Rape, California Style

[B-Man]

This is a column by Kathleen Parker on a shocking California Supreme Court ruling.

What's going on out there? I'm sure Martha Burke thinks this is wonderful decision. Our society seems to rapidly be heading toward a state in which men have no rights (especially white men).
=================================

I'm going to try to keep this clean, but the recent California Supreme Court ruling that a woman who changes her mind during sexual intercourse qualifies as a rape victim tests one's commitment to decorum.

Yes, you read it right. The 6-1 ruling changes the definition of rape so significantly that a man who doesn't withdraw immediately upon his partner's shift in attitude can go to prison. One young man already has.

A 17-year-old -John Z. -served six months in a juvenile detention facility on a rape conviction following just such an encounter. He and Laura T. were having consensual sex when Laura decided she needed to get home. She didn't say, "Stop." She didn't cry out or struggle.

She merely said, "I should be going now" and "I need to go home," according to her testimony.

Because it reportedly took John Z. a full minute and a half to cease and desist -an act of rare self-control among the primate known as a 17-year-old male -he was convicted of rape. I don't know who was holding the timer during this intimate act. Was the rape victim monitoring her watch's second hand?

With its ruling Monday, the California Supreme Court affirmed John Z.'s conviction. Although Justice Janice Rogers Brown agreed with the rape definition, she dissented on whether the boy had been guilty of rape. She noted that he might have had an "honest and reasonable belief" that the girl didn't waive consent, a defense recognized by California courts.

Honest and reasonable? That sounds right. Given that the girl wanted to have sex, or at least said she did, then proceeded to have sex, and only then said she needed to go home, one could leap to the wild conclusion that the young man may not have divined her intent that he retreat.

I'm sorry, but when did girls get so stupid? In the old days -when girls were apparently both smarter and tougher -a girl who didn't want to have sex didn't have sex. She said no thanks, grabbed her purse and walked out the door. The boy may have been disappointed and frustrated, but he wasn't confused. "No" meant "no."

And "yes" meant yes to the finish line. If you want a guy to stop midway through the first act, pick an older boyfriend. Say fiftyish. Speaking of which, I keep coming back to this: Where's Daddy? Who didn't teach this girl the rules of engagement?

Once upon a time, fathers taught their daughters better. You don't take a boy to bed and then say "no." In a similar vein, as my father taught me, you don't pull a gun on someone unless you intend to kill him. There are certain things you don't kid around with, and hormonally charged teenage boys and loaded guns are among the top two.

I'm not suggesting that girls get what they deserve. So stifle the swoon, sisters. Nor am I suggesting that there aren't times when boys and men fail to listen carefully when girls and women speak. In my vast experience, they mostly pay close attention when food is involved.

But I am prepared to defend males against the sort of insanity that makes them criminals for not being able to read a girl's mind. Who exactly will bear witness to these "he said-she said" debacles? What words will suffice to mean "Stop," if "I need to get home" is enough to convict a boy of rape? What if she'd said, "Oh, gosh, I've got to buy cat food." Would that do? "Clearly my heart wasn't in it, Your Honor. He should have known I meant stop!"

And how quick is quick enough for the man to cease his foul play? A minute? Thirty seconds? The court didn't say.

I hate to be the one to break it to you, fellas, but the gelding of the American male is nearly complete and the message clear: You can do nothing right. As a friend's world-weary 15-year-old son correctly summarized the zeitgeist: "Women good, men bad."

John Z. wasn't guilty of rape; he was guilty of being male. If I were a guy, I'd find another country.

[MMMMMM]

Or another state. California is insane.

Again (at least on the face of this article) it appears that stupidity is to blame (another argument for logic being taught in schools right along with 'rithmetic--and the kids HAVE to learn it. Hopefully then we wouldn't have so many "educated" adults who still can't think through the simplest problems).

[Ray Zee]

there is usually alot more to cases than what you read somewhere. i dont know about this one. but i do have an opinion. a person always can change their minds. either side has to respect that. whether he now forced her to finish or not i guess is the question. if he did he raped her. if she just went along with him and only made a verbal statement than thats another story. i still remember the men in the 1960's saying, "those girls deserved to be raped that wear the miniskirts." i dont buy that mentality even though i was part of that era and thought along those lines then.

[IrishHand]

The writer presented the case in a manner less-than-flattering to the female. The reality is that the two of them were engaged in intercourse when she evoked her right not to participate. Does that suck if you're the guy? Of course it does. Does she have that right? Of course she does.

Arguing otherwise is both stereotypical and heartless - and illegal - and not just in California. The definition of rape is the same in basically every State.

[MMMMMM]

I never agreed with that miniskirt argument. I do agree there could be more to this case (which is why I mentioned in parentheses about "it appears on the face of the article").

I suppose there are varying degrees to which she might have voiced her objections or desire to stop, but according to the quote in the article it didn't sound like she was very emphatic or anything or even that she asked him to stop immediately. Maybe she was just too shy to say so emphatically or directly, but if she is so shy, then why is she pressing rape charges? Anyway I have a bit of trouble with the concept that she would be having consensual intercourse and then press charges because he didn't stop on a dime when she said something about going home now. The whole thing doesn't quite add up somehow. So maybe there is more to it than meets the eye. Still I can't see pressing rape charges against someone you were already and consensually in the act with. I mean even if she became emphatic and he didn't withdraw instantly, what kind of person would want to press rape charges over something like that? Sounds awfully cold and strange to me. Unless there is a lot more to it than we've been told, I'm having trouble seeing how she could want to press charges.

[MMMMMM]

If in the middle of the act she said "I think I should be going home soon" that's very different than "Stop now, I need to leave now." We don't really know what she said. But such an abrupt about-face might take a moment or two to register, especially if she didn't make it very clear.

As I said, "on the face of the article"--and as Ray said, there may be more to this than we know. But as presented in the article it doesn't really sound like rape. Also, while it doesn't impact the case or whether it is rape or not, I'm having a lot of trouble seeing her view that she should press charges. Maybe it's just me, but I think a little tenderness towards someone you've willingly been intimate with is called for--not a criminal lawsuit. It doesn't sound like he harmed her or anything--in fact the whole thing sounds quite bizarre.

[Mark Heide]

B-Man,

This is probably an unusual case and you need to get more information on what went on to have a good discussion here. But, I know California has a lot of weirdos, and they have the worst food in the states.

Anyway, you should be able to judge whether a woman really wants it or not by the way they act. Just use good judgement. Sometimes, if they are too much in a hurry, be careful because they usually want a baby, especially the ones under 21.

Good Luck

Mark

[Clarkmeister]

"especially white men"

Puh-leeze.

On the main topic, I did a quick google search on the topic and apparently she said the "i have to leave now" quote several times and he kept asking for more time, repeatedly ignoring her. If so, thats a different story. Its not as clear cut as the editorial piece you cite would have us believe.

I also saw that apparently there are some 14th amendment issues that are likely to end up with them trying to bring this one to the US Supreme Court.

In all, I think its a dangerous precedent. Rather than teaching our women to be clear, firm and in control, we are teaching them to be victims. I think rulings like this are contrary to the entire goal of the feminist movement.

[MMMMMM]

This is an interesting report, but you may have to cut and paste the url to your browser (I don't know why, but the highlighting only seems to recognize the first part of the url address).

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,75405,00.html

[IrishHand]

As I said, "on the face of the article"--and as Ray said, there may be more to this than we know.
An article arguing that it wasn't rape is going to both omit key facts (the events leading up to the rape and that the victim repeated her objection many times over) and present the remaining facts in a manner helpful to her argument. Here are the actual facts, as determined by the court:

Actual facts of the case (http://www.google.ca/search?q=cache:O4mgvWY45DkC:caselaw.findlaw.com/data2/californiastatecases/C036210.PDF+)
(Just scroll down a couple of pages to "Facts" - it's not that long.)

Read that and tell me it wasn't rape. Frankly, it's kind of sad that there are so many guys who want to justify this behavior. A tag-team rape is nothing to be proud of.

Irish

[thebroker]

............quit? Think about man, you're in a bar and you drink 'til she, it, whatever is pretty. You go home and let this honkin-big, sea-donkey climb on top of you. Right in the middle of this sobering experience those 18 Heinies wear off leaving you in a major pickle. Whatta ya do Zee?

[Ray Zee]

you dont rape her. you get real sad and go home with blue balls. its like when you make a deal to buy a car and the other party agrees. then as you have had your heart set on driving it home, he changes his mind and says he wants to keep the car. you dont now pull a gun and force him to give you the car. thats stealing. the other thing is rape.

[MCS]

</font><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr />
Our society seems to rapidly be heading toward a state in which men have no rights (especially white men).

[/ QUOTE ]

Oh, give me a break. I hope you're joking.

[John Cole]

Kathleen Parker's opinion piece/column/mindless drivel qualifies as perhaps (I'm hedging here slightly) the most despicable bit of writing I've read in years. Not only is she comtemptuous of women and girls (and their fathers), but she is equally contemptuous of 17 year old boys.

Since when do fathers teach their daughters "rules of engagement"? B-Man, is this another of those conservative voices you're so fond of? Please, read these people more carefully because I hear, and I can't be the only one, a very dismal message in this column, and it has nothing to do with the subject matter.

John

[MMMMMM]

I don't care for the tone of the article, but I think it raises some legitimate questions. Let's also note that of several articles describing the events, each account is somewhat different. Even in the court documents, the initial description of events is different than the description of events under cross-examination, and this is different yet still from the boy's version.

Obviously everybody has a right to change their mind. And while in this case it certainly seems that the girl was to a large degree pressured into sex, the fact that she went along with it, even kissing the minor when he returned to the room and lay down naked with her, makes it also appear that she was not entirely unwilling either.

What is important is the degree to which she indicated clearly that she didn't want to continue intercourse, and to what degree he realized this and heeded or ignored her request. As the link I posted points out, matters like these are not trivial, and the legal questions and implications are significant.

[David Steele]

followed your link through to this link:


http://www.google.ca/search?q=cache:O4mgvWY45DkC:caselaw.findlaw.com/data2/californiastatecases/C036210.PDF+"John+Z."+"Laura+T."&amp;hl=en&amp;ie=UTF-8 (http://www.google.ca/search?q=cache:O4mgvWY45DkC:caselaw.findlaw.com/data2/californiastatecases/C036210.PDF+)

(It probably needs to be cut and pasted too )

Seems a lot more like a rape from this description.

[BruceZ]

its like when you make a deal to buy a car and the other party agrees. then as you have had your heart set on driving it home, he changes his mind and says he wants to keep the car. you dont now pull a gun and force him to give you the car.

Suppose you already gave him a deposit with a promise to pay the rest later, you are pulling out of his driveway in the car, and you hear him mumbling something about maybe he should change his mind. Maybe you just floor it at that point?

[IrishHand]

makes it also appear that she was not entirely unwilling either

That's the EXACT attitude that leads to so many rapes. Sex is an act which, per the law AND contemporary morality, requires 100% consent. If a girl is hemming-and-hawing, and you figure "what the hell - time for my hog to hit the trough", you're a rapist.

To my mind, the sexual violation of a person is as bad as murder, and certainly warrants capital punishment. Perhaps in a case like this, I'd be contented with 5 years in jail or so (they were both minors, after all). Draw the line...make it big, bold, and pretty, and the world would be a nicer place to live in.

Irish

[B-Man]

Please, read these people more carefully because I hear, and I can't be the only one, a very dismal message in this column, and it has nothing to do with the subject matter.

John,

I don't know what message you are hearing, and I don't really care too much about the tone of the column, I'm more concerned with the words. I read a column which described some facts and a rape conviction which, based on the facts which were given , sounded like an unjust outcome. After reading some of the other accounts which a few other posters have been kind enough to provide, there is more to this case than the author mentioned, so it was either a case of selective disclosure or purposeful deceit.

If two 17-years olds (assuming they are of the age of consent) engage in consensual sex, and at some point in the middle, the girl merely says, "I should be getting home soon," followed by the boy stopping about a minute later, well, I'm sorry, but I really don't think that boy should be convicted of rape or go to jail. Perhaps that is not what happened (or all that happened) in this case... but based on the column, I was under the impression that was the gist of the story.

My opinion of the case has changed since reading the other accounts of the "facts". If I had read those other accounts before reading the column, I never would have posted it. Nobody has a tougher attitude on crime (especially violent crime) than I do, believe me, but I just don't think a crime was committed based on the facts the author presented (as opposed to some of the other accounts).

On an side note, I know you are in the New England area, what do you think of Judge Maria Lopez? Do you think she should be removed from the bench?

[jen]

Remind me and my girl friends not to say hi if we ever run into each other at a poker hall...

[John Cole]

B-Man,

First, I might have a little trouble explaining beyond what I've already stated about the writer's tone in the article. And, I do think it's important to judge how and why articles are written. I suppose the writer knows her audience well enough, and she simply assumes she's writing for people who will accept her rant without actually thinking about what she's saying. I do think it's easy enough to ferret out the subtext in her article: boys, especially seventeen year old boys, are all raging hormones and lack the ability to think and make proper decisions; women and girls are duplicitous in matters of sex; fathers no longer set standards for behavior. And all of this is presented in a rather ugly, bitter, and haughty fashion.

In addition, she doesn't seek to examine the case she discusses with any real thought. One quote for from girl is presented as if that constitutes the entire proceedings of the argument. Another writer might look at these words in context, reflect on the cognitive and linguistic ability of the girl, and try to determine what those words meant within the context of the event. Perhaps the girl, unable to simply say "Stop!", uses other words to mean the same thing; perhaps the boy hears these words within that context to mean something other than "Stop!" How were her words uttered? What was her emotional state? Of course, the writer doesn't really wish to pursue truth, but she wishes to entertain her already complicit readers who, by this point, are crying out about those goddamn liberal judges.

Now, these may not be important matters to you, but they are for me. I've spent years reading the best essayists in the world, and I think I can spot a fraud when I see one. But maybe that's just me, and I'm certainly willing to listen to other opinions. If I weren't, I would never had read all those essays to begin with.

John

PS. I wish I knew a bit more about Lopez's sentence; on the surface, it appears a harsher sentnece might have been imposed. What was the guy convicted of? (I know what he was accused of.)

[MMMMMM]

that's ridiculous, Irish, though I do agree that upon further accounts of this occurrence the case looks either like rape or pretty close to it anyway.

But in general, two people having sex with one hemming and hawing may not be right, and definitely is not cool, but it isn't necessarily 100% rape either. Just where do you draw the line legally: the girl said "I don't know...well..." (doesn't sound like rape to me, but that is hemming and hawing) or the girl "NO!" (that sounds pretty darn clear) or the girl said: what, exactly? I just can't agree that any hemming and hawing means it is rape, although I do agree with you that from a personal perspective I feel complete mutual consent is the only acceptable arrangement. But things which don't fit our definitions of what is most morally acceptable aren't necessarily in the very worst categories either.

[MMMMMM]

John,

I think you picked up on some things which escaped me on first reading. I took the account of events as probably being presented accurately; hence my initial response. You looked deeper, and at the author's tone and technique, which set off warning bells for you--and your reservations were later shown to be justified--the author's account now appears to be somewhat intellectually dishonest (when compared with other accounts).

Still, I think there are legal implications in this case which are important. How will the courts rule on cases which are more ambiguous? It's easy to say that 100% consent is the only thing that is acceptable to us, personally, but just how should the law define rape when one party hems and haws (perhaps only a little bit) or is somewhat indecisive?