Illinois' new rape law

Dionysus · #1 07-31-2003, 11:07 AM

Illinois has recently passed a law against rape after penetration. The law states that a person during sexual intercourse is being raped if s/he says they would want to stop having sex and the other person does not stop.

http://www.suburbanchicagonews.com/c...ty/e29rape.htm

What do you think about this?

KappaKittyCat · #2 07-31-2003, 11:12 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Dionysus
Illinois has recently passed a law against rape after penetration. The law states that a person during sexual intercourse is being raped if s/he says they would want to stop having sex and the other person does not stop.

What do you think about this?

Wow. I really don't know what to think. I guess if a person says, "No, stop, get off me," then that means "No, stop, get off me." It's kind of a no-brainer.

AXPGoBot · #3 07-31-2003, 11:16 AM

So wait... if that's just a law now... how did it work before...

If the girl said yes initially, but then changed her mind halfway through and the guy didn't stop it was ok?

I can't imagine a judge looking at a case like that in court and saying, "well, sorry honey, you should've said no to begin with. You can't just change your mind in the middle, that's not fair, that's cheating! Finish what you started, dear. Better luck next time. Next case."

Yeah, this law should definitely be filed under the "no shit" section.

smiley21 · #4 07-31-2003, 11:20 AM

that is rough. if the supposed victim doesnt say no to sex until after penetration, i dont think it should be considered as rape. that leads the supposed rapist (for lack of a better term) into the situation under false terms. the victim's wishes should be respected. but to call the other one a rapist doesnt seem fair. it still is wrong to keep having sex after the no has been said. i think that should be under a different category other than rape. maybe sexual assault, if the victim is physically fighting for the sex to stop. although the two terms are ALMOST the same thing. that is a tough one.
america still needs to work on the current rape law instead of making it more complicated.

i find the whole justice system nausiating

Dionysus · #5 07-31-2003, 11:34 AM

Yeah I agree w/ KappaKittyKat, rape or not, you're in the wrong if someone tells you to stop doing something and you continue. I'll have to agree w/ smiley about the sexual assult instead of rape...I think this kind of undermine the traditional rape victims who NEVER AGREED to have sex in the first place.

AXPGoBot · #6 07-31-2003, 11:36 AM

Also what I think is f'ed up is this:

If a guy's at a party, hanging out, having a few drinks, enjoying himself, and this girl there that he sorta knows is obviously drunk, and keeps heavily flirting with him all night. The talk a bit, dance a bit, that sort of thing, and at some point she offers him to come back to her place. They end up having sex, the whole while neither one of them gives any indiciation that this isn't what they want. The next morning, the girl wakes up and realizes what she's done and regrets it. Maybe she had a boyfriend, maybe it was her first time, maybe she didn't want to do that with someone who was just her friend, whatever. Point being, even though she never said "no" she can take him to court, sue for rape and probably win, based on the fact that legally "a woman cannot give consent while under the influence of alochol." Now granted, maybe the guy should've used better judgement in not taking advantage of the girl, but if she was all over him, and he was attrated to her, and maybe had a few drinks himself and was facing impared judgement, it's really not that horrible an act when you think about it like that.

This really burns me up, it "almost" happened to a friend of mine and the situation was just horrible. Here was this guy who was just basically, well, being a guy! And almost had to be charged as a sex offender, and have that follow him for the rest of his life. I think that's kinda f'ed up just because some dumb chick was too irresponsible to control her own actions, now the guy has to suffer for it. Dont' get me wrong, rape is a horrible tragedy, and there's nothing I hate more than someone who could do that to a girl, it's just horrible. But in this case the guy can be the victim too by people who take advantage of the law.

Thoughts on this?

docetboy · #7 07-31-2003, 11:40 AM

Who's going to judge this??? This is just going to pit the two more against eachother in the courtroom, and I can see cases now debating it....

sugar and spice · #8 07-31-2003, 03:09 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by AXPGoBot
Also what I think is f'ed up is this:

If a guy's at a party, hanging out, having a few drinks, enjoying himself, and this girl there that he sorta knows is obviously drunk, and keeps heavily flirting with him all night. The talk a bit, dance a bit, that sort of thing, and at some point she offers him to come back to her place. They end up having sex, the whole while neither one of them gives any indiciation that this isn't what they want. The next morning, the girl wakes up and realizes what she's done and regrets it. Maybe she had a boyfriend, maybe it was her first time, maybe she didn't want to do that with someone who was just her friend, whatever. Point being, even though she never said "no" she can take him to court, sue for rape and probably win, based on the fact that legally "a woman cannot give consent while under the influence of alochol." Now granted, maybe the guy should've used better judgement in not taking advantage of the girl, but if she was all over him, and he was attrated to her, and maybe had a few drinks himself and was facing impared judgement, it's really not that horrible an act when you think about it like that.

This really burns me up, it "almost" happened to a friend of mine and the situation was just horrible. Here was this guy who was just basically, well, being a guy! And almost had to be charged as a sex offender, and have that follow him for the rest of his life. I think that's kinda f'ed up just because some dumb chick was too irresponsible to control her own actions, now the guy has to suffer for it. Dont' get me wrong, rape is a horrible tragedy, and there's nothing I hate more than someone who could do that to a girl, it's just horrible. But in this case the guy can be the victim too by people who take advantage of the law.

Thoughts on this?

But in that case, the girl is abusing the system -- it's not a failure on the part of the system itself.

Plus, in many states that's not considered rape. Rape laws differ from place to place, of course, but in most states I believe a girl has to be unconscious or semi-unconscious from too much alcohol (or whatever -- in other words, unable to legally give consent), and not just intoxicated, in order to file a rape charge.

The thing is, these days you need to be really, really careful when it comes to drunken hookups because you don't know if the other person is going to feel violated when one or the other of you is really too drunk to grasp the full ramifications of what's going on. That's why I think it's a bad idea to have drunk hookups in the first place -- it's too risky.

And I agree that if she says "I don't want to have sex anymore" and he continues to have sex, that's sexual assault at the very least, and I don't see how it could be considered anything but.

enlightenment06 · #9 07-31-2003, 04:01 PM

I think the law is a good one. I'm kind of surprised it wasn't already an understood part of the law- if the woman changes her mind she changed her mind. However I do think there should be strict scrutiny (is that the right term?) with law. My point is this: if a man and a woman are having consensual sex, and the woman changes her mind and asks to stop, if he keeps going for a few strokes is that then rape? In my opinion there should be some signs of malice or some other kind of substantial evidence.

As far as alchohol goes, I personally try avoid drunken hook-ups (or under the influence of anything else). Sure when you get drunk you get horny, but you gotta check that. Err on the side of caution.

DZHBrown · #10 07-31-2003, 04:55 PM

If a woman says no at any point in time, even after intercourse has started, it means no, it means stop. If he doesn't respect that, then yeah, he should be charged. As for leading him into the situation under false pretenses, someone could claim that if the two people were making out and she didn't want to go farther.

IheartMATT806 · #11 07-31-2003, 05:12 PM

I totally disagree with this new law. This just gives people more opportunites to turn this around in a negative way. I am in no way saying that the person who was told 'NO" is not in the wrong because by all means he/she is BUT what I am trying to say is that too many times the word "RAPE" is tossed around when it shouldnt have been due to the circumstances. I think if you are willing to start something then why in the world would you say "NO" as if you had time to think about it. If no one was forced in the first place then why turn it all around?

AXPGoBot · #12 08-01-2003, 07:59 AM

I agree w/ IHeartMATT, I believe that there are a lot of people out there that do take advantage of this law. If a rape is actually a "rape" (in other words, it has been done violently, or unwillingly to the women to the point where it is traumatic for her), it's usually fairly easy to identify/prosecute. It sounds to me like this new law is not something that someone would've gotten away with before its exsistance. However, by now explicitly stating it, I think it's going to create a lot of unfair entrapment (is that the right use of the word?). Let's face it, the court system is INCREDIBLY biased in favor of women in rape victims. And in most cases, they should be. Rape is such a horrible crime, and in some cases, can be worse than murder. But if all a woman has to do is have sex with someone and then change her mind midway through, who's to say that the guy didn't stop right away? What if he did, but she says he didn't, or what if she never even said "stop" but claimed she did? There are some really sick chicks out there that will take advantage of this, and for that reason, I feel it's wrong. Rape is something not taken lightly, and anyone truly guilty of this crime gets what they deserve 99.9% of the time already. Stricter laws are both unnecessary for this reason, as well as promote abuse of the system.

GoBot has spoken...

kappaloo · #13 08-01-2003, 01:48 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by AXPGoBot
I agree w/ IHeartMATT, I believe that there are a lot of people out there that do take advantage of this law. If a rape is actually a "rape" (in other words, it has been done violently, or unwillingly to the women to the point where it is traumatic for her), it's usually fairly easy to identify/prosecute. It sounds to me like this new law is not something that someone would've gotten away with before its exsistance. However, by now explicitly stating it, I think it's going to create a lot of unfair entrapment (is that the right use of the word?). Let's face it, the court system is INCREDIBLY biased in favor of women in rape victims. And in most cases, they should be. Rape is such a horrible crime, and in some cases, can be worse than murder. But if all a woman has to do is have sex with someone and then change her mind midway through, who's to say that the guy didn't stop right away? What if he did, but she says he didn't, or what if she never even said "stop" but claimed she did? There are some really sick chicks out there that will take advantage of this, and for that reason, I feel it's wrong. Rape is something not taken lightly, and anyone truly guilty of this crime gets what they deserve 99.9% of the time already. Stricter laws are both unnecessary for this reason, as well as promote abuse of the system.

GoBot has spoken...

There will always be liars. It's like saying that if a girl who goes to a guys bedroom has agreed to sex - because who knows what she said or he said.

If I said no mid-way through sex and the guy ignored me and kept on going - that would be tramatic and violent. To force yourself on another at ANY point can be tramatic.

Now, that said, I don't know if there really needed to be a law about this. Should previous laws cover this??? When someone (yes, any one) says NO you STOP. No questions...

Lady Pi Phi · #14 08-01-2003, 02:04 PM

"SPRINGFIELD — "No" always means no, even when someone says it during the middle of consensual sex, according to a new state law.

The law clarifies the issue of consent by spelling out that people can change their minds even while having sex. If someone says "no," the other person must stop or it becomes rape."

I'm a little confused. I was always under the assumption that NO ALWAYS meant NO. Apparently I was wrong

. I guess it's glad that there's a new law then.

Lady Pi Phi · #15 08-01-2003, 02:08 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by AXPGoBot
Also what I think is f'ed up is this:

If a guy's at a party, hanging out, having a few drinks, enjoying himself, and this girl there that he sorta knows is obviously drunk, and keeps heavily flirting with him all night. The talk a bit, dance a bit, that sort of thing, and at some point she offers him to come back to her place. They end up having sex, the whole while neither one of them gives any indiciation that this isn't what they want. The next morning, the girl wakes up and realizes what she's done and regrets it. Maybe she had a boyfriend, maybe it was her first time, maybe she didn't want to do that with someone who was just her friend, whatever. Point being, even though she never said "no" she can take him to court, sue for rape and probably win, based on the fact that legally "a woman cannot give consent while under the influence of alochol." Now granted, maybe the guy should've used better judgement in not taking advantage of the girl, but if she was all over him, and he was attrated to her, and maybe had a few drinks himself and was facing impared judgement, it's really not that horrible an act when you think about it like that.

Well if a woman cannot legally give consent when she is intoxicated, then neither can a man. Why doesn't this man file charges himself, saying that he was also raped.

ETA: I have more to say, and I don't want to make another post.

Anyhoo, whatever you want to call it, whether it be Rape or Sexual Assult, it's wrong. And it can happen to both men and women. I just think that this is a given. If at any time someone says no, you stop. The person who asked for it to stop, just might want to take a break or re-evaluate their decision. It may be after this 5 minutes that sex will continue. I just don't understand why this is a difficult concept for some people to grasp (not directed to anyone on this board-just a general comment), it's like when sex education teached you about good touch/bad touch. NO ALWAYS means NO.

Also, I read about this in my human sexuality class, but there is a school where(I want to say in Ohio but I'm not sure) that has made it law/rule (again not sure) that when a couple is being intimate they must ask permission before they do anything, and everything, just to be clear that consent was given. ie. "Can I kiss you? Can I touch you here? Can we have sex now? etc, etc. It sure puts a damper on things, but obviously this is what it has come to.

I don't know if my post made any sense, but I hope some of you understood what I was saying.