Wait, I'm really confused by the linked article. It says that two teenage boys had sex with a community college student (of unspecified age). It then sounds like she revoked consent while having intercourse with the second boy. Why was the first one charged with second-degree rape?

(It also seems weird that the second young man was convicted of first-degree rape because of what the victim described as a several second delay in cessation. But I'm sure that's just poor journalism/omission of other facts. She did ask him to stop due to pain and his opening question could easily have been misinterpreted as a threat.)

However, yay for the ruling! I'm sure there have been plenty of women who were raped after consenting to other sex acts or changed their mind at the last minute.

sorry, that should be "interpreted" (no prefix)

Why was the first one charged with second-degree rape?

Vodalus, from reading the case I don't think the description in the newspaper article is accurate.

Here's what the judge said the victim said happened:

J.L. [the victim] told them to stop, but Baby [the second accused, whose case was on appeal] and Mike [the first accused] moved her around so that her body was against Baby. Baby then held her arms as Mike attempted to have intercourse, briefly inserting his penis mistakenly into her rectum. Mike again unsuccessfully attempted intercourse, and Baby inserted his fingers into J.L.’s vagina. J.L. further testified that Baby then got out of the car. Mike inserted his fingers and then his penis into J.L.’s vagina. Mike then left the automobile and Baby got into the car. J.L. testified that Baby told her “it’s my turn now.�

Despite that, and despite Baby's threat that J.L. couldn't leave, the jury seems to have decided that J.L. did consent to have sex with Baby. I'm not sure how; hopefully there was some other evidence in front of it.

It also seems weird that the second young man was convicted of first-degree rape because of what the victim described as a several second delay in cessation. But I'm sure that's just poor journalism/omission of other facts.

It's hard for me to believe that J.L. gave consent at all, but apparently the jury had a reasonable doubt on that. If one assumes J.L. did consent, as the jury apparently found, then yes, the newspaper report is accurate and the second accused was convicted because of a 5-10 second delay in cessation.

"...are you going to let me hit it?" paired with "I don't want to rape you," is something I'd have a hard time not construing as a threat, honestly. This is one of those rulings that comes with great relief. But geeze, the idea that once it's in, you can't revoke consent? Gah! How long did it take them to acknowledge legally that women, being human beings, have a right to their own bodies?

Am I reading this wrong or are there only 7 states where a person has the right to revoke consent?

Scary thought...

I knew that the linked report didn't make any sense with the reported convictions. Thanks for the clarification!

(As for "...are you going to let me hit it?" paired with "I don't want to rape you"... At first glance on a page, I understood it as an attempt to verify consent. Then I muttered it aloud and immediately realized that it just meant "don't make me be violent". Hence my change of syntax. It's sometimes easy to forget that the average young male doesn't recognize that rape includes sex obtained through verbal coercion.)

Phew, as someone living in Maryland I was very outraged when that law was passed. Even more outraged when I told people about it and mainly got the response "well that's not REAL rape." Oh well, one step at a time.

ONLY 7 other states!

It looks like this woman was coerced into having sex with these boys because she felt physically threatened. There are a lot of 15 year old boys out there that are as big as an adult male. Two 15 year old boys can definitely coerce an adult woman into having sex if she felt physically threatened by them. It's called survival. They also didn't stop like they said they would when she told them to. Sorry, that's rape.

Proof directly from the article where one of the boys said to the woman as quoted by police:

"[So] are you going to let me hit it?" he said, according to police. "I don't want to rape you."

wrongsideofthetracks: "A woman has sex with a 15 year old boy and you all think it's time to celebrate. Wow! You disgust me."

IF this had been consensual sex it would have been legal. Maouloud Baby was 16 which is the age of consent in Maryland. Michael Wilson was only 15 but the law has an exception if the participants are no more than 4 years apart in age and in this case the girl was only 18.

Frankly I can't believe that the jury decided she gave actual consent in the first place, given that she'd just been sexually assaulted by the first boy and testified that she only "consented" to have sex with the second boy because they said they'd let her go when they were done.

There's a more detailed description of what transpired here.

anyone else get the impression that wrongsideofthetracks didn't read any of what we had to say? (a little bit ironic, dontcha think?)

This case all seems very confusing. I don't understand why (in this modern time) we can't get some consistency in differing reports of the same news story. This story is so convoluted, I'm just going to rely on the (hopeful) sanity of the jury.

In any event I think it's way past time that there be a major codifying of "degrees" of rape. Either state by state or nationally.

As a supposition if a husband of 20 years delays withdrawal (or cessation of movement or what-have-you) for 5 seconds with his wife a sentence of FIRST DEGREE RAPE is just insanity.

If someone you've had 20 years familiarity with delays stopping for five seconds, NO WAY is this as traumatic as somebody busting into your home and violently violating you at gun or knife-point.

Here's an intersting tidbit
on lesbian rape:
http://www.rmdglobal.net/she-stole-my-voice/
per the end of one of the movies, 30% of lesbians report that they have been raped and not necessarily by an intimate partner.

Wrongsideofthetracks:

"[So] are you going to let me hit it?" he said, according to police. "I don't want to rape you."

Translation: "If you don't have sex with me, I'm going to rape you anyay."

This woman "agreed" to have sex under threat of rape. This woman did not have the freedom to say no in these circumstances. That makes her so-called agreement a rape in itself. What part of this don't you understand? If two great big guys twice your size said to you,"You better let us sodomize you because we're going to rape you anyway." Are you going to say no? What if you said no, and the physical injury from the rape was worse than if you had just agreed? No, your probably going to agree because you know that you can't fight off two guys bigger than you. And you would probably agree in the hopes that there would be less physical injury than if you actively resisted. What if the two guys bigger than you were 15 years old? Does that matter when they got you to agree to something under the threat of rape? I mean, really, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure this out.

Here is an interesting link:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=389576&in_page_id=1770

What I have an issue with is the paragraph 5 up from the last paragraph:
"Sentences of between six months and two years in jail can be handed to husbands or boyfriends who touch their partner intimately against her will."

WTF? #1 this is bullshit, #2 why doesn't this bullshit cut both ways? It specifically says it only works as a crime when MEN touch WOMEN!

So, if a couple is laying watching a movie and the man starts caressing her and she says something like, "not now sweety I'm watching a movie" and move his hand away and he continues, she can jail him for 6 months to 2 years?

Do you know how many times my wife has fondled me to "get me in the mood?" even when I was tired or preoccupied and not really into it?

This portion of this law passes WELL OVER the boundary of actually protecting women from imminent harm (or bringing to justice the perpetrator after the fact) and criminalizing (FOR MEN ONLY of course) a simple mis-communication.

Which could EASILY happen with new dating couples, or especially young couples.

I'm always astounded by the yelling and screaming and name-calling I get when I post on feminist boards. I think now I understand. If your world view is that feminism is a power for good (and to bring the most good to the most people even men) you could only believe that anybody opposed to this movement must be very evil.

This is not true. I'm a
pretty mild-mannered guy. I like women (a lot ~wink~) and don't want to "roll back" the accomplishments of women (or whatever).

I think I would actually agree with a lot of you here on non-gender specific issues about labor, corporations, drugs and other things.

The issue I have with feminism (and feminist leaders) is (just like this 6months of jail for fondling law-for MEN ONLY) in many many areas feminism goes too far in destroying constitutional protections of men and rights of due process, and gives women many many (what I call) "witch-hunt" powers which allow a woman to use police/courts to unjustly imprison a man on HER SAY-SO ALONE.

I'm not evil, I just have a view of (modern-day "victim") feminism as a destructive force that ONLY (or mainly) seeks to dehumanize, demonize, and jail men with no due process based on female allegations alone.

And that's injustice no matter who the target is, or what they're accused of.

I also think the way the MSM's puts a pink lens on the wrongdoings of women is total BS. Like with Crystal Gail Magnum. I remember the newspapers always spoke of her being a stripper "to feed her kids".
That's total BS, and a slap in the face to single women all over who DON'T resort to lap-dances to raise their kids (my mom being one of them).

Also, what if you agreed (under threat of rape)to let these guys sodomize you if they promised to stop when you told them to?
What if they were hurting you, but they still refused to stop when you told them to? It's your body, but once some guy penetrates it, it belongs to him so you should just shut the fuck up and let him keep going no matter how much it hurts you. After all, it can't be rape because you agreed to it even though they would've raped you anyway if you resisted. WTF? Figure it out.

We can all agree that it is morally heinous to continue to have sex with a partner when he or she has revoked consent.

The question then becomes one of the proper role of the law, the courts, and society. Do we want to jail men who keep going? five seconds? ten seconds? until they finish 13 seconds later? for minutes, until they've used her for, to her, an eternity?

IMHO, the best justice is a kick in the balls. Perhaps that is violent, or wrong, or what-have-you, but if he is committing a violent, cruel, soul-crushing act against you body, you have the moral and legal right to respond in kind. A rape trial will (understandably) garner sympathy for the defendant in those situations; date rape is ambigious enough, and tough enough for people fortunate to have lived lucky lives; adding this only makes the entire thing less credible (unjustifiably, mind you - I am not endorsing the decriminalisation of rape, nor the condoning of such by society).

This does not apply to the young woman who was basically gang-raped, but may apply to others: if you don't have sex with men you barely know, you might not have this problem nearly as often. If your long-term boyfriend is sensitive to you, your emotions, you psyche, and your consent, it's much less likely that you'll find yourself wanting to revoke consent and having such revocation ignored. Yes, jerks come in long-term relationships, too, but this (to me) seems to be a very clear, inevitable result of the hook-up culture.

(Sadly, about 90% of the people here will look at this and say, "Slut shaming!" instead of considering the fact that we live in a screwed up society in which women simply cannot assume that their partner is a decent person. I heard a stat recently that 50% of men said that they would rape a woman, if they could be absolutely guaranteed that there would be no legal consequences. 50%, ladies. Sorry, I can't help but say that you ought to be pretty *(^^ sure that your partner is NOT in that 50% before you sleep with him.)

To me the problem with this case is that ("reasonable" mistake as to) consent was available as a defence at all.

She was being held by force, against her will, and the guy who demands "his turn" (not from her, of course, but from his co-perp) gets to claim that he somehow thought she wanted it because she didn't want to risk her life by offering up a pointless refusal of "consent". Bullshit. Not only is this an inherently coercive situation, but it is a situation that was made coercive by the intentional acts of the defendants.

The only time any (reasonable mistake as to) consent defence should be heard at all is where there is no evidence of force. Otherwise, what you've got is the equivalent of an "inevitable discovery" rule: "Well, maybe she woulda been OK with it even if I hadn't restrained her".

It's good that Maryland has taken a step away from viewing rape as a trespass to chattels (which was more or less the import of the common law rule they were applying before). A woman has to be able to revoke consent and have it be something more than advisory. But to me, this case stands as a perfect example of what it's patently absurd to make (reasonable mistake as to) consent an available defence regardless of how much force is used.

"IMHO, the best justice is a kick in the balls. Perhaps that is violent, or wrong, or what-have-you, but if he is committing a violent, cruel, soul-crushing act against you body, you have the moral and legal right to respond in kind."

As I have written, prevention of rape is one of those occasions in which lethal self defense may be explicitly permissible under your jurisdiction's law. In Hawaii where I live, in part:

http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/hrscurrent/Vol14_Ch0701-0853/HRS0703/HRS_0703-0304.htm

§703-304 Use of force in self-protection. (1) Subject to the provisions of this section and of section 703-308, the use of force upon or toward another person is justifiable when the actor believes that such force is immediately necessary for the purpose of protecting himself against the use of unlawful force by the other person on the present occasion.
(2) The use of deadly force is justifiable under this section if the actor believes that deadly force is necessary to protect himself against death, serious bodily injury, kidnapping, rape, or forcible sodomy.

[end quote]

Read your own jurisdiction's law in full, with any definitions, exceptions, or commentary to put it in context. For example, in Hawaii, "(a) the actor must believe that deadly force is the only viable means of preventing the specified harm, and (b) the actor must believe that one of the specified harms is threatened on the present occasion." One cannot shoot a rapist or attempted rapist, if one believes "a kick in the balls" would suffice to halt the attack or escape. (Why the sodomy must be "forcible," I do not know. Perhaps lawmakers do not consider threat, perceived threat, intimidation or coercion (as may occur in prison) to be sufficient reason to kill someone.) There is also a legal duty (one of the exceptions to the law) to retreat from attack when possible to "avoid the necessity of using such force." Hawaii also requires arrest in all cases of homicide, so one will have to defend a killing in court.

That said, the dead cannot testify against you or toward your state of mind at the time of the killing.

Will PROBABLY have to defend a killing, in court, that is. Perhaps one can escape indictment if it seems clear cut self defense.

I am somewhat perplexed as to how this type of law can be enforced. Unless this is a group sex/gang rape situation (which I suppose is not uncommon these days) it would be her word agaisnt his. If she consented to sex initially, his bodily fluids willl be one her.
I believe a woman always has the right to say, no, but c'mon ladies, a little common sense is required here as well. I know a girl who was planning on saving sex for marriage. When things didn't go as planned for her, she cried rape...when her words to me after the fact clearly indicated that she consented.

I'm having a hard time understanding how this law can be enforced. If the woman agreed to sex initially, then his bodily fluids will be in and on her. How can she prove that she said "no" ?(provided that this is not a group sex/gang rape situtation)

I'm having a hard time understanding how this law can be enforced.

Don't worry, pro-lifefeminist. I'm sure that this law will be enforced in the same way that other laws regrading sexual assault are enforced: poorly.

From police who don't take the survivor seriously to prosecutors who don't want to prosecute the case to dumb-ass jurors like yourself who "knew someone who cried rape" (despite the fact that rape is falsely reported at the same, if not lower, frequency of other felonious crimes), survivors of sexual assault will rarely see their rapist put in jail.

She'll prove rape by testifying. But, as people like you consider women lying liars when it comes to sexual assault, don't worry, the rapist will probably be acquitted.

Feel better?

I sure don't.

"The question then becomes one of the proper role of the law, the courts, and society. Do we want to jail men who keep going? five seconds? ten seconds? until they finish 13 seconds later? for minutes, until they've used her for, to her, an eternity?"

I worked as a volunteer on a sexual assault hotline, and the lady who ran the hotline gave a lecture to a class at the local community college about sexual assault. She told the class that if a woman tells a guy to stop at anytime before, during, or after sex, the guy is suppose to stop immediately. Of course, every male in the classroom said that it's not possible to stop immediately during sex. This lady than asked the guys in the class, "If you're having sex with your girlfriend in her room, and her father walks in, are you going to stop immediately, or are you going to keep on going?" Of course, none of the guys in the class wanted to answer that question, but everyone knew what the the answer would be. The point is that if a girl says to stop, the guy should stop immediately, and there are absolutely no excuses for him to continue. For god's sake, if a girl says, "Stop, you're hurting me!" Those five seconds that the guy keeps on going is absolute torture. I know because it happened to me. If a guy thinks that his five seconds or whatever of pleasure is more important than the girl he is having sex with,he deserves to be charged with rape. No if, ands, or buts.

"Can you honestly say that you have ever uttered the phrase "Are you going to let me hit it?" If not, then why are you translating?"

The translation was meant for you because you obviously haven't a fucking clue. Like I said, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure it out.

"As for your scenario, I'd fight of course because that's my temperament. I also have a nickname to live up to!"

Brave words until you're actually in this situation. I work in the prison situation, and a guy getting raped by two guys bigger than him is pretty common. The guys who fight usually end up hurt the worse. One guy in paticular had a lot of blood and massive internal injuries, and some are even killed by their attackers. It's usually the guy who submits who ends up surviving with the least physical harm done to him. In this situation, your nickname would be bitch or turnout. If your lucky, you can be some inmate's private bitch, or you can be the turnout, or the inmate who is passed around to all the other inmates in exchange for contraband items. It happens all the time, and inmates are afraid to report their rapes because they know that they can be killed. It's called survival, and that is what this girl was doing when she "consented" to having sex with these boys.

"And while saying "are you going to let me hit it? I don't want to rape you," may not have the "smoothitude" to get in the panties of the Internet class, that doesn't mean it was a thinly veiled threat."

wrongsideofthetracks, They made it very clear to her that no matter what, they were going to have sex with her. They gave her the choice (how nice of them, right?) to accept it or fight it. He implied that if she didn't consent, he would rape her, even though that wasn't what he'd prefer to do.

You're right. It's not a "thinly veiled" threat. It's a VERY CLEAR threat.

I mean, wtf? Why would someone who is initiating sex with you, while still maintaining purely good intentions, even bring up the word rape if they weren't implying that they would consider raping you?
How the fuck would you react in a situation when someone gives you that "choice"?

wronsideofthetracks, that quote was said to a half-naked, 18 year old girl who was pinned-down and obviously unwilling to continue having sex. And
saying "are you going to let me hit it? I don't want to rape you," could easily sound like a threat of imminent violence in that situation.

In any case, what we are celebrating here is the fact that a woman's right to control sexual access at any point has been codified into law. Even if it's unenforceable, there is significant power to be had just by having a written down law.

It's also an opportunity for women to prosecute in cases of rape where the circumstances are unclear, such as the demonstrated case. From J.L.'s perspective she was involuntarily constrained, subjected to threats of violence, and injured sexually. She feels she suffered pain and degradation; she believed that what happened to her was prosecutable rape. The boys may or may not have recognized that what they were doing was rape. Does that change J.L.'s trauma? Even supposing that Baby had no idea what he was saying was threatening, that doesn't change the fact that J.L. did not freely consent to sexual intercourse.

Honestly, given how many rapes go unreported, I give good credence to any woman who takes a rape accusation all the way to court (except maybe for the occasional high-profile defendant). I've known women who were clearly raped and women who were only crying rape, but I've known no women who prosecuted. Historically, there's not much incentive to prosecute except to (a) prevent other women from being raped and (b) gain closure. The potential for ridicule, disbelief, demonization and "slut shaming" can easily outweigh the benefits of a conviction. Thus I'm willing to listen to pretty much any woman who believes she has enough evidence and enough motive to convict her assailant.

Which brings me to Jabes1966. Given the disgustingly low conviction rate of rapists in the UK, even in clear cases of brutal sexual violence, I doubt that many loving husbands will be convicted over a simple miscommunication about groping. What that law does do is contribute further to the body of laws recognizing a woman's sexual autonomy. Explicit criminalization of spousal assault is essential in protecting women from sexual violence because it legally recognizes a woman's right to refuse sex as independent of her male partner's desire. If a woman has a legal right to refuse consent in a romantic relationship, then she certainly has a right to refuse it in any other context.

@wrongsideofthetracks

Could you please hold off with the thinly veiled name calling?

We want the right to control our own destinies, our own bodies and our own minds. Damn straight we're celebrating a ruling that recognizes our right to revoke consent and control our sexual access. Damn straight we're excited to have explicit legal grounds that help erode the concept of "grey rape" and its implied protection of the assailant.

Fairer trials, more decent laws, better justice... that's exactly what we are celebrating. If you don't get that, then maybe you're reading the wrong type of blog.

I wonder how many women would stop IMMEDIATELY if they were on top?

"It's so "obvious" that this case will have been tried at least three times before all is said in done."

Yeah, by a patriarchal court system that looks at rape through the view of male entitlement that refuses to accept the idea that women are autonomous human beings with a right to decide what to do with their own bodies.

"Why you keep pressuring me to play the victim in your prison rape fantasies I have no idea."

Because being raped by a another male is the closest thing that a man would get to being able to understand what a female rape victim goes through. After all, men getting raped by women is extremely rare. Unfortunately, you are not capable of empathizing with female victims because you don't see women as human beings. And the fact that you couldn't see why I was making you in a victim in my prison scenarios (a reality for a lot of male inmates) tells me that your not very intelligent to begin with.

"Anyway thanks for living up to your nickname... at least the second defintion."

Do you really think that your insulting me? I knew both definitions of the term virago when I picked that name, and I don't have a problem with either one. Apparently, I must have really pissed you off in order for you to even bother looking up the definition of the word in order to insult me. I consider that a compliment.

"I wonder how many women would stop IMMEDIATELY if they were on top?"

The majority of women will stop IMMEDIATELY if their partners ask them too. It's not that hard to do. However, most women aren't going to have the upper body strength to hold a man down until she finishes having sex after he tells her to stop because he is in pain. I think that one post said 50% of men said they would commit rape if they could get away with it. I've read that same statistic when I was a volunteer on the sexual assault hotline. I really doubt 50% of women are going to say the same thing.

As a Maryland resident, literally every person I know has said, "Freaking finally. And it's embarrassing it took an appeals court to label rape as rape."

And then there's Bill O'Reilly hyping tonight's episode of his TV show: "A shocking ruling from Maryland's highest court says a man can be charged with rape during consensual sex!"

"Shocking," even. :/

Will someone think of the mens!?

might i add that the MAJORITY of men would stop IMMEDIATELY if on top... not all men are animals and thanks, jabes, for making it out that way.

seriously, jabes and wrongside, y'all are off the chain... if, for whatever reason, your partner (of any gender or orientation) wants you to stop... stop.

what's so fucking hard about understanding that one?

"what's so fucking hard about understanding that one?"

Yeah, I just don't get what's so hard. I mean to me "stop" or "okay" (meaning stop) is a normal part of a healthy relationship. My boyfriend and I say stop when we don't want to be touched anymore because we don't expect each other to read minds. I just don't know why thinking of the other person's needs during sexual activity is a difficult concept to some people.

"We don't have a patriarchal court system. We have classist/racist/sexist one."

Yeah, sexist against women. That's called patriarchy.

"And how does a woman understand female rape victims?"

It's called empathy. You know-walking a mile in someone else's shoes. And not all women do understand (at least until they've been raped themselves). That's why there are female trolls. Anyway, most people-male or female- could understand it if they really wanted to. It's not that hard to figure out.

"Oh I see women as human beings. I see minors as human beings. And I also see defendants as human beings."

No, I don't think you do see women as human beings especially if they are victims. You see minors and defendants as human beings only when they are male and committing rape.

"I wasn't pissed off until your last posting."

Good. Mission accomplished. Thanks for admitting it.

"might i add that the MAJORITY of men would stop IMMEDIATELY if on top... not all men are animals and thanks, jabes, for making it out that way."

Puckalish, you're right, most men will, but unfortunately, it's men like wrongsides who give those men a bad name.

She's asking you to imagine yourself being threatened with rape by men because, on a basic level, women are told to always be on guard, while men are taught that they are, essentially, safe (though their property, like women's, may be stolen).

Basically, women have to live with the expectation that certain behaviors, certain occupations, even being out alone at night are unsafe and unwise considering the rape threat. It doesn't occur to a man that he could be raped unless he is in a situation where it is clearly in front of him, as in the prison scenario.

Basically, she's asking you to develop empathy.

Per Virago:
I think that one post said 50% of men said they would commit rape if they could get away with it. I've read that same statistic when I was a volunteer on the sexual assault hotline. I really doubt 50% of women are going to say the same thing.
----------------------------
What literature claims that 50% of men surveyed anonymously admitted they would rape if they could get away with it? That statistic seems beyond belief. I don't believe it, I would bank that it's not true. Most likely it's a made up number like the superbowl DV hoax, or the 100,000 female deaths per year from anorexia hoax.

I don't really care for the concept that men have to be threatened with male on male rape to understand the woman's point of view. Why wouldn't you think that men could sympathize or want to help a woman who had been raped. That's a pretty BS stereotype that men have no empathy. It's just as unacceptable as men having stereotypes that women can't do engineering, or be a soldier.

Also Vodalus opined:
Which brings me to Jabes1966. Given the disgustingly low conviction rate of rapists in the UK, even in clear cases of brutal sexual violence, I doubt that many loving husbands will be convicted over a simple miscommunication about groping. What that law does do is contribute further to the body of laws recognizing a woman's sexual autonomy.
--------------------------
A) Well, if that (portion of the) new law is so great, why doesn't it cut both ways? Why can't a man prosecute a woman if she's touching him intimately and he doesn't like it? Because sex is a gift women give to men? If a man is being touched by a woman, he MUST be enjoying it?
Also, if the conviction rate is low there are 12 jurors who heard much more of the case then you. And prosecutors typically make a point to stack the deck (on juries) with many woman so there will be an over-supply of "empathy" (since men don't have it apparently). If the 12 jurors didn't convict what makes you so sure justice was flawed? Women's intuition?

Guess I never had a B) point. lol

I wondered about that last week. How is it possible to get these unanimous guilty or not guilty verdicts from mixed juries? (Mixed ethnicity, mixed gender, mixed class, whatever) Do they know something so earth shaking that the divided public is completely unaware of? Is there such blatant intimidation in the jury room that the public is also unaware of (and does not come out in post trial interviews with jurors)? I have not heard stories of misogyny from within the jury room.

Jabes1966: What literature claims that 50% of men surveyed anonymously admitted they would rape if they could get away with it? That statistic seems beyond belief. I don't believe it, I would bank that it's not true. Most likely it's a made up number

The usual point isn't so much that men would be rapists if they thought they could get away with it, but rather that behaviour they consider acceptable actually qualifies as rape.

In any case, I think the source of the 50% statistic may be studies done by Goodchilds and Zellman in the late 70s and early 80s. I haven't been able to access the original studies but here are two examples of data cited to them online:

"In a study of 432 males and females aged between 14 and 18 years, 79% (mostly male) of those interviewed believed it was acceptable "for a guy to hold a girl down and force her to have sexual intercourse" in at least one of those nine circumstances: (1)"He spends a lot of money on her"; (2) "He's so turned on he can't stop"; (3) "She is stoned or drunk"; (4) "She has had sexual intercourse with other guys"; (5) "She lets him touch her above the waist"; (6)"She says she's going to have sex with him and then changes her mind"; (7) "They have dated a long time"; (8) "She's led him on"; and (9) "She gets him sexually excited".Of the remaining 21% who replied that no circumstances would justify such behavior, two thirds were female."

"Half of the 432 high school males interviewed in another study believed it was acceptable "for a guy to hold a girl down and force her to have sexual intercourse" in situations such as when "she gets him sexually excited" or "she says she's going to have sex with him and then changes her mind"

The exact results of their studies seem to have been blurred by time and the internet, but perhaps someone with academic library access can find the original data.

Jabes1966:

A recent survey on date rape showed that 60% of Canadian college-aged males indicated that they would commit sexual assault if they were certain they would not get caught. (Helen Lenskyj, "An Analysis of Violence Against Women: A Manual for Educators and Administrators," Toronto: Ontario Institute for Studies in Education, 1992)

There have been other statistics done that have different numbers, but the point is the same, an alarmingly high number of men said that they would sexually assault a woman if they could get away with it.

"That's a pretty BS stereotype that men have no empathy."

I told one guy-wrongsides- that he isn't capable of empathy, and all of a sudden it blows up into a stereotype about men not having empathy. I believe I said, and I quote myself:

"Anyway, most people-male or female- could understand it if they really wanted to. It's not that hard to figure out."

For god's sake, you and wrongsides need to get a fucking clue.

http://sa.rochester.edu/masa/whatmen.php

Men have no empathy? Here's a website, "Men Against Sexual Assault at The University of rochester"

Virago:

"Puckalish, you're right, most men will (Stop)..."

"A recent survey on date rape showed that 60% of Canadian college-aged males indicated that they would commit sexual assault..."

It's not possible to have it both ways. Which one is it?

iqonefiftynine:
"It's not possible to have it both ways. Which one is it?"

I said upthread:
"There have been other statistics done that have different numbers, but the point is the same, an alarmingly high number of men said that they would sexually assault a woman if they could get away with it. "

I do think most men would stop just as I think that most men are capable of empathy. But in one study, for 60% of men to say they would assault a woman if they could get away with it is a huge number of men. In another study, it was 57% of men, Rhowan up post said half of male high school students surveyed thought it was okay. In another study, 33% of the men surveyed said they would. In different populations of men, it was between 33-60% that said they would assault a woman. It's not like they did a study and only 2% of the men said they would or whatever. The numbers are pretty damn high anyway you look at it, and that's why sexual assault of women is such a problem. I quoted that statistic in response to Jabes1966 because he asked for it. And that was in response to some ridiculous question about how many women would stop during intercourse compared to men. There aren't a bunch of surveys talking about 33-60% of women saying they would sexually assault a man if they could get away with it. It's the men who make up these statistics who are the problem.

Well, I will comment that those studies said sexual assault not rape. I'm sure there are more men out there who sexually assault than rape (assuming they are defining sexual assault more broadly than rape). Some men might figure since it's not sex, it's okay and probably feel like they are "testing limits" rather than doing sexual assault. As a tangent, I heard a guy tell a story about how a woman in Thailand kept not letting him touch her below the waist and eventually he did (sexual assault!) and found out she used to be a man. He seemed to see nothing wrong with going against her desires but it was hard to imagine this guy raping a girl. But who knows. It's quite scary the attitudes some men have, that their desire to touch what they want overrides the woman's desire to not be touched. As if they assume they can just change her mind about what she wants or something if they keep trying. Apparently the "no touching" rule they taught us in grade school never sinks into some people's minds.

"As a tangent, I heard a guy tell a story about how a woman in Thailand kept not letting him touch her below the waist and eventually he did (sexual assault!) and found out she used to be a man. He seemed to see nothing wrong with going against her desires but it was hard to imagine this guy raping a girl."

Thailand is known for it's trafficking of underage girls. What do you think this guy was doing there?

lyndorr said:
"Well, I will comment that those studies said sexual assault not rape"

rhowan said:
"Half of the 432 high school males interviewed in another study believed it was acceptable "for a guy to hold a girl down and force her to have sexual intercourse"

Not all the studies.

"The majority of women will stop IMMEDIATELY if their
partners ask them too. It's not that hard to do."

Hmmm. Not in my experience. Most women can't complete a handjob without too much wrist motion at the end. But it's not like something worth me calling the police for. I think there's a big difference between discomfort and trauma even if she didn't stop on a dime.

Ultimately, I don't think there's a way of ceasing anything "Immediately". If an arm can't, a whole body sure won't.

I think lyndoor is right about those surveys. The wording distorts the results. I'm sure if a group of women were asked if they had ever been a prostitute you'd get a different answer than if you asked them if they had ever used sexuality to manipulate a situation.

Okay, let's break this down.
Rhowan said:
"In a study of 432 males and females aged between 14 and 18 years, 79% (MOSTLY MALE) of those interviewed believed it was acceptable "for a guy to hold a girl down and force her to have sexual intercourse" in at least one of those nine circumstances:.........
--------------------------
HOW mostly? Was it only 51% of the 79% who answered yes were male or 89% were male? Mostly isn't exactly an equation you could land on the moon with know what I mean Vern?
Does this mean WOMEN answered yes to this question? Oh my stars and garters! That CAN'T be.
If we assume half of the 432 were men =216. That's not a very statistically significant sample. Also, I would like an actual weblink to determine methodology, rather than quotations. The researcher could have asked the question in a leading way, ESPECIALLY if a significant portion of women ALSO answered yes. With all the hooplah on TV in the last 30years (targeted SPECIFICALLY at women on women's cable tv shows/networks) that "no means no" if a single woman answered yes out of 216 I call bull-shit. The researcher was "fixing" the study to show what he wanted.

Ever since I read about how the AAUW included teachers disciplining boys as evidence of "teachers calling on boys more" in their advocacy research report "Short Change Girls, Short Change America" I have really come to have very little faith in most feminist studies. I would like to read the weblinks myself. It's not that I don't believe you-well okay I don't believe you.

These are small studies done on adolescents who are still trying figure out what sex is all about. 90% of these guys who answered yes to this question had probably never even touched a booby. Not to mention their youth would make them particularly malleable to manipulation.

And in the 2nd part about the 60% Canadian males answering yes, you don't even name a study. You just name an author.
I searched for about 20 minutes. I found quite a few websites regurgitating this all saying "some study by Lenskyj"
I found her/his first initials it's H.J. Lenskyj here:
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=H.+J.+Lenskyj&btnG=Google+Search
But I can't find no hide nor hair of this "some study". Hey! You can claim anything you want but (having the inside track of how feminist researchers arrive at a conclusion and work backwards) I'm not going to believe two Barely named 200 male('s surveyed) studies of dubious merit.

Virago stated:
I told one guy-wrongsides- that he isn't capable of empathy, and all of a sudden it blows up into a stereotype about men not having empathy. I believe I said, and I quote myself:
---------------------------
Virago I remember it as you saying the only way to get "men" (not wrongside) to empathize with rape victims was to approach it from a stand point of male rape.
Correct me if I'm wrong.

As far as I'm concerned rape is wrong, always has been wrong, all non-dysfunctional people agree with this, and rape has always been punished harshly and prosecuted aggressively (Mike Nifong?).

Jabes1966:

Do you even know what empathy is? It's puting yourself in another person's place. How would you feel if you're being raped? It wouldn't be too much a stretch of the imagination to know how a woman would feel. Most men are raped by other men. I said most people-male or female- are capable of understanding IF THEY WANT TO. You have to put yourself in the victim's place even if it's just in a hypothetical situation. That is what I was getting at. That's how a person empathizes with another. And wrongsides couldn't do this. And apparently neither can you. That's a far cry from saying that I said men have no empathy.
You apparently didn't read all of Rhowan's post because she brought up two different studies. Your quoting from the first one.
As for the studies, I don't know where your looking.

http://catholicwriter.wordpress.com/2007/12/06/if-you-could-rape-a-woman-without-getting-caught-would-you/

As for my site about the canadian study:
(Helen Lenskyj, "An Analysis of Violence Against Women: A Manual for Educators and Administrators," Toronto: Ontario Institute for Studies in Education, 1992)
It lists the name of the manual, and who put it out.
There are other studies, but you do your own homework. If your not looking in the right place, that's on you.It's not surprising that you don't have any faith in so-called feminist studies because men like you think that all women are liars anyway. But unlike your stereotyping women as liars, I actually believe what the men are saying in the surveys.

This ruling is a travesty. It stands common sense on its head. For instance, the suggestion that Baby's "I don't want to rape you" means that he in fact WANTED to rape her is asinine. If, indeed, it was a subtle threat, a la "an offer you can't refuse", then he wouldn't have stopped raping her after 5 seconds. The fact of the matter is, he asked her consent, made clear that he DIDN'T want to rape her, and she agreed. When she withdrew consent he stopped after about 5 seconds. No one suggests that a woman can't withdraw consent. The inanity here is that a 15 year old might be imprisoned 18 years for just 5 seconds. If he kept having sex for a minute, or if he actually fought her, that would be one thing...but clearly this is a woman who decided to engage in some tawdry acts with 2 BOYS & then, when her conscience got the better of her, decided to hold the boys accountable for her own actions.

That the DA supported her juvenile behavior is the travesty. This so reminds me of the 1900s lynchings of black boys for the audacity of looking at white women.

For instance, the suggestion that Baby's "I don't want to rape you" means that he in fact WANTED to rape her is asinine. If, indeed, it was a subtle threat, a la "an offer you can't refuse", then he wouldn't have stopped raping her after 5 seconds.

He told her that right after he had just helped his friend rape her. Many of us would take that as, "I don't want to rape you, but I will if I have to." The entire situation was such that any action she took was in order to survive with the least harm. That is not consent.

The inanity here is that a 15 year old might be imprisoned 18 years for just 5 seconds.

Well, the 5 seconds plus the time it took him and his friend to take her out to a place she couldn't get away from, the time it took them to hold her down and rape her in the first place, and the second rape which wasn't true consent to begin with.

If he kept having sex for a minute, or if he actually fought her, that would be one thing...

Oh, a minute is too long? How about 45 seconds? 30? Where is this magical cut off time so that it could be written into the law? "A person is allowed to keep having sexual intercourse with someone against that person's express will for 30 seconds." *rolls eyes* The magical cut off time is when a woman says NO.

And if he fought her, I would fully be in favor of adding battery charges against him (another 5 years on top of the 18 he might get).

Furthermore, we don't determine punishments in direct correlation with the amount of time that it took to commit the act. It takes a split second to pull a trigger to end someone's life. So some people are sentenced to life (or even death) for "just" .01 seconds. So that argument doesn't hold up.

but clearly this is a woman who decided to engage in some tawdry acts with 2 BOYS & then, when her conscience got the better of her, decided to hold the boys accountable for her own actions.

Yeah, it's so "clear" that courts systems which routinely fail to provide justice to survivors of sexual assault unanimously supported this decision.

This so reminds me of the 1900s lynchings of black boys for the audacity of looking at white women.

If there is a racial component here, I'm not aware of it.

In fact, I would say that people's ability to continue to have sexual intercourse with someone once consent has been revoked is similar to attitudes in the Jim Crowe South. It is a way to humiliate, degrade, and physically harm a person based on that person's biology. So this ruling is more akin to legal actions that try to stem systemic biases within the courtroom.

ellestar,

"If there is a racial component here, I'm not aware of it."

OMG! What planet are you from? There is a huge racial component to the justice system in America and in Maryland and this case is not an exception. Even more so, the history of defining “rape� in ways so that it can be used as a political rope is well documented. The rich have done it with “rape = property�. The Klan has done it with “rape = interracial sex� Feminists attempted it with “rape = all sex� and now the posters on this forum are trying to do it. They write “Stop Immediately�, “Stop Immediately�, or in other words “rape=male disobedience� This endeavor is not new. The book was titled� Against our will� not “Don’t hurt us�.

The sad fact is that through this trial the reactionary non-profit legal hacks found some young black male necks on which they could make a point. It is sickening that this has become Modus operandi for these people. I pray that one day somebody… anybody… will actually create a law about trauma and violence without framing it inside a Machiavellian political term. I don’t see that happening anytime soon and so until then this is just the latest local case that has became a national feminist lynching. Justice is the opposite of vested interest.

"The sad fact is that through this trial the reactionary non-profit legal hacks found some young black male necks on which they could make a point."

WTF? One boy pinned her down by sitting on her chest and trying to put his penis in her mouth while the other boy was taking off her jeans. The girl told them to STOP. Both of them moved her around so that one boy held her arms down while the other boy penetrated her vaginally and anally. That's rape. Of course, she gave in after that because she was outnumbered. The other boy said he "didn't want to have to rape her". You don't bring rape up in consensual situation. She said she would have sex with the other boy(under duress) if he would stop when she said. She told him to stop because he was hurting her, you fucking moron. In fact, she had lacerations in her vagina and rectum that is consistent with rape.The boy kept going, and she was pushing at his knees trying to get him off of her. You don't push at someone's knees to get them off you in consensual sex. That's rape.What part of this don't you understand? You're I.Q. has to be 59.
I'm judging this by the actions of the two boys,and they raped this girl more than once. I don't give a damn if they were white, black, or something else. THEY RAPED THIS GIRL MORE THAN ONCE. Racism is just a fucking smokescreen used by you trolls to distort the facts. If these two black kids were accused of robbing a gas station, you wouldn't give a shit if it was racism or not. If this was a case of a black woman being raped by two white boys, you wouldn't give a shit about the woman (or any woman for that matter). If this was a case of a black woman killing her husband in self-defense, you wouldn't give a shit about the color of the defendant than. As for non-white trolls, if you think this particular case is racism, you can fuck off. Non-white men have the same sense of male entitlement as white men toward women, and it doesn't matter what color the woman is either. Men of all races think that they should be able to rape or beat up women without being held responsible for their actions. In the case of non-white trolls, you want to hide behind the race card. It's pretty fucking sad when men of all races only find equality through mysogany.

What planet are you from? There is a huge racial component to the justice system in America and in Maryland and this case is not an exception.

My comment earlier was regarding the races of the people involved. I hadn't seen any pictures or read any mentions of race in this case. And yes, I know how pervasive racism is in the American judicial system. I also know how misogynist it is in cases of sexual assault and domestic violence.

The statistics show that most sexual assault is intraracial. Studies using sexual assault cases as vignettes show that white victims generally are more sympathized with than are black victims. However, since most of the time the women that are accusing black men of sexual assault are also black, the racism and misogyny of the criminal justice system hurt black women the most. This ruling should be applied both to white victims of sexual assault women of color who experienced sexual assault as well. Whether it will be applied the same remains to be seen.

However, the answer to racism in the criminal justice system is not taking power and voice away from women when they are already at a disadvantage in cases of sexual assault because that will not solve the problem that women of color face within the courts.