Men Legally Allowed to Finish Sex Even If Woman Revokes Consent, NC Law States

[deleted] · 2017-06-25T01:09:51+00:00

I see nothing wrong with making it illegal to keep having sex with a woman when she doesn't want to.

TRP_Hoplite · 2017-06-25T20:22:17+00:00

I don't see anything really wrong with this bill, but I think the whole article is misleading. MEN (OR WOMEN) ARE NOT LEGALLY ALLOWED TO FINISH even if their sexual partner revokes consent in NC! It's just that the way the old law is written pertaining to consent, a person can't be guilty of rape for not stopping if consent is revoked. They can, and should, be guilty of other crimes if rape is legally not on the table, but the old law as written doesn't allow for a rape conviction under those circumstances.

Now, I know I'm opening myself up to be flamed for this analogy, but it's the only way I can think of to explain the logic (though perhaps faulty or archaic) of the old law: Imagine you invite someone to your house. They become rude or for whatever reason, you decide you want them to leave. If they refuse, can they be charged with breaking & entering? No, but they can be perhaps be charged with criminal trespass if they don't leave in a reasonable amount of time.

The law is probably based on what are now archaic views of rape: that the rape is a crime because it inflicts a physical damage to a woman (or man) by taking them sexually against their will. If they've consented to the sex but changed their mind, the old view was that the damage is not as great as when a woman (or man) refuses to engage in consensual sex with the perpetrator but the perpetrator takes them anyway. (Lack of spousal rape as a crime in history is probably due to similar logic).

I don't see anything wrong with this law, and I think everyone can agree with the spirit of this law. Only issue I see with the law is once it is clear that consent is withdrawn, how long does the person have to stop vaginal intercourse before they are guilty or rape? 1 second? 2 seconds? Say a woman mounts a man and he later decides he doesn't want to have sex anymore and he tells her to stop. How long does she have to dismount before she's guilty of rape? Same thing of course for a man on top of a woman?

5th_Law_of_Robotics · 2017-06-25T12:33:24+00:00

Yikes.

I think college feminists have gone too far with the notion that women can withdraw consent retroactively and it becomes rape. Or that you have to stop literally the instant she stops giving verbal affirmative consent.

But this is way too far in the other direction. If she says stop you need to stop within a normal amount of human reaction time. And the same goes with the genders reversed (although of course in practice that would never be tried as rape).

FatTaker · 2017-06-25T10:15:34+00:00

If sex turns violent, the woman has no right to tell the man he must stop.

How does that follow. If the partner becomes violent in the middle of the act, there is a law against assault and battery. Rape is not the only law in existence against things like that. The Supreme Court even says this:

The state Supreme Court, however, disagreed with the lower court's interpretation of withdrawn consent. "If the actual penetration is accomplished with the woman's consent, the accused is not guilty of rape, although he may be guilty of another crime because of his subsequent actions," the High Court wrote.

andrewisgood · 2017-06-25T02:39:11+00:00

It's getting to the point where if I was to ever travel to North Carolina, I couldn't leave without donating the exact amount of money I spent there to some sort of charity to offset my bigotry footprint.

Ok, so I stole that joke from the Cognitive Dissonance podcast on some of the anti-LGBT legislation there but like what a dumpster fire of a State that is. It's funny. I always see MRAs talk about, oh, American women have it so great, and like, I'm not a fan of the fallacy of relative privation where it's worse somewhere else so your problems don't matter, but my goodness do some women in the States have it bad. I feel like people will go, nuh-uh, they're all pampered and like, if I bought into that argument, I'd only believe it in like, Canada, certain European countries, etc, but not the States.

I guess it's not as bad as some of the atrocities in third world countries, but as far as first world countries go, it's probably the most fucked up in regards to rights of others. I guess this also applies in some States though. It's like the old expression of going from the Penthouse to the Outhouse. California to North Carolina.

-clickhere- · 2017-06-25T16:58:37+00:00

An interesting way to resolve this legally would be to define each 'thrust' as a separate sex act. Or, perhaps, if at any time the penis is withdrawn (such as moving positions, or it slips out, etc), then re-insertion is a separate 'act' that requires it separate consent.

btw, can I also argue the reverse? I remember a news story of a young kid having sex for the first time in the back of a car with his girlfriend, and after she withdrew consent seconds before orgasm he kept going for about 'five seconds' according to her testimony. He got five years in prison. That feels harsh. It was his first time, he didn't really know what he was doing, and was confused. She even testified that her withdrawal of consent wasn't explicit so he might have been confused.

Perhaps we need a little common sense on both sides of this issue.

EliteSpartanRanger · 2017-06-25T19:34:05+00:00

ITT: Great example of how consent classes and teaching men not to rape is important and necessary

prodigy2throw · 2017-06-25T00:53:17+00:00

If you change your mind mid coitus you got issues. Unless the guy informs her he has hiv mid fuck or says something really fucked up

IIHotelYorba · 2017-06-25T14:01:13+00:00

If sex turns violent, the woman has no right to tell the man he must stop.

Well that seems like an outright feminist lie since assault and battery is illegal.

Vice

Oh lol ok. Yeah this is probably all totally fake. Sorry to tell you.

MorpheusGodOfDreams · 2017-06-26T00:06:25+00:00

Pure comedy. Women are reckless with sex with attractive alpha man, end up agreeing without knowing someone, then are suddenly surprised when it gets too rough.

Then they "revoke consent." Basic premise: women cannot negotiate and their "yes" means nothing. They are literally a protected class because they are incompetent at protecting themselves. That is not empowerment and equality, that is absolute weakness.

Reminds me of Roosh's SATIRICAL article questioning the change in women's behavior if rape on private property were legal. But women hate the concept of personal responsibility, so no one even considered the question, they just called him a rape apologist. Typical.

I believe in equality, because I would say the same about a man who agreed to sex with a woman he did not know and ended up handcuffed and the woman did unspeakable things to him.

DopeMeme_Deficiency · 2017-06-25T07:07:48+00:00

Revokes consent? So what, you're balls deep and she says "yeah, I changed my mind. This was okay 5 mins ago, but now it's rape..." Wtf? How does one revoke consent? Don't fuck em if youre nit sure. Jesus H Christ

Electra_Cute · 2017-06-25T01:00:12+00:00

The state Supreme Court, however, disagreed with the lower court's interpretation of withdrawn consent. "If the actual penetration is accomplished with the woman's consent, the accused is not guilty of rape, although he may be guilty of another crime because of his subsequent actions," the High Court wrote.

What other crime could this be?

AutoModerator · 2017-06-25T00:47:50+00:00

Attention!

You can post off topic/jokes/puns as a comment to this Automoderator message.
For "CMV" and "Question for X" Threads: Parent comments that aren't from the target group will be removed, along with their child replies.
If you want to agree with OP instead of challenging their view or if the question is not targeted at you, post it as an answer to this comment.
OP you can choose your own flair according to these guidelines., just press Flair under your post!

Thanks for your cooperation and enjoy the discussion!

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

sublimemongrel · 2017-06-25T01:12:53+00:00

I want to know how they comport this with the whole idea behind consent, which is intent, but I will have to do more research to come to some conclusive answer to this question.

[deleted] · 2017-06-25T04:51:09+00:00

Absurd. You should have the right to your bodies both genders. Now, if you drop consent halfway into and your partner stops immediately that shouldn't be grounds for some sort of instantaneous rape b.s. however, you should have the right to stop having sex whenever you want

rreliable · 2017-06-25T10:33:18+00:00

Well, like everyone, I oppose this interpretation of the law (my understanding is that it's not actually written into the law, but was interpreted by a State supreme court, and their precedent stands until the law is changed by the legislative system).

So, I will now provide a Devil's Advocate argument for the law, prefacing it with the fact that I don't believe in what I'm about to say:

Penetrative sex is an extremely ancient psychological process which is older than conscious thought. People can't consciously order their own hearts to stop beating, they can't stop their digestive tracts from working by will alone: why then, do we assume that the process of copulation is under conscious control?

If a man in the process of sex doesn't stop when asked to, how do you know he could stop? If we allow that there are men who are able to stop the act midway through, how do we know that all men have this capability?

Are there experiments that have been conducted that demonstrate that all men can stop when consent is revoked?

/end of Devil's Advocate argument. Knock off the personal attacks, this is a debate sub, and what-ifs are important to explore.

[deleted] · 2017-06-27T15:27:31+00:00

This will be amusing. It's not like "regret-rape" isn't already a thing everywhere-else though.

grandaddychimp · 2017-07-23T05:22:58+00:00

Women legally allowed to finish sex even if man revokes consent, NC Law States

despisedlove2 · 2017-06-25T03:20:26+00:00

You have to confess that this is common sense. During the act of sex, the man likely has a diminished awareness of his surroundings, and also a reduced ability for sound decision-making. In movies, this is often a setting for his murder.

And then there is the uncomfortable question about rape being the top fantasy for women. A large number of women try to play act during sex. Though I hated it, my ex wife liked to be dominated during doggy style sex, to the point of play rape.

Then there is the reverse question. What do you do about a woman who won't let you pull out as previously agreed?

I think that it is unrealistic to think of consent as something that is an open question after penetration. Granted, if the situation becomes life threatening for some reason, and she defends herself through violence, she shouldn't be held liable.

Title	Men Legally Allowed to Finish Sex Even If Woman Revokes Consent, NC Law States
Author	Atlas_B_Shruggin
Upvotes	11
Comments	213
Date	June 25, 2017 12:47 AM UTC (9 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/PurplePillDebate
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/PurplePillDebate/comments/6jblyi/men_legally_allowed_to_finish_sex_even_if_woman/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/PurplePillDebate/men-legally-allowed-to-finish-sex-even-if-woman.267381 https://theredarchive.com/post/267381

Comments