Latest Breaking News

CTyankee

(67,984 posts)

33. This happened to a friend of mine (years ago)...she initially wanted to have sex with

Fri Aug 29, 2014, 02:33 PM

Aug 2014

a man whom she knew socially and trusted. However, he was into "rough sex" and began to hurt her. She asked him to stop. But since she had initially consented he felt he could just continue. The next day she went to a doctor who asked her "who did this to you?"

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

57 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

California Legislature passes ‘yes means yes’ bill [View all] DonViejo Aug 2014 OP

So....is anything different? n/t Calista241 Aug 2014 #1

Did you read the full article or just the excerpt, above? DonViejo Aug 2014 #2

Yeah, it says you need an affirmative response before getting down to business. Calista241 Aug 2014 #4

What is different is passiveporcupine Aug 2014 #13

It's already been illegal to have sex someone intoxicated or unconcious davidn3600 Aug 2014 #14

So basically, it's "unless she actually says 'yes', you have to assume it's 'no'" Fortinbras Armstrong Aug 2014 #20

or any of the variants Niceguy1 Aug 2014 #23

exactly passiveporcupine Aug 2014 #34

I guess thee are fucked up people out there. Calista241 Aug 2014 #30

California state legislators now feel good, like they've done something about a problem. hughee99 Aug 2014 #29

Mahalo Don Cha Aug 2014 #3

If “an affirmative, unambiguous and conscious decision” by each party to engage in sexual activity. kelly1mm Aug 2014 #5

It doesn't say "stone cold sober" it says affirmative, unambiguous and conscious nt geek tragedy Aug 2014 #6

True - but I used the word intoxicated - so lets use the .08 alcohol limit for driving. kelly1mm Aug 2014 #7

Good thing this law isn't designed to come between you and your wife. Regrell Aug 2014 #8

I was trying to suggest a definable objective limit. I proposed .08 as that is common kelly1mm Aug 2014 #10

drunk sex can be awesome! Niceguy1 Aug 2014 #25

good point! n/t librechik Aug 2014 #22

A couple could easily be guilty of raping each other, under this standard. Nye Bevan Aug 2014 #31

That was my reading of the standard as well. You stated it better than I did! Thanks! nt kelly1mm Aug 2014 #32

States differ somewhat in their standard but intoxication has always mattered. Unvanguard Aug 2014 #42

Creepily sounds like "a girl can't change her mind" law. truthisfreedom Aug 2014 #9

You have a good point jamzrockz Aug 2014 #16

This happened to a friend of mine (years ago)...she initially wanted to have sex with CTyankee Aug 2014 #33

No means no at any time in the process lululu Aug 2014 #40

As I read further I found that out, to my relief... CTyankee Aug 2014 #44

It's not. The bill is explicit on that point. Unvanguard Aug 2014 #43

Government in the bedroom. Psephos Aug 2014 #11

it's not progressive to prosecute rape? mopinko Aug 2014 #18

Precisely Fortinbras Armstrong Aug 2014 #21

verbal consent is still not necessary in every encounter passiveporcupine Aug 2014 #35

OK, let me restate Fortinbras Armstrong Aug 2014 #38

Yes, you are correct, and passiveporcupine Aug 2014 #39

It's not, but preventing rape is. LanternWaste Aug 2014 #27

And since when is rape defined as "sexual relations"? /nt demwing Aug 2014 #45

Since when did you conflate rape being ok and govt. in the bedroom? Psephos Aug 2014 #48

Government regulates criminal activity, some criminal activity happens "in the bedroom" demwing Sep 2014 #50

Do you support govt intrusion into whether or not to terminate pregnancy? Psephos Sep 2014 #51

Do you always answer a question with another question? demwing Sep 2014 #52

The sad thing is the irony doesn't seem intentional. n/t Psephos Sep 2014 #53

It's not really ironic, unless I'm falling to the same level demwing Sep 2014 #56

Ok, at this point, I doff my hat to a remarkable Poe. Psephos Sep 2014 #57

I'm sure those who equate abortion with murder will be interested in your theory. Psephos Sep 2014 #54

You're being obtuse demwing Sep 2014 #55

Rape is rape. It is not 'sexual relations'. It is rape lunatica Aug 2014 #46

So young men can develop healthy patterns? Snow Leopard Aug 2014 #12

How about a signed and notorized contract for each encounter? malthaussen Aug 2014 #15

Or maybe jamzrockz Aug 2014 #17

I absolutely recommend that to college aged kids. AngryAmish Aug 2014 #19

is that supposed to be amusing? mopinko Aug 2014 #24

Not at all jamzrockz Aug 2014 #26

so the asshole cam post it on a revenge site? mopinko Aug 2014 #36

Ok then jamzrockz Aug 2014 #37

As we've seen a lot with cops lately, this is a logical next step. Psephos Aug 2014 #49

I wonder if you understand the difference between rape and consensual sex lunatica Aug 2014 #47

Sadly, the law isn't as big a win as it's made out to be. Xithras Aug 2014 #28

Good for them. This is the right rule and it should be adopted generally. n/t Unvanguard Aug 2014 #41