Illinois' new rape law

[smiley21]

too much is made out of this. i will be frank for a min. to make up point. i have been in the situation where i told my boyfriend no mid way. he went on for another min or two and then stop. i got mad at him and he apologized and never did it again. do i consider it rape? hardly. his hormones was just going crazy. i do know what it is considered rape. i nearly experienced it with another person.
a girl always has the right to say no whenever she wants. she should feel comfortable. a guy just needs to learn to deal with it. i will repeat what i said before. since the sex was consenual in the begining, i think to call it rape has gone out the window. it should be considered sexual abuse or something. if a guy has a hissy fit for not being able to finish his business. tell him that he go jerk off by himself. sorry to be blunt but you guys know that you were thinking the same thing too.

[James]

This is the link to this sex policy:

http://www.antioch-college.edu/survival/html/sopp.html

Here is the relevant quote:

5. Obtaining consent is an on-going process in any sexual interaction. Verbal consent should be obtained with each new level of physical and/or sexual behavior in any given interaction, regardless of who initiates it. Asking "Do you want to have sex with me?" is not enough. The request for consent must be specific to each act.

[valkyrie]

5. Obtaining consent is an on-going process in any sexual interaction. Verbal consent should be obtained with each new level of physical and/or sexual behavior in any given interaction, regardless of who initiates it. Asking "Do you want to have sex with me?" is not enough. The request for consent must be specific to each act.

I'm sorry, but that is the stupidist thing I've ever heard in my life.

[Lady Pi Phi]

Originally posted by James
This is the link to this sex policy:

http://www.antioch-college.edu/survival/html/sopp.html

Thanks James for posting that. That's what I was talking about.

[sugar and spice]

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...

I don't think you understand the psychology of rape. It doesn't have to be violent to be traumatic. If sex is done against a woman's will, it is almost always going to be traumatic on some level.

Furthermore, the law is not always extremely biased in favor of the woman's viewpoint in rape cases. It's true that in some cases the woman's viewpoint is held in much higher regard than the man's -- but you only have to check out, say, the Kobe Bryant case to see an example of when it isn't. For example, any rape allegations where the victim has an "unstable" background -- previous suicide attempts, lots of therapy, anti-depressant/anxiety drugs -- any of those will immediately and substantially decrease her chances at getting her rapist convicted. The same goes for women who work in sex industries (porn/stripping), wear "slutty" clothing, had previously had sex with the rapist or even were just flirting with him . . .

In short, rape cases are probably some of the easiest to screw up for either a legitimate victim or an innocent alleged rapist, simply because of their nature. I think stricter laws are extremely necessary to protect both sides, given the history of rape cases in this country.

The point is that there are ALWAYS going to be women who lie about rape, and if so, they don't need this new law to help them lie about it. They could just say "He raped me" instead of saying "I told him to stop and he didn't." So I don't see how this law would be more likely to lead to convictions of innocent men.