what was incomprehensibly evil to me. I really hope the higher court overrules it.

Tim, just a small clarification. I wouldn't call what the young woman agreed to consent at all. She told the guy okay only after he said, "I don't want to rape you." Seems to me she was trying not to get hurt. Responding to a threat like that doesn't count as consent.

How in the world does that make sense any sense at all?

If you agree to lend your car to someone else and then want it back, you get it back. If you tell someone they can tickle you and then tell them to stop, they need to stop. I think we can go through a bunch of analogies of varying relevance where no one would even dream of arguing once consent = always consent.

This is all of course besides the obvious point that it is disgusting and wrong to force someone to have sex with someone who doesn't want to have sex with you.

You know what IMO makes a HUGE difference in this case (even though I agree that the ruling in question is total bullshit)? The other guy raped her. If a woman was raped by a man, and another one says you gonna let me hit it, she has zero choice. Zero. All she has are survival instincts...and I know, I know - I should not get upset about some of those comments posted below the article but dammit when a man says that as a 16 year old, he is surprised the guy had the capacity stop after a few seconds and was actually being *considerate* of the woman it infuriates me to no end.
And I 100% agree with EG, this is clearly a case of sex isn't over until the man decides it's over.

Wow. I've never heard sexual assault described so... florally. Yecch.

There seems like two issues here.

The first seems like a no-brainer. If someone first consents, then withdraws consent, then if a guy continues then it is rape.

The second issue seems hard to quantify. There is obviously some time between when the woman says she wants to stop, the guy understands this, and the guy withdraws. How long does that process take? 2 seconds? 5 seconds? 10 seconds? When does the situation become rape? I don't really have an answer, but I'm guessing people have thought about this.

Thank you for the clarification, Jessica. I don't want to perpetuate some misstatement and have it take on a life of its own.

And UCLAbodyimage, as to how long does it take to disengage (I would guess it's unlikely as long as five seconds for a young guy), I quote one of my old law school professors: "That's what we have juries for." Obviously there has to be a reasonable time to withdraw -- but in this context, it might be nearly instantaneous. The jury presumably considered this and found it was too long.

This makes me want to cry.

The difficult thing in cases involving the withdrawal of consent is making it explicit. In order to legally hold someone responsible for rape in a case like this, it has to be abundantly clear that consent has been withdrawn. So that the active party cannot misinterpret it as "Hurry up and finish." Or anything else like that.

As a classmate in my Sex and Law course said when we were discussing this case, "I can be lying there thinking about how I've withdrawn my consent all I want, but unless I communicate that in no uncertain terms to the other party, I'm not being raped."

Disgusting, all the way through.

It's sad to think that there are still laws like this. What's even more sad is to think that women need laws to protect themselves against this rediculous bullshit.

Aspasia, good point. But consent is a concept courts have a great deal of experience with and a state's standard jury instructions should clarify the factors a jury ought to consider (this particular state, of course, has it all wrong when it comes to withdrawal of consent -- most states get it right). Consent has to objectively manifested, and its withdrawal must also be objectively manifested. There is no such thing as secret consent, nor secret withdrawal of consent once given. These cases can be incredibly difficult because they often come down to credibility contests, and the stakes are very high for the male (decades in prison, so the system better damn well get it right). But the judicial system deals with difficult fact issues all the time. I would add one thing: while I don't have reason to believe an all-female jury could not be fair, presumably there were also males on this jury. (I don't know the race of the male, and I admit that I have less faith in the criminal system for blacks.)

Jessica:

There are serious issues of overall consent involved, especially given that there seems to be no dispute that the other boy (while Maoloud was not present) raped her earlier that evening. However, the quote is sufficiently ambiguous that I wouldn't use it as an example. It _could_ be read as "if you don't say yes, I'll rape you anyway", as you imply, but it honestly took me a few seconds to work out what you meant when you brought this up last year, because the interpretation that I immediately saw was "I don't want to do anything with you that you'd think of as rape". That latter is, frankly, a rather admirable position to be taking, and would say something very different about the boy's intent and disposition.

Tim:

I think you might not be considering that the time being considered is not the amount of time that a person delays after understanding the request, but the total time from the point at which one person attempts to communicate that request, the amount of time taken to parse and recognize that request, and then the time to comply. The average driver takes a couple of seconds to respond to changes on the road. The average lover isn't as attentive as the average driver. Instantaneous isn't going to be possible. Also, the boy's testimony places the delay in dispute -- in his version, there was no verbal request at all; the girl just sat up, and he took that as indication that she wanted him to stop, so he did.

That said, I agree with you in that this is what juries are for. It's dangerous to second-guess the decision of someone actually able to hear the witnesses speak based on the transcript alone.

As an aside, I wrote an analysis both of this case and Maryland's sex crime laws (including how it touches on marital rape) last year, and it was well-received, so here it is again, for those interested:

http://www.resonant.org/20061101-sexual-consent-in-maryland

Zed, your comment on time to withdraw makes perfect sense to me, and is completely reasonable. You've studied this case carefully, I haven't, so you know a lot more about it. I would note that as to the issue of what was said/not said to withdraw consent, once the trier of fact has adjudicated a fact issue, you toss out anything that doesn't fit within the jury's verdict. But I'm getting out of my depth -- I'm a civil lawyer and haven't dabbled in criminal law since I was an appellate law clerk. ANY CRIMINAL LAWYERS OUT THERE?

I think some clarification is needed.

The question WAS submitted to the jury and the jury FOUND that what occurred was rape.

On appeal, the convicted rapist claimed that the trial court erred by telling the jury that the issue (of whether it becomes rape when consent is withdrawn) was a question for the jury to decide. Instead, he says that it was a question of law that the judge should have answered in the negative.

The appellate court is bound by prior cases. If it's a Maryland Supreme Court case, only the MSC can overrule it. The appellate court had two choices: 1. distinguish this case from the prior case on the ground that the prior case dealt with a prior statute, and that the new statute "legislatively overruled" both the prior statute and the caselaw interpreting that statute. 2. State that it is bound by the prior case until the MSC says otherwise (thus encouraging the MSC to take the case and say otherwise).

Here, the court chose option #2. Now the MSC has the opportunity to overrule the case interpreting the 1980 law. That is the goal and it can still happen.

Personally, I think it will happen. When consent is withdrawn, going further is rape. The question of whether consent was withdrawn will always be a question for the jury to decide based on the facts of the particular case.

The 1980 concept is totally outdated and has been rejected by every state and Canada. Sadly, the date is correct. It was not until the 1980s that spousal rape was made illegal in most states. Since then, the focus has not been on the legal relationship of the parties, but on consent.

In lots of other areas of the law, you can withdraw consent. I honestly can't imagine that a court would find, in 2007, that a woman can't withdraw consent to sex after the initial penetration. I think this is more of an opportunity for MD to recognize the change in rape jurisprudence and overrule cases that were decided under the former version of the law.

@ Tim:

I'm a criminal appellate lawyer in a different state.

I kind of explained it above, but to directly answer your question, the issue on appeal is not whether to "overturn" the jury's finding of fact.

The issue is that, when the jury asked a question, the trial court gave an answer. The defendant objected to the answer that was given - saying that it was an incorrect statement of law. It would be error for a trial judge to answer a jury question with an incorrect statement of the law - and if the court found that it contributed to the conviction, the error would require reversal and a new trial.

Here, the defendant claims that - based on the common law definition of rape - the judge should have told the jury that once there's valid consent, there can be no rape.

On appeal, the appellate court was stuck with the cases interpreting the 1980 law - under which consent was a complete defense and there was no exception for withdrawn consent. IF that's still good law (and it is until the higher court overrules itself) than the judge erred by instructing the jury that it was a question of fact.

However, the higher court will probably overrule their old case and find that the trial judge correctly told the jury that it was a question of fact for them to decide.

In short: the dispute is over how the judge answered the jury's question, and the secondary issue of what the right answer (based on the existing law) should be.

I hope that helps.

Q, do you know the answer to this -- if the status of the law at the time of the act did classify this conduct as rape (because consent at the outset was deemed to carry through to consumation), as a matter of law such act can't retroactively be declared rape as to this particular boy, can it? If that's true, the jury should have been instructed by the judge that consent can't be withdrawn, and the judge's failure to do that would be a reversible error of law. (NOTE I TOTALLY DISAGREE WITH MARYLAND LAW ON THAT POINT -- I'M ASKING A GENERAL CRIMINAL LAW QUESTION. But can the state convict someone of a crime when it wasn't a crime when it was committed?) I agree that the court needs to issue an opinion stating clearly that consent can ALWAYS be withdrawn.

THANK YOU, Q.

Thanks to Q, because that really helped me understand this whole ordeal from a more legal perspective. It is important to really understand the case without being bias. However, looking at it from such a technical point of view really dulls down the issue at stake from my perspective. Can we just remember that Maryland reinforced the fact that once consensual penetration occurs, nothing can turn it to rape. Ever. So even if the woman (or man) starts screaming for their partner to stop (for any reason at all), and their partner ignores them, its not rape. Even when the person penetrating does not stop when their partner/victim is yelling no, it is not rape. Isn’t rape defined as using force to have sexual relations with another person? The abusive treatment of someone, and/or violating someone sexually? As a young woman, there’s no way I could forget the numerous friends, family members, teachers, and so on, preaching to me and fellow classmates, that “no means no,� no matter what. We’re told that the word “no� is the most powerful one when it comes to making a decision sexually. Thanks to Maryland, the most powerful word is now an initial “yes� that can carry on until the person penetrating has had enough, and that single “no� is left unheard and powerless.

Thanks to Q, because that really helped me understand this whole ordeal from a more legal perspective. It is important to really understand the case without being bias. However, looking at it from such a technical point of view really dulls down the issue at stake from my perspective. Can we just remember that Maryland reinforced the fact that once consensual penetration occurs, nothing can turn it to rape. Ever. So even if the woman (or man) starts screaming for their partner to stop (for any reason at all), and their partner ignores them, its not rape. Even when the person penetrating does not stop when their partner/victim is yelling no, it is not rape. Isn’t rape defined as using force to have sexual relations with another person? The abusive treatment of someone, and/or violating someone sexually? As a young woman, there’s no way I could forget the numerous friends, family members, teachers, and so on, preaching to me and fellow classmates, that “no means no,� no matter what. We’re told that the word “no� is the most powerful one when it comes to making a decision sexually. Thanks to Maryland, the most powerful word is now an initial “yes� that can carry on until the person penetrating has had enough, and that single “no� is left unheard and powerless.

Thanks to Q, because that really helped me understand this whole ordeal from a more legal perspective. It is important to really understand the case without being bias. However, looking at it from such a technical point of view really dulls down the issue at stake from my perspective. Can we just remember that Maryland reinforced the fact that once consensual penetration occurs, nothing can turn it to rape. Ever. So even if the woman (or man) starts screaming for their partner to stop (for any reason at all), and their partner ignores them, its not rape. Even when the person penetrating does not stop when their partner/victim is yelling no, it is not rape. Isn’t rape defined as using force to have sexual relations with another person? The abusive treatment of someone, and/or violating someone sexually? As a young woman, there’s no way I could forget the numerous friends, family members, teachers, and so on, preaching to me and fellow classmates, that “no means no,� no matter what. We’re told that the word “no� is the most powerful one when it comes to making a decision sexually. Thanks to Maryland, the most powerful word is now an initial “yes� that can carry on until the person penetrating has had enough, and that single “no� is left unheard and powerless.

Here, the court chose option #2. Now the MSC has the opportunity to overrule the case interpreting the 1980 law. That is the goal and it can still happen.

There's also the option of refraining from overruling the prior case because it was a reasonable construction of the statute in force at the time, but holding that it is not relevant in construing the current statute because it's different in material aspects.

If the court holds that the case law construing the 1980 statute in the way the defendant-appellant contends doesn't apply to the new version, then there's no ex post facto problem. The law in force at the time of the act would have (unlike the 1980 statute) prohibited the conduct in question, and the appellant would have no reliance interest on a construction of a statute that no longer exists.

I also seem to remember a Supreme Court case from a few years back saying that there was no ex post facto problem where the Tennessee Supreme Court retroactively did away with the common-law "year and a day" rule to the detriment of a homicide defendant.

Rogers v. Tennessee, 532 U.S. 451 (2001) (It was hardly "unexpected and indefensible" in light of the developments in the case law, including that of other jurisdictions, that the TN Sup. Ct. might move away from the "year and a day rule"; no violation of Due Process or Ex Post Facto)

Very interesting, Elise. Thank you. We must be boring the hell out of most people with the legalese, but it's important. Anyway, nobody in their right mind thinks this law should remain as it is.

And that was more or less what the Supremes said in Rogers.

Just to clear things up for people who haven't spent time inhaling the dustmites in the margins of stale antediluvian cases, the "year and a day" rule is a rather arcane common-law doctrine (once) used in homicide cases.

Essentially, a defendant couldn't be charged with homicide if the victim died more than one year and one day after the act that was alleged to have caused the death. This rule came into being before forensic technology made it possible to reliably determine time and cause of death. Since you couldn't be sure how someone died, the law based its decision on when.

In Rogers, a murder defendant relied on the "year and a day rule", which was considered part of Tennessee's common law. The Tennessee Supreme Court held that the rule was no longer viable, and abandoned it. Rogers took the case before the US Supreme Court, arguing that this retroactive change in the common law violated his Due Process rights, particularly because it constituted an unconstitutional ex post facto (retroactive) law.

The Supreme Court disagreed, and held that it was permissible to abandon "a year and a day" retroactively, since the prognosis for the rule's continued vitality was not particularly good. It was ancient and arcane, and most jurisdictions had abandoned it. Because of this, it wasn't "unexpected and indefensible" for the TN court to abandon the rule, and Rogers' rights weren't violated.

Q:

One thing just caught my eye. You claim:

The 1980 concept is totally outdated and has been rejected by every state and Canada.

The last time I looked at this (a year ago), both Maryland and North Carolina had not accepted the validity of post-penetration rape. Do you know of something different in North Carolina?

I just really cannot believe that anyone might think that this is alright. If someone is having sex with their partner, and want to stop, they should be able to. If the partner refuses to, and continues to force sex then that is rape. There is just no way around it. It's absurd to think that anyone would think that okay.

Zed, I disagree that the average lover isn't attentive, and I object to the analogy of a changing road. I have vulvodynia, and even with medication, sometimes sex can become excruciating. If I say stop, Mr. KMP stops dead, mid-thrust, whatever. And it's not just because he may be anticipating a need to stop. Before we knew about the disorder, before it fully manifested, I was able to say stop if it began to feel strange, and even then, he stopped instantaneously. A sexual partner who actually cares about the wellbeing, safety, trust, and pleasure of their partner, will stop immediately. I've never been intimate with a person who wasn't able to stop immediately if I need him to do so. If someone doesn't, it isn't because they aren't paying attention or that it took a minute to register. It's because they didn't want to.

I am surprised and appaled that with so many cases and incidents of rape today that a state would go as far to say that "once its in, its in" and not consider a case of rape an actual case if the women consented to it at first and then changed her mind. What may even be more disturbing is that this case was heard last year and is now being heard again by the states highest court, I just feel like something as prevelant and serious as rape would be figured out the first time around in a court case. As children, we were brought up to know that the world No means no, just becuase a woman may say yes to something at first does not mean that she does not have the right to change her mind and say no.

We need to find these people and break their knecaps.

Remember once the first punch is thrown they're ruined and no battery after the first one can be considered an offence...

This makes me incredibly angry. The 1980 law baffles me.

While I acknowledge the fine points of consent can be tricky, the deciding factor should be how much of the situation is based on being able to overpower the victim. If the victim is physically forced, that's rape. If the victim consents out of fear of her well being? Also rape.

While it may take a couple of seconds to communicate the need to stop, in this instance the woman had explicitly warned him she might tell him to stop and he would need to stop. That he was conscious of that, yet neglected to be attentive to it is strongly indicative of his state of mind.

My view may be unusual because at a sturdy 6' I'm larger and heavier than the average man. I'm of a somewhat aggressive personality, and I've had some martial arts training and some hand to hand experience. I haven't slept with anyone I didn't have a decent chance of taking in a fight if it came down to it. My point being, I don't have to rely on someone choosing to listen to my consent, I can well enforce it.

If I'm having sex and it hurts, and I want to stop, realistically my partner has about 3-5 seconds to pay attention of me adamantly saying "No! Stop!" before I start punching him in the face. I'm shown quite a bit of deference in this regard. From hearing other women talk about their experiences, men seem much more considerate and respectful when THEIR own well being is at stake rather than some abstract and improbable court proceeding. I'm certainly not going to accept any and all treatment after sex has begun, and it is absurd for men to legally be held to a lower standard. A woman's bodily integrity is her own, and shouldn't be dependent on what someone else chooses to grant her, good laws correct that disparity and punish taking advantage of it. Bad laws, like the laws in question here, support treating someone as less of a person.

Roni said: "From hearing other women talk about their experiences, men seem much more considerate and respectful when THEIR own well being is at stake rather than some abstract and improbable court proceeding." I can't speak for the experience of the women Roni references, but from my experience I would respectfully suggest that most men would comply with a request to stop simply because it is given. I know that I would comply, absolutely, and not because I, the almighty male, am being benevolent -- I would do it because there is simply no other choice when consent is withdrawn.

While I completely agree with your contention that failing to stop intercourse after a partner has expressed her desire to stop is rape, your argument is not completely logically sound. Your points about violence, pain, and personal volition are all good premises, but your last line "After all, who would continue to have sex with an unwilling partner besides a rapist?" means essentially "If someone continues to have sex with unwilling partner, then he is a rapist; if someone is a rapist, then when he has sex, he rapes; therefore, if continue to have sex with an unwilling partner, then rape." The problem is the second contention: it would more properly be phrased, "If rape, then rapist." This statement would not logically lead to your conclusion, since it's converse "If rapist, then rape" is not entirely accurate. Your points in the first paragraph are better support, and I'll make clear, I fully agree with you.

kissmypineapple:

I base my comments on the relatively frequent complaints I hear or read about lousy lovers. Without meaning to pry into your personal life, I'd speculate that Mr. KMP is better than average, or you wouldn't have married him.

That said, I take the point that you and Roni are making about response times involving a firm and clearly stated command. However, response times involving more common comments like "urgh!" or "... no ..." or even "... stop ..." (I actually had an evening once where that was uttered to me in an attempt to get me to hold still because she liked the position, and she was a little annoyed when I immediately withdrew, in fact) are likely to take a bit longer in the average lover.

Note that I'm not disputing what a good lover should be able to do. I just think that there's a difference between being a bad lover and being a rapist. (And if not, we're going to need substantially larger prisons.)

Also, I'm not concluding that the boy was doing the right thing. I'm just not finding it a clear conclusion from the transcripts that he was in that car with the intent to rape the girl.

Just for the record, I've slept with a few guys in my time and not a one of them had any difficulty in stopping the instant I indicated I wanted him to. I didn't have to wait for it to sink in, or for him to interpret, or any of that. I said wait or stop, and he did, immediately. It's simply not that difficult.

And, of course, I'll go on record as saying that consent is not permanent, but can be withdrawn at any time for any reason with no repercussions.

JonathanF: There's nothing wrong with her statement for one simple reason. The act of continuing to have sex with an unwilling partner is rape. Only rapists commit rape. Therefore, as she said, "After all, who would continue to have sex with an unwilling partner besides a rapist?" The definition is implicit in the act.

I'm with Zed in that I'm having a problem finding a conclusion about the boy's intent.

I think in a lot of situations like this one, where the victim knows his/her rapist, the problem started with the culture at large. That doesn't excuse what a rapist does in any way. They should absolutely be punished. But I also think that some people don't intend to become rapists. They rape and they should be punished, but I don't necessarily think they walk into the situation thinking, "I'm gonna rape this girl."

I only say this, because there were a lot of comments (I know, it's my fault for reading them) on that article where people kept using the term "real rape" to refer to situations where a woman is abducted and/or raped by a stranger. Obviously, we know sexual assault perpetrators are more likely to know their victims than not. And while there are a certainly douchebags in the world who do intentionally rape their friends, girlfriends, neighbors or whoever, some people make bad decisions because they don't understand what consent really means.

So whether this guy meant to rape her or not, I think he did. Even if he didn't mean to, only a complete moron would ask consent from someone who has just been sexually assaulted and expect to get an honest, straight-forward yes.

But I really think that the only way to start lowering the incidence of sexual assault is to increase education about consent...especially for boys. I wish instead of giving girls the "don't dress like a slut" lecture, everyone would give their sons a "this is what rape means, don't be a rapist" lecture.

Of course, in order to educate people about consent we'd have to have consent laws that we're so shitty. Saying that consent can't be withdrawn after penetration is ridiculous. That's clearly fucked-up.

Cap'n Colleen, I agree that one of the most important things we could do as a society and as a nation is to educate our boys to have the respect for women they would want for themselves. I think the government needs to get behind this idea because it would have far more benefit than these abstinence programs we are paying for. Issues of consent are part of, and integral to, overall respect issues. We need to stamp out this mindset that afflicts so many of young males that women are there to be used as their personal sexual playgrounds. (I am not suggesting that such mindset affects all young men because, hopefully, most are being raised properly, and I despise attributing bad motive to an entire group, including my own gender, based on what some do). But we all know this mindset is all-too-prevalent, and it is cancerous. Teaching boys to have greater respect for women would also help them become better men.

Kimmy, you're right if you assume what you're trying to prove, i.e. if refusing to stop sex then rape, so if rape, then rapist. But what she actually writes is "if refusing to have sex, then rapist." however "if rapist, then rape" is not always true. It is possible for a rapist to have sex that is not rape. Therefore, there is a third possibility from her premises: The only people who would not stop are rapists but the act itself is not rape. I just thought I'd act dumb and point that out. There are of course a multitude of valid arguments for why Jessica is right (to many of which she alludes), and you're right that the last statement supports her argument in the sense that you're restricting the group who would perform such an act to rapists, who at least some times rape. Therefore it's possible but not necessary that the act in question be rape.

You know, my husband says he can always tell when I'm reading feministing because of the shrieks of outrage coming out of my office.

I don't know how you find all this info, but I'm grateful you bring it wider attention.
(even if my primary reaction is OMGWTF!)

Okay, I know I'm a bit behind on this discussion, and there's a good chance no one will read this, but I have a question for the legal people out there. Aside from being generally idiotic, there seems to be a couple of flaws in logic with the law they're basing the ruling on. Let me preface this by saying I have absolutely no legal background, so I might be way off.

According to MD, a women is property and the injured party in a rape is the "responsible male" and that after the "initial de-flowering...the damage has been done" and all that. First, if the women is property and the injured party is the "responsible male" then how can a woman consent to sex at all. It seems as if the law is saying that consent is not her decision; it's the "responsible male." If that's the case, then the "responsible male" could give consent even if the woman doesn't, and otherwise, all sex outside of marriage would be rape, regardless of what the woman wants. Second, how does the law reconcile women who do not have a "responsible male" in her life, i.e. no father or husband? Does it default to an uncle, brother, or some other related male? Anyone have any answers?

Okay, I know I'm a bit behind on this discussion, and there's a good chance no one will read this, but I have a question for the legal people out there. Aside from being generally idiotic, there seems to be a couple of flaws in logic with the law they're basing the ruling on. Let me preface this by saying I have absolutely no legal background, so I might be way off.

According to MD, a women is property and the injured party in a rape is the "responsible male" and that after the "initial de-flowering...the damage has been done" and all that. First, if the women is property and the injured party is the "responsible male" then how can a woman consent to sex at all. It seems as if the law is saying that consent is not her decision; it's the "responsible male." If that's the case, then the "responsible male" could give consent even if the woman doesn't, and otherwise, all sex outside of marriage would be rape, regardless of what the woman wants. Second, how does the law reconcile women who do not have a "responsible male" in her life, i.e. no father or husband? Does it default to an uncle, brother, or some other related male? Anyone have any answers?

Okay, I know I'm a bit behind on this discussion, and there's a good chance no one will read this, but I have a question for the legal people out there. Aside from being generally idiotic, there seems to be a couple of flaws in logic with the law they're basing the ruling on. Let me preface this by saying I have absolutely no legal background, so I might be way off.

According to MD, a women is property and the injured party in a rape is the "responsible male" and that after the "initial de-flowering...the damage has been done" and all that. First, if the women is property and the injured party is the "responsible male" then how can a woman consent to sex at all. It seems as if the law is saying that consent is not her decision; it's the "responsible male." If that's the case, then the "responsible male" could give consent even if the woman doesn't, and otherwise, all sex outside of marriage would be rape, regardless of what the woman wants. Second, how does the law reconcile women who do not have a "responsible male" in her life, i.e. no father or husband? Does it default to an uncle, brother, or some other related male? Anyone have any answers?

Irene:

According to MD, a women is property and the injured party in a rape is the "responsible male" and that after the "initial de-flowering...the damage has been done" and all that.

http://www.resonant.org/20061101-sexual-consent-in-maryland

If you don't get any better responses here, and you still have questions after reading that, feel free to send me a note and I'll try to clarify further.

I believe that a women has a right to say no to sex whether it is before, or during. Just women shouldn't have to have a reason to say no to sex.
I think that boys today have to learn to respect a women right to stop if she feels the need to. There should never be any questions asked.I think some men believe they don't have to stop because in the case above once the guy penetrated what was done was done. I don't see that is the case, there is a lot more to it thank that.I hope that the courts to overturn the decision made and reconsider the matter that hand.