Consented Sex is Rape Now

Things are changing in California. It used to be that if a woman consented to having sex with you, as long as she was an adult, you were safe. No longer. The California Court of Appeal in the case of People v. Roundtree, (2000) 77 Cal. App.4th 846, changed all that.

The essence of that reported decision is that if a woman consents to having sex with a man and they commence making love, if in mid-stroke she changes her mind and says "stop" (however softly), he is a rapist if he doesn't stop as soon as she would like.

As the Court put it: “When a victim is forced to submit to continued intercourse for a period after she has revoked her original consent, the crime of rape is committed.”

Now the key phrase here is "for a period of time". How long is that? You will be surprised to hear that this is not defined. That leaves it up to.....who? Her. In other words, if she "Feels" raped, she was. If all seems well and the couple are having intercourse, and suddenly she says "Wait", is he supposed to know that this means she changed her mind about having sex, retroactively? Even if she says "Stop", why would any normal man think this means "Get off me. I no longer want to have sex." Isn't it more likely he'd think he inadvertently just caught her hair in his wrist watch band?

Okay, let's say she is perfectly clear to any reasonable man: "Get off. I don't want to have sex with you anymore." How fast is a "period of time"? Is he allowed to ask why? What if he's a normal human and responds "What?" Is five seconds fast enough? Three? One? What if (unlucky him!) he has just reached orgasm when she changes her mind?

The obvious answer is that being undefined, he is a rapist if she feels he didn't withdraw fast enough, whatever the delay.

This is hardly the only grossly biased rule of law where relationships between men and women are concerned. It is just one of the most absurd. It is so far removed from real world events and relationships, that one has to ask "What were they thinking?"

Among the many, many things the Court overlooked in "crafting" this rule is that not 100% of the women on this earth are honest people. So now those women of "UNhonest" disposition will know that they can seduce a man, have voluntary sex with him, and then whisper "Stop" and if he is not off her in 1/2 second, call the police. Guess what? No witnesses. Whatever she says is what happened. After he is prosecuted, she can make a bundle on the civil lawsuit (which would be a slam dunk after the conviction). Did that never occur to the Court that rendered this decision?

You think that is far fetched? It's not. I have personally litigated over 8 domestic violence criminal prosecutions where the accusation was totally fabricated for reasons of anger, spite, malice or profit motivations.

One day we will return to some realism and sanity in sex crimes, but that time is not yet, apparently.