If a woman consents to a sexual activity but then says "stop" would that be rape?

Question

I was reading in my victimology book that if a woman first consents but then changes her mind and refuses to engage in the sexual acitivity it will not count as rape. I can understand why this is so, but wouldn't it still be considered rape given the circumstances of not wanting to go further. Any kind of help to make me understand this concept would be much appreciated, thank u in advance!!

Answer 1

No means no and stop means stop. Sex is only consensual while consent is given and consent can be withdrawn at any time. If sex continues after consent has been retracted, then it is rape. There is no such thing as unconditional or unrvokable consent.

Answer 2

A woman has a right to change her mind at any time. Consensual sex is only consensual when there are two willing participants engaged in intercourse. When one party is no longer a willing participant it is no longer consensual. If the woman has said stop and the man proceeds it IS considered rape. This would be one of the more difficult type of rape cases to go to trial because the story would be that first their was consent then there was not. So I agree with you that yes it is rape.

Answer 3

very nearly each rape isn't considered to be a "violent" rape. meaning that the suspect wasn't some stranger who attacked, overpowered, and raped the sufferer, however the sufferer and the suspect have been friends or friends. One pronounced it substitute into rape. the different pronounced "What?!?" in short, human beings nonetheless believe that girls are people who make the call to have intercourse - not the boys. the final thought is that the guy could have intercourse with everyone who substitute into keen (not asserting that I agree, yet i think of you would be mendacity to your self in case you probably did not agree maximum folk this this type). If a women has intercourse with a brilliant style of fellows, then she in all probability could be keen to have intercourse with the guy she's claiming to rape her. If she by no ability has intercourse with everyone, she in all probability does not have been. installation the alleged sufferer as a woman with questionable morals will make the guy's tale lots greater feasible. interior the he pronounced, she pronounced circumstances, there could be credibility well-known on the two components (not in basic terms the girls human beings). the project mutually with your attitude is which you're entering into there assuming the guy is in charge, and that the female substitute into raped. The regulation is "harmless till shown in charge." seem at what you typed: "So what? If a woman is a virgin, being raped is a lot greater awful and the rapist merits to be punished greater so than if the female has had intercourse formerly?! Or in case you do not gown like a nun, then you definately could've been ultimate the guy on and sh*t?! Or if a woman gets below the impact of alcohol, she's to blame for her very own rape?! No ask your self rape is the main below suggested crime! i does not record a rape if I new i could be made to look like a terrible disgusting sl*t for it." think of roughly that attitude - you're implying that the female substitute into certainly raped, which will or won't be the case. that may not how the courts are "meant" to artwork. Being raped is awful no count who you're or what your previous substitute into. whether, installation the credibility of your shopper, and the lackthereof of the defendent is going to bypass a protracted way. Who could you suspect greater? An harmless virgin asserting some jerk with a much greater promiscuous previous raped her? Or some woman who's slept with dozens of fellows asserting that this one "took benefit" of her? The virgin is in basic terms lots greater feasible.

Answer 4

Since Rape is usually considered as a male raping the woman. Try turning it around. No means No and stop = No.
I sure am not having intercourse with my lady, if she is having an infection or sores present. Even if I have an erection.
Sex is meant to be fun for both. Even rewarding.
(There is a book on being a victim?)

Answer 5

Most women have been caught in this situation and if the male is any kind of "man" he will stop no matter when the woman says no, in the beginning or in the middle. If he doesn't and she continues to say no then he is forcing her to do something that she has decided she doesn't want to do, therefore it is rape.

Answer 6

The underlying message would be that women should not start something that they can't control because men cannot control themselves. That seems like a strange concept in a world where we are attempting to prove that men have self control over these issues. I don't know what to say on this one until I read it for myself. It doesn't make sense. Stop means stop & this would say that it no longer matters what either party wants because it is beyond control? Too stange for me this early in my day! :o)

Answer 7

Your book is mistaken. Sexual activity must stop immediately whenever the woman says "stop."

Answer 8

yes... unless the word "don't" proceeds the word stop. :) A woman has the prerogative to change her mind at any time during the act. It is just harder to convict if she says yes first.

Answer 9

If she says no or stop, he should stop. The only possible excuse I could come up with is if the man was right at the very instant of orgasm, at that point it would be impossible to stop. At any other moment, he should stop.

Answer 10

Folks here are average people not lawyers, myself a chemical engineer.