Comments on: The Illinois law doesn’t mean that it’s rape if he doesn’t stop “instantly”

By: Hestia

Hestia — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 00:00:00 +0000

Ampersand, thanks for the writing you’ve done on this topic. I always appreciate your commentary.

By: Big Tex

Big Tex — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 00:00:00 +0000

Doesn’t even consensual sex usually involve the application of a certain amount of force? The “caveat” is meaningless.

By: PG

PG — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 00:00:00 +0000

Um, Big Tex, not to inquire into your sex life, but consensual sex “usually involve[s] the application of a certain amount of force” only in the sense that, say, pushing a child in a swing involves the application of a certain amount of force.
Normally, you push just enough to make the kid move forward in the swing. If you push hard enough to make the kid lose his grip on the seat, fly forward a few feet and hit the ground, his parents might legitimately accuse you of assault.

By: Big Tex

Big Tex — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 00:00:00 +0000

The Illinois law doesn’t say that it requires proof of injury. It merely requires the use of force or the threat of use of force. It says nothing about injury whatsoever. The point remains valid - consensual sex requires the use of some degree of force.

By: CL

CL — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 00:00:00 +0000

Not to nitpick, but whether or not the state can convince a judge or jury that “threat of force or violence” was used, the accused can always be accused of rape. They just most likely will not be convicted.

By: bean

bean — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 00:00:00 +0000

Big Tex -- what is it that you don't understand regarding the difference between consensual/i> and non-consensual?

By: Big Tex

Big Tex — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 00:00:00 +0000

bean, I understand the difference between consensual and nonconsensual sex just fine. However, not all nonconsensual sex = rape. Some people here apparently believe all nonconsensual sex = rape. It doesn’t. It isn’t that simple. It’s time to recognize that and move on.

By: Dan J

Dan J — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 00:00:00 +0000

Acually yes, all nonconsensual sex does, in fact, equal rape. I’m not certain how exactly it isn’t that simple. Whether it’s codified onto law or not means nothing, though every little bit helps. But to suggest that it’s more complicated than “all nonconsensual sex = rape” is at best disingenuous.

By: Coalition of the Witty

Coalition of the Witty — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 00:00:00 +0000

“Some people here apparently believe all nonconsensual sex = rape. It doesn’t.” –Big Tex

Big Tex is not the only person I’ve heard espouse this particularly ignorant view over the last week–thus proving the necessity of spelling things out for some people.

I actually had a person on a message board arguing that it’s not rape if the person retracting consent doesn’t have a good reason.

By: Tishie

Tishie — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 00:00:00 +0000

Big Tex, if nonconsensual sex does not = rape, then what DOES = rape? I’m not being cute here, I honestly don’t understand how else you would define it.

By: Tishie

Tishie — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 00:00:00 +0000

I live in IDAHO, for chrissakes, and I’ve yet to come across this notion!

Is this like that time when I was about 14 and realized that “mediocre” wasn’t an alternate definition for “leading”? All my life, due to commercials saying, “consumers prefer our soft drink 2 to 1 to the *leading* brand,” and I had it in my head that “leading” was an insulting term in some contexts. Then I realized… OH! LEADING! Like the brand that is in the lead, as in, sells the most!! OH!

Is this like that? All my life, I thought rape was sex without consent, and it’s really something else, like stomping on someone’s toe?

By: jilly

jilly — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 00:00:00 +0000

Big Tex, trials are for sorting out grey areas. I think that’s what you’re talking about - that a woman can say no in a situation but not be clear on what she’s saying no to or not say no but behave as saying no and the guy doesn’t always interpret it correctly.

I have heard guys get very confused as to how women respond in sexual encounters. Some seem to think that when a woman objects to an increase in the intimacy and then later consents, that she was just playing games the first time out. Others get confused about her being willing to do “A” but not “B”. Or is she saying no because “C” is out of the question tonight and she just get to “D”.So they find within the word “no”, a wilderness of possibility. Add to their confusion, partners who are hesitant about asserting themselves and you have some confused men.

A dear man I know once admitted to date rape. I’ve dated him, girlfriends of mine have dated him and a close friend married him. None of us ever knew him to behave inappropriately but he tells this story. In college he was dating a girl who hadn’t dated a lot (we know her and know this to be true). They were fooling around quite a bit but hadn’t had sex. One night they got stoned and got busy. She never said “no”, she simply stopped responding at a fairly late time in the proceedings and lay there rather limply. Because she didn’t say “no” or move to stop him in anyway, he continued. She never spoke to him again and he knows why.

This is what Tex is worried about I think and he’s concerned that perhaps this law makes conviction and imprisonment for a guy like this a slamdunk.

If that’s what you have on your mind, you should relax. There are juries that hear these trials and we all know that there is ambiguity to the word “no”, that it can mean many things depending upon the context and most of us sort it out quite effectively.

I’ve had a pretty fun life and have dated lots and lots of men. The first no doesn’t always take but the second and third must and does. Most people know that intuitively even if they’ve never had reason to form the thought directly in their own heads.