U.S. Constitution
See other U.S. Constitution Articles
Title: Women can't revoke consent to sex once underway, NC law states
Source:
wbtv
URL Source: http://www.wbtv.com/story/35735579/ ... ex-once-underway-nc-law-states
Published: Jun 23, 2017
Author: Chris Dyches, Digital
Post Date: 2017-06-24 09:07:51 by cranky
Keywords: None
Views: 4752
Comments: 21
You hear the phrase 'no means no' thrown around when it comes to a woman's ability to protect herself from unwanted sexual advances, but in the state of North Carolina - no doesn't always mean no. The Fayetteville Observer recently posted a story about a teenage girl who said she was at a party when a man pulled her into a bathroom to have sex. She initially consented, but told police when the sex turned violent, she told the man to stop. And he didn't. The North Carolina Supreme Court ruled in 1979, in State v. Way, that women cannot revoke consent after sexual intercourse begins. State v. Way (297 N.C. 293) states that if [intercourse begins] with the victim's consent, no rape has occurred though the victim later withdraws consent during the same act of intercourse. A Mecklenburg County Democrat, Jeff Jackson, is looking to get the law changed. “Legislators are hearing more and more about women who have been raped and are being denied justice because of this crazy loophole,” Jackson told the Fayetteville Observer. “North Carolina is the only state in U.S. where no doesn’t mean no.” Jackson introduced Senate Bill 553 in late March, looking to change the bill to make it illegal to continue sex once consent is withdrawn. The politician became concerned about this law when he was a prosecutor. Once he became a state lawmaker, he wanted to change things. "Our office had a case where a woman was raped," Jackson told WBTV during an interview Friday. "But she initially consented to the penetration - but it turned violent. She said stop and what I learned is North Carolina law doesn't protect her under those circumstances. You don't get the right to say stop if sex turns violent." If a person continues after consent is withdrawn, the bill seeks to make it an act of force and against the will of the victim. "It's indefensible," Jackson said. "I have not met a single person who thinks that should be the law." Since the bill was introduced, Jackson remains the only sponsor of the bill. Jackson wants his bill passed before the NC General Assembly session ends in a few days. "I am having conversations with Republicans," the politician said. "And I am saying 'do you have any objections - if so, let's talk about it'." Jackson's office says very few lawmakers are aware of North Carolina's rape law. Representatives from the North Carolina Conference of District Attorneys say the law is still good and add other lawyers call their office to make sure the law is current and are stunned to find out it is. If the bill is to be introduced by the time the session ends, Senate Bill 533 has to be amended. Jackson says he is working on that and is hopeful his bill will be introduced and passed very soon. Jackson's bill is still in the Senate Rules and Operations Committee where it has been since April 3. If the bill moves forward and is passed, the bill looks to become law on December 1.? Copyright 2017 WBTV. All rights reserved.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: cranky (#0)
That figures. Any law that makes sense and holds people responsible for their own actions offends Dims and everything they stand for. In the entire history of the world,the only nations that had to build walls to keep their own citizens from leaving were those with leftist governments.
Perhaps she should learn a little more about about the stranger f**king her before she agrees to sex. Maybe a date or two? If she's going to act like a whore, get used to being treated like one. Get a pimp to protect you if you're that concerned.
Just because someone agrees to sex initially doesn't mean they have agreed to be violently fucked like some farm animal. Consent does not mean consent to be raped violently.
I agree. Why is why you should get to know the person first. You don't allow strangers into your home -- don't allow them between your legs.
Why do you even try? Your opinion is despicable to any decent person. Surely you must know this.
By "any decent person" you're excluding the teen slut who refuses to take personal responsibility for her actions. And when she gets pregnant, I suppose you think we should also take care of her and her spawn? And the one after that? And the one after that? Bleeding-heart liberal.
Agreed on this one. They treat sex like a recreational sport -- the only thing required is safety equipment and permission for access. Buddy up!
Then "your opinion is despicable to any decent person".
Don't cling to me.
With many women, it's always underway.
Consent means it wasn't rape. If it got violent,that is criminal physical assault,not rape. Nobody can have it both ways,not even women. In the entire history of the world,the only nations that had to build walls to keep their own citizens from leaving were those with leftist governments.
In this state, once a woman says 'yes', she can't say 'no' any more. The country has rightly turned away from such notions of consent, well before the current snowflake ask-before-you-touch era. We got rid of such laws decades ago. No one who actually cares about women has any desire to see such laws return. I don't give a shit what some old crackpots on LF have to say about "what life was like in the good ol' days when men were men and women could be fucked like farm animals if some sly man just got them to say yes once". This law will not fly. This law will be repealed or struck down in very short order. So fume all you want about your good ol' days because such laws are now only a memory. And soon the last of those who think such laws are just will also be only a memory. Roar on. Tick-tock.
Roar on. Tick-tock. You are the crackpot,not me. And out of what diseased orifice did you pull the "say yes ONCE" brain fart? Wouldn't be trying to move the goal post,would you? In the entire history of the world,the only nations that had to build walls to keep their own citizens from leaving were those with leftist governments.
She can say 'no'. She can even scream it. Push the guy away. Scratch him. Hit him. What she can't do is charge him with rape after she initially consented. The far more common case is that the woman simply changes her mind half way through. I don't think a man should go to prison for that, do you?
Not a law. A North Carolina State Supreme Court decision that's been in place for 38 years and only applies to North Carolina. The pending stte legislation is to negate the application of that decision. Since I don't live in North Carolina, and since I believe in state's rights, this does not affect me in the slightest. Quite frankly, it's none of my business how another state decides to live.
I think that 'no' means no, whether it is a woman or a man, whether sex has already started or not. There is no irrevocable consent in any sex act.
Well, you're certainly taking a lot of interest in something you say is none of your business. I have to wonder if you have some personal history with sexual consent issues. Only a sick mind (or a guilty one) would defend this law.
The ruling corrected an injustice, though the law is a poor substitute for common sense and personal responsibility. If this country does indeed want fewer laws, it's time for the people to accept responsibility for their actions and not have laws do it for them. Here's what I say to that teen slut: Now she knows.
Teeny bopper, Fast talkin' guys
If there is anyone on this thread that seems to have personal history on this issue,it is you. In the entire history of the world,the only nations that had to build walls to keep their own citizens from leaving were those with leftist governments.
A Mecklenburg County Democrat, Jeff Jackson, is looking to get the law changed.
#2. To: cranky (#0)
"But she initially consented to the penetration - but it turned violent."
#3. To: sneakypete, misterwhite (#1)
That figures. Any law that makes sense and holds people responsible for their own actions offends Dims and everything they stand for.
#4. To: Tooconservative (#3)
Just because someone agrees to sex initially doesn't mean they have agreed to be violently fucked like some farm animal.
#5. To: misterwhite (#4)
#6. To: Tooconservative (#5)
Your opinion is despicable to any decent person.
#7. To: misterwhite (#4)
(Edited)
You don't allow strangers into your home -- don't allow them between your legs.
#8. To: misterwhite (#2)
Perhaps she should learn a little more about about the stranger f**king her before she agrees to sex. Maybe a date or two?
That's an interesting thought.
#9. To: Anthem, Tooconservative (#7)
Agreed on this one.
#10. To: misterwhite (#9)
#11. To: cranky (#0)
Women can't revoke consent to sex once underway, NC law states
#12. To: Tooconservative (#3)
Consent does not mean consent to be raped violently.
#13. To: sneakypete, Anthem, misterwhite, cranky (#12)
Consent means it wasn't rape. If it got violent,that is criminal physical assault,not rape.
#14. To: Tooconservative (#13)
I don't give a shit what some old crackpots on LF have to say about "what life was like in the good ol' days when men were men and women could be fucked like farm animals if some sly man just got them to say yes once". This law will not fly. This law will be repealed or struck down in very short order. So fume all you want about your good ol' days because such laws are now only a memory. And soon the last of those who think such laws are just will also be only a memory.
#15. To: Tooconservative (#13)
In this state, once a woman says 'yes', she can't say 'no' any more.
#16. To: Tooconservative (#13)
This law will not fly. This law will be repealed or struck down in very short order.
#17. To: misterwhite (#15)
The far more common case is that the woman simply changes her mind half way through. I don't think a man should go to prison for that, do you?
#18. To: misterwhite (#16)
Since I don't live in North Carolina, and since I believe in state's rights, this does not affect me in the slightest. Quite frankly, it's none of my business how another state decides to live.
#19. To: Tooconservative (#18)
Only a sick mind (or a guilty one) would defend this law.
#20. To: Tooconservative (#18)
(Edited)
My teenage Lover,
I caught your waves last night, it set my mind a wond' rin'
You're such a groove,
Please don't move,
Please stay in my love house by the river.
with strange red eyes
Have put things in your head,
It set my mind a wonderin'...
#21. To: Tooconservative, misterwhite (#18)
I have to wonder if you have some personal history with sexual consent issues. Only a sick mind (or a guilty one) would defend this law.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]