Women Can't Revoke Consent to Sex Once Underway Because They Are Whores Law States
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introduced Senate Bill 553 in late March, looking to change the bill to make it illegal to continue sex once consent is withdrawn.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If a person continues after consent is withdrawn, the bill seeks to make it an act of force and against the will of the victim.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.
wbtv.com
Women Can't Revoke Consent to Sex Once Underway Because They Are Whores Law States
Other urls found in this thread:
dailymail.co.uk
twitter.com
What is the standard of proof for withdrawal of consent?
How can I prove you consented the whole way through a sexual encounter? Does it even matter if I can, or can you withdraw consent the next morning? Or a week later?
If consent can be legally withdrawn, then it doesn't matter if I have a thousand eyewitnesses to testify that you consented to have sex with me, unless they were present through the whole act. Which means there is never any means for a man accused of rape to defend himself from the accusation.
That's why the law is written that way, you stupid fucks. So that in the slim chance an accused rapist actually has a witness who can testify that a "victim" consented to sex, he can argue his innocence. They want to take that one possible argument away.
Of course. The only way for the kikes to push more sexual degeneracy and perversion is through shitskins, because they can't rape. It's their culture :)
Exactly, considering how fucked men are if they got no eye witnesses. The only thing they can relay on is sexual history, which the MPs in UK actually try to ban from court. Making it only possible for a man to prove his innocence through video recording. . .
dailymail.co.uk
If it is actually "violent" there will be injury in which case it would already be covered under assault laws. Fuck feminism.
going to need source on that
Women probably wouldn't have to worry about the sex getting violent if they'd stop having sex with complete strangers
literally google faggot
though studies have it somewhere between 50-90%
google doesn't give shit you nigger. why would you think it would when jews tailor results to the leftist agenda? Show me a government claim.
If some dumb slag consents to sex with a dude, that's that. You don't magically get to revoke all responsibility for your actions and call it quits just because you begin to regret them.
I hope this cuck crashes and burns. I hope his bull rewards him for his service by clocking him in the mouth.
Never pay up front.
okay, so there'd have to cuts and/or bruises and this isn't somehow covered by simple battery laws?
To be fair, that law IS stupid. Imagine it in any other context: Let's say I ask if I can hold your hand, and you say yes. Then I take your hand and start crushing it. You beg me to stop but I refuse. Later, you file charges of assault against me, and I go to jail, because I obviously assaulted you. So why would there be some magical loophole for sexual assault?
Of course, the law should require strong evidence that you said no, or that violence happened, which is obviously hard to provide unless you recorded it, and thus why people shouldn't enter into sexual situations with strangers because it's inherently risky. But as the law in NC stands right now, you could have a complete recording of the event, and it wouldn't matter. That's just plain stupid, and blatantly unjust. It literally invites rapists to abuse this loophole.
But on the other hand, this is a Democrat we're talking about, so we have to be careful that they don't change the law too far in the other direction like feminists want to do, where men are presumed guilty if they can't prove that the girl was constantly saying "yes" the entire time or some shit like that. So definitely something to keep an eye on. I recommend anons communicate with the relevant lawmakers in NC to make sure they don't fall for some feminist tricks by replacing one unjust law with another unjust law.
But you cannot see emotional scarring user.
...
Then problem with your scenario is there was obvious damage that occurred and the person being accused was assumed innocent until proven guilty. Rape accusations work the opposite way, where the accused need to prove himself innocent. If there is actual evidence of physical damage how is this not already covered under other laws, and how is the women unable to sue the attacker and bring up the fact that it occurred while they were having sex.
Note to self:
Secretly videotape all my sexual encounters.
You don't have to cause visible damage for it to be assault. Even intentionally causing someone non-consensual pain is assault, and that's hard to prove, but in some situations it can be proven (like if there's video).
But let me give a different example: Suppose you let me in your house. Can you at a later point kick me out for literally any reason you feel like? And if I refuse to leave, aren't I breaking the law? Or do I get to stay in your house for as long as I want because you let me in in the first place so now you don't get to change your mind? Why would sex be any different? Your body is your property… if you let some dude stick his dick in your ass, you should obviously get to change your mind later… he doesn't get to just treat you like his property until he decides that the sex is over, that would be insane.
And of course it should be innocent until proven guilty, that's how justice works. That applies to all laws. If a judge/jury treats a man as guilty until proven innocent, then that's a mistrial and should be handled as such (and the judge should be fired and banned from ever practicing law again, and preferably even jailed because fuck that shit).
Note to self: STOP BEING A DEGENERATE PIECE OF SHIT AND HAVING SEXUAL ENCOUNTERS OUTSIDE OF MARRIAGE IN THE FIRST PLACE, YOU FUCKING FAGGOT. YOU ARE THE REASON SOCIETY IS COLLAPSING.
...
uhhh but lots of women like violent sex where they get roughed up and slapped around. biologically women enjoy being raped and are more likely to orgasm and to conceive.
They're called degenerates.
okay but evola advocates it with the right woman so i'm inclined to believe otherwise.
This is misleading. The way the law works is that rape is penetration without consent. Since the penetration was consensual, no rape occurred. It can still be classified as sexual assault.
Note to self: Hope your wife doesn't accuse you of rape when she decides all she really wants is your bank account and the company of niggers.
If this is true then I take back what I said. Do you have a source?
The "right woman" doesn't need to be slapped around. If they get off on being treated like nigger toys, how do you think they view you? What does that say of you?
But hey, keep making appeals to "authority" to justify degeneracy. Very Talmudic of you.
Mein Furher, you could simply jewgle it.
what a faggot. too new lurk moar.
His paintings are entartete kunst, user. Admit it.
Time to fire up Zillow and looking for homes in North Carolina xD.
Exactly.
THIS
She probably did it with a nigger; if so, she deserved what she got
perhaps i should move to north carolina so im less prone to being falsely accused of rape, and thus can more safely have a relationship with a girl
The nigger in his blood shows.
Note to self: Buy a safe and kill all niggers.
No sex outside marriage.
Marriage means you consent, no ifs or buts.
It used to be like this for the longest time, and it worked (un)surprisingly well.
Are you a vampire?
You're misinterpreting the court's decision.
"If the actual penetration is accomplished with the woman's consent, the accused is not guilty of rape, although he may be guilty of another crime because of his subsequent actions. "
It doesn't mean that initial consent allows for everything that happens afterward. However it also means they can't declare the entire act "rape" since initially it was consensual. The initial act of consent cannot be rescinded. You can always stop, or demand they stop and then anything AFTER that could possibly be actionable, for example if they continued with use of force or threat of force.
see
The bill is just attempting to clarify though it doesn't need to be put on paper and made in to law anyway. This is just a way to "streamline" prosecution cases and get more convictions without having to spend time and money on jury proceedings.
/thread