Is This Rape?

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Fri Jan 04, 2013 4:50 am

It is in my view - though not forcible! However...LOS ANGELES â€” A California appeals court overturned the rape conviction of a man who authorities say pretended to be a sleeping woman's boyfriend before initiating intercourse, ruling that an arcane law from 1872 doesn't protect unmarried women in such cases....

................................................................

...Morales pretended to be her boyfriend in the darkened room, and it wasn't until a ray of light from outside the room flashed across his face that she realized he wasn't her boyfriend, according to prosecutors....Another question comes to mind.

If a man makes himself out to be someone he's not, and as the relationship evolves he goes off his best behavior, could that also be construed as rape?

Should rape be interpreted with caveats?

California Appeals Court Overturns Rape Conviction, Rules State Law Doesn't Protect Unmarried Women

Post by **Bryn Mawr** » Fri Jan 04, 2013 5:50 am

Ahso!;1415217 wrote: It is in my view - though not forcible! However......Another question comes to mind.

If a man makes himself out to be someone he's not, and as the relationship evolves he goes off his best behavior, would that also constitute rape.

Should rape be interpreted with caveats?

California Appeals Court Overturns Rape Conviction, Rules State Law Doesn't Protect Unmarried Women

If he actively pretended to be her boyfriend in a deliberate attempt to have intercourse then, yes, it was rape.

If she allowed intercourse assuming it was her boyfriend then, no, not rape.

In this instance deception is immaterial - she was asleep when he started therefore had not given her consent so it was rape.

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Fri Jan 04, 2013 5:55 am

Bryn Mawr;1415221 wrote: If he actively pretended to be her boyfriend in a deliberate attempt to have intercourse then, yes, it was rape.

If she allowed intercourse assuming it was her boyfriend then, no, not rape.

In this instance deception is immaterial - she was asleep when he started therefore had not given her consent so it was rape.I don't get the distinction. What's sleep? If a person while "asleep" moves their legs due to motion from the other party, is that person actually asleep, or are they consenting?

Post by **Bryn Mawr** » Fri Jan 04, 2013 6:20 am

Ahso!;1415222 wrote: I don't get the distinction. What's sleep? If a person while "asleep" moves their legs due to motion from the other party, is that person actually asleep, or are they consenting?

Which distinction?

If they are asleep then they cannot have given a conscious consent.

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Fri Jan 04, 2013 6:27 am

But she did consciously consent for the person in her bed before going to sleep, so her assumption of the person in bed with her being her boyfriend was already established.

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Fri Jan 04, 2013 7:18 am

It's quite simple rape is sexual intercourse without explicit consent. If you have sex with someone who is drunk and semi-conscious is it rape even if she doesn't actually say no. If you have sex with someone who is asleep and starts responding before fully awake it is rape. This guy clearly knew she would not consent knowingly or willingly that's why he sneaked in it was rape. Why is it even being discussed?

fraudulent impersonation to have sex wasn't rape because the victim would consent, even if they were being tricked into thinking the perpetrator was their husband.

That's like arguing conning people shouldn't be illegal because the person being conned agrees. What's behind that is an attitude that the sexual access to a woman is not hers to give or decline as she chooses. If you can con her that's OK.

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Fri Jan 04, 2013 7:22 am

gmc;1415235 wrote: It's quite simple rape is sexual intercourse without explicit consent. If you have sex with someone who is drunk and semi-conscious is it rape even if she doesn't actually say no. If you have sex with someone who is asleep and starts responding before fully awake it is rape. This guy clearly knew she would not consent knowingly or willingly that's why he sneaked in it was rape. Why is it even being discussed?

That's like arguing conning people shouldn't be illegal because the person being conned agrees. What's behind that is an attitude that the sexual access to a woman is not hers to give or decline as she chooses. If you can con her that's OK.We call that good salesmanship here in the US.

Post by **Bryn Mawr** » Fri Jan 04, 2013 7:50 am

Ahso!;1415225 wrote: But she did consciously consent for the person in her bed before going to sleep, so her assumption of the person in bed with her being her boyfriend was already established.

Where does the article say that? To the contrary, it says that her boyfriend was in the room when she fell asleep and that Morales entered the room after her boyfriend left.

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Fri Jan 04, 2013 7:58 am

She wasn't sleeping in an open public place. Therefore it appears to me to be reasonable for her to assume the only person who would be in her bed would be a person she consented to being there.

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Fri Jan 04, 2013 8:00 am

I suppose you are going to argue this wasn't a legitimate rape because the girl didn't resist.

Social media casts spotlight on Ohio rape case - CNN.com

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Fri Jan 04, 2013 8:08 am

gmc;1415247 wrote: I suppose you are going to argue this wasn't a legitimate rape because the girl didn't resist.

Social media casts spotlight on Ohio rape case - CNN.comNot me, I'm arguing for rape any way you cut it.

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Fri Jan 04, 2013 8:15 am

I don't normally relish the idea of being part of a jury, but this is an exception. I'd love being on this jury.

YZGI · Post by **YZGI** » Fri Jan 04, 2013 8:29 am

He knew it was a deception. It was rape.

Post by **Bryn Mawr** » Fri Jan 04, 2013 8:34 am

Ahso!;1415246 wrote: She wasn't sleeping in an open public place. Therefore it appears to me to be reasonable for her to assume the only person who would be in her bed would be a person she consented to being there.

Not in the slightest - he might have been in the house with her or her boyfriends agreement but that does not imply that he was in her bed with her approval.

AnneBoleyn · Post by **AnneBoleyn** » Fri Jan 04, 2013 8:47 am

How about this scenario--if she gets pregnant it's not legitimate rape.

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Fri Jan 04, 2013 8:53 am

Bryn Mawr;1415253 wrote: Not in the slightest - he might have been in the house with her or her boyfriends agreement but that does not imply that he was in her bed with her approval.I still think it was reasonable for her to assume it would be her boyfriend in bed with her. That is, of course, if she is in fact telling the truth, but I see no reason why she wouldn't be.

YZGI · Post by **YZGI** » Fri Jan 04, 2013 8:57 am

AnneBoleyn;1415258 wrote: How about this scenario--if she gets pregnant it's not legitimate rape.

Oh!! I get it, that mechanism you women have..

YZGI · Post by **YZGI** » Fri Jan 04, 2013 8:58 am

Ahso!;1415259 wrote: I still think it was reasonable for her to assume it would be her boyfriend in bed with her. That is, of course, if she is in fact telling the truth, but I see no reason why she wouldn't be.

Whether she assumed it was her boyfriend or not, if she consented it was consent by deception. Rape.

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Fri Jan 04, 2013 9:01 am

It's rape...

She consented to sex with what she believed was her boyfriend. If she'd known there was a stranger In her bed, she'd not have consented.... simple.

Peg · Post by **Peg** » Fri Jan 04, 2013 6:49 pm

gmc;1415247 wrote: I suppose you are going to argue this wasn't a legitimate rape because the girl didn't resist.

Social media casts spotlight on Ohio rape case - CNN.com

This is going on maybe 15 miles from me. Such a sad case.

No consent=Rape.

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Sat Jan 05, 2013 4:50 am

You can just hear all the justifications coming out can't you - she was drunk and was asking for it by wearing a short skirt. She slept around a lot. Did she come from the wrong side of town as well?

Everything You Need to Know About Steubenville High's Football 'Rape Crew' - National - The Atlantic Wire

Bet it's happened before but if it's one girl's word against several she has no chance of being taken seriously.

Peg · Post by **Peg** » Sat Jan 05, 2013 8:22 am

The law officials have no choice but to take her seriously now. The evidence they tried to hide is coming out publicly. There is a peaceful rally being held today in support of her; people are wanting justice for her. Unfortunately, there are those who feel what they did was okay because she reportedly slept around a lot. Still doesn't justify rape in my eyes.

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Sat Jan 05, 2013 8:37 am

Peg;1415422 wrote: The law officials have no choice but to take her seriously now. The evidence they tried to hide is coming out publicly. There is a peaceful rally being held today in support of her; people are wanting justice for her. Unfortunately, there are those who feel what they did was okay because she reportedly slept around a lot. Still doesn't justify rape in my eyes.But morales was already convicted and the conviction was overturned due to an old law that his attorney's apparently dug up. Now he has to be retried with that law in mind, no? What new evidence is there to come out?

Peg · Post by **Peg** » Sat Jan 05, 2013 9:00 am

More videos, videos that people thought they deleted. The police are saying the people who witnessed the multiple rapes can't be charged for stupidity in not trying to stop it. Ummm what about obstruction of justice? The police "Accidentally" deleted some of the videos. I'll have to find the video where the kid is filming it and making jokes about it. I never actually made it through the whole video. Quite upsetting.

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Sat Jan 05, 2013 9:09 am

Peg;1415428 wrote: More videos, videos that people thought they deleted. The police are saying the people who witnessed the multiple rapes can't be charged for stupidity in not trying to stop it. Ummm what about obstruction of justice? The police "Accidentally" deleted some of the videos. I'll have to find the video where the kid is filming it and making jokes about it. I never actually made it through the whole video. Quite upsetting.Peg, I'm sorry, but I think you are talking about a different case. I read about the one you're referring to earlier today. Very wrong, indeed.

AnneBoleyn · Post by **AnneBoleyn** » Sat Jan 05, 2013 9:10 am

Citing 19th-century law, California court overturns rape conviction because the victim was not married

"A California court of appeals said it had no choice but to overturn the conviction of a rapist who entered a sleeping womanâ€™s bedroom and posed as her boyfriend before having sex with her because the woman is not married."

Read more: Citing 19th-century law, California court overturns rape conviction because the victim was not married - NY Daily News

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Sat Jan 05, 2013 10:30 am

The law was written at at time when single women had no legal rights except as the chattels or their fathers or as wives. You'd think common sense would come in to it and they would rule the law inapplicable. Is there no mechanism whereby the courts can make case law in a situation like this?

There are a lot of antique laws that should be ignored, sure i read somewhere that atheists are barred from office in some states.