5 second delay in sex = rape

That's f*cking ridiculous. 5 to 10 seconds? In the heat of passion?
I wasn't there, and neither was the judge.
Rape is an incredibly serious offense to be convicted of, and he DID stop. Also - he was 16 YEARS OLD, and she was a COLLEGE STUDENT who, oh yeah, CONSENTED. Wasn't SHE the one doing something illegal? What a bloody, puss-filled zit of a double standard.
15 years in prison, for f*@$;s sake!
A time comes when people need to take some responsibility for their actions.

What happened, happened between them, and if she had a bad experience with it, it doesn't mean she was raped. They just weren't communicating properly for that 5 to 10 seconds.
Tell her to have a good long talk with someone who was ACTUALLY raped, and see how she feels about her experience.

And no one should be using "how she felt" as the be-all/ end-all element, unless they are also willing to consider "how he felt" with just as much importance and weight.

Perhaps people really should start signing contracts before jumping in the sack with another person.
What a load of bullsh*t. The judge is a sexist pig.

http://current.com/items/88885496_sex_contracts_proposed_in_australia

Someone posted a story about sex contracts a little bit ago. Maybe it's not as silly as some people suspect.

How the hell did the court measure this? Did the girl have a stop watch in her vagina?

Oh my God! There is a pretty big distinction between being forcibly penetrated and lingering a few seconds too long - with initial consensual penetration.

I'm not saying the female doesn't still retain full rights and control over said "region" and her body, but if the guy wasn't forcing her or restraining her in some way to allow himself the extra 5-10 seconds - I'd have to think he might have been "carried away" shall we say, or that he mistook the girls "inaction" to stop him as continued consent (if that was the case) - as opposed to having the 'intent' to commit rape.

If she didn't have to beat him off - the fact he did stop suggests there was no intent to rape.

So, maybe it was inexperience or inconsiderate on his part - not rising to the level of "rape".

Some guys don't have much control at that age. I think their brains are awash with hormones - not to be making excuses for anyone's behavior.

If it was a lack of consideration and there are no laws to 'punish' him for that, to go as far as a "rape" conviction would be wrong.

It would be interesting and necessary to know more about the interaction to make a more informed judgement.

Girls, some women also, sometimes say 'no' but do the exact opposite. Do they know this, or is it sort of auto-pilot stuff? How many times have girls / women given conflicting signals about things, like sex, especially sex? To some degree, with some women it's part of the way they play the game. But, then there are those who play (play - it's just an expression) it a completely different way, but that isn't always clear to the inexperienced young man.

I remember a girlfriend I had some years back, after "messing around" she said I was supposed to "force her" - to have sex. Yikes! Talk about mixed messages. By the way - the short lived relationship remained unconsummated. LOL - maybe that's too much information.

The difficulty of Martians reading and interpreting the signals of Venetian's is sometimes a confusing thing for young men / boys - I'll say.

I'd really like to hear what some of the women think about this.

DO WE ALL HAVE TO PRE DETERMIN THE EXACT AMOUNT OF TIME THAT WE WISH TO HAVE SEX NOW BEFORE WE DO IT SO WE DONT VIOLATE THE 5-10 SECOND RULE?

Oh look, more proof how the law is so bullsh*t now.

I think people should friggin grow up and stop taking EVERY SINGLE little problem to court!! Is ridiculous the things that people are nit-picked for and it ruins peoples lives.

I've had a negative experience myself, and I often wonder if I didn't bring on the situation since I placed myself there to begin with. Now I'm not completely sure about all the details, but on the surface this case sounds ludicrous. The hope would be that as soon as a woman says no, like I did, all hands should be off. But to wait until the act is fully underway and to suddenly decide mid act that I'd like to stop now is a dangerous game(not suggesting she thought it was). I don't know if I can honestly call this rape, however unfortunate those extra 5 to 10 seconds may have been.

And maybe she hit her peck before he got to his, MOST LIKELY, that's what is sounds like due to the age factor and her experience compared to his.

There we go on the experience factor again!

And he was at the point were she was using him for a good time and just wanted him to stop because she got hers!

BUT! he wanted his, and being when they started it was a joint effort.

So he should have the 5 or 10 seconds more or time it takes for him to get his too.

Remembering that mutilation is also a crime, in whatever form it is dished upon another.

ON a Liter Note Hillary WON!

He plead guilty to rape. Why? He literally said "I don't want to rape you" and agreed to stop when she said. If that went to the jury, he would have lost anyway. That veiled threat and agreement was the rape. Not the 5 or 10 second delay.

I would hope that TRUE rape victims will be livid at these moronic judges trivializing rape.

Here's what I taught my sons-
"If someone is punching you in the face, and you ask them to stop, do you mean now, or AFTER they punch you 10 more times?"
If something hurts you, and you want someone to stop, they need to stop, now.

I'm going to have forceful sex for 4 seconds with random girls now, its all the time I need unfortunately.

needu, you beat me to it. Sometimes, sex can suddenly become very painful, depending on the strength, direction and depth of thrusts and if a woman has a prolapsed or diverted uterus, or has endometriosis or a bladder condition. The best policy, in such cases, is for the woman to yell with pain in such a manner that it obviously not a cry of ecstasy - a loud "ouch, that hurts!" for example - it has an immediate peter effect on her partner, whereas asking the partner to stop is not always effective.

whew, I thought this was referring my technique for lasting more than a minute!

If this girl even had the slightest reservation about having sex with this guy, she shouldn't have consented to it anyway. Sure, I understand that these 'new and improved' laws are trying to protect women, but what about defending the rights of the men? It was only five to ten seconds after the fact, and the important thing is that he stopped within that minimal amount of time.

Well, there you go, I never even considered that the female may have experienced pain and wanted to stop for that reason.

... and the guy had made a comment about him saying "I don't want to rape you"? Ouch! Was that meant as a veiled threat or casual comment without implied threat?

I must have overlooked a bunch of the article when I went to the web page.

nowadays you need both a contract and a safe word.

The kid plead guilty, what does that tell you? He knew he was doing something wrong. I don't know if 15 years is an appropriate amount of time the sixteen year-old deserves, but he still continued to have sex with her, knowing that she did not want him to.

I'm not an expert in law, but I bet he would have been able to fight the accusation if it were his word against his, but it wasn't, there was another person present who witnessed what happened. The other person was his fifteen year-old friend who had sex with the girl first.

you cant say that just because she wanted to stop and he took less then 10 FUCKING SECONDS to do it. Doesnt give you the right to put him in jail. Maybe he was extra big and took him that long to withdraw??

Who knows. But we do know that traumatising moments arent a ten seconds of something you chose to start in the first place.

Hey Joe, Just because someone says "yes" doesnt mean that it means that the other person is free do whatever they want, and that person no longer has any say so. You can be saying yes to one thing, but not another.
If you and your wife are experimenting and it turns out that you really dont like the new thing you were willing to try, you still have the right to say "stop, I dont like it" and that means STOP. There is a responsiblity that you accept when someone gives you their consent.

The article linked implies that she did not want to start in the first place, but consented under the agreement "as long as you stop when i tell you to." First of all, this statement should have already been implied and should not need to be said, second, 5-10 seconds is actually not that short of a time. Other than that, dito what needu said.

On a more unsympathetic note, shame on the girl for being in the situation in the first place.

Can anyone say statutory rape? The 18 year old raped the 16 year old, that is the law. The judge is ignorant of the law.

People plead guilty for all sorts of reasons beside actually being guilty.

So true jubal - mposs - one of the many many problems with the judicial system in the United States is that DA's present the accused with a situation to scare them into submission - exactly like a VICTIMIZER does.

You see for example, the accused are given an option; plead guilty and you won't get more than 15 years with a possibility of parole, or; fight the DA's predetermined judgement of your innocence and face probable 25 years without chance of parole!

What would you do knowing the cards are soooooooooooooooooo horribly stacked against you unless you've for lots and lots of money?

The judicial system acts in so many ways exactly like a VICTIMIZER and VICTIMIZES people. And remember, just because a person has done something wrong, doesn't mean the person has no rights or isn't entitled to justice, appropriate punishment and so forth.

Our judicial system is sooo f*cked up, trial isn't an opportunity for opposing sides to present evidence and make arguments, it's a situation where preselected evidence is presented to COMPEL a jury of your peers to come to the conclusion the DA has arranged with the defense attorney - in most cases.

The details and evidence of this case got completely washed over by the broader issue of a woman's right to say no - which I of course completely agree with, but that's NOT the issue here.

Like the article and some commenters pointed out,
she was a legal adult having sex with high school students. Switch the sexes, and the legal adult would be getting prosecuted for statutory rape.

Like the article and some commenters pointed out,
he STOPPED in a MINIMAL mount of time.

Like jubal pointed out, "People plead guilty for all sorts of reasons beside actually being guilty."

To those stating that the kids alleged comment ("I don't want to rape you") was a veiled threat - come ON.
You are twisting things to suit your agenda - we have no idea what the kid meant by it, because WE WERE NOT THERE. Neither was the judge, neither was the jury. It could just have easily have been a bad joke (16 year olds do make lots of those).

That is 15 f*cking years in prison for 5-10 seconds of either a miscommunication or a mistake - when he was 16 years old.

This is bullsh*t, and those that are immediately blaming the kid, and siding with the woman, while knowing the minimal amount of information, may want to check on their thought processes, just be sure they aren't playing the part of a hypocritical sexist.

Haha. How crazy. Poor kid.

I understand that people plead guilty sometimes when they actually are innocent because the evidence is overwhelming. But in this case, the only evidence possible is the eye witness, who happens to be the sixteen year-olds friend. This friend probably witnessed what actually was a rape or he would back his friend.

well that is maryland for you. all logic stops there. i know i live there.

Voyager that is so true...Only people with lots of money have the benefit of a good attorney and can mount a decent defense. The court appointed attorneys, unless they are newbies, are mostly tired of the same old song and dance and want to be done with cases expeditiously. Sometimes you will get a newbie that will fight hard or go the extra mile for a client. Often times the court appointed attorneys are being paid by the same agency that is prosecuting you; as in family court and cases where they terminate a parents rights to see their kids. In that court the standard for evidence is different. In criminal court it is beyond a reasonable doubt, but in family court the standard is a preponderance of the evidence (fancy way of saying error on the side of caution._

This is the sad truth about American Justice.

He will likely stand a chance on appeal if there is money to take it that far.

Use a stopwatch and count up to ten seconds. Imagine someone thrusting into you for that period of time, probably five or more thrusts. Imagine that you had already told this person that you would tell him to stop, and you were in a lot of pain, and he knew it. This is the situation. Ten seconds is not a tiny delay. It's not as if it took him ten seconds to process the request. He made the conscious decision to continue for that period of time, each second causing more and more pain to the female.

While fifteen years may be an excessive punishment, it is important to remember that many people and states do not believe that women have the right to say no after the sex act has begun. This denies women the right to their own bodies, and makes any sex act potentially dangerous for them. This ruling was necessary to show that continuing intercourse after you have been told to stop is a serious offense, not something to be taken lightly.

Somebody asked about a contract?:)
Yes, well, we have one already..
It's called

MARRIAGE!

Yeah, well, she didn't owe him 5-10 seconds of sex after she said stop. Stop means stop. But iono, it's kinda weird. I think she's just really mad about that extra 5-10 seconds.

Fifteen years seems extreme, but it also seems like the paragraph detailing this incident is leaving a hell of a lot out. It sounds as if there was coercion and an implied show of force with the rape comment, but the article is too vague to really be able to determine that.

This also sounds to me like a judge deciding to make someone an example. I hate it when judges decide to make examples of the defendants in their courtroom. That sort of ruling goes against everything our legal system is supposed to guard against, but our legal system, unfortunately, is much more reflective of what Voyager describes than what it was originally intended to be.

No means no even in a marriage. There is no guarantee of sex when you are married.

How long were they going at it before she said stop?

I think that makes a big difference. If they had just been doing it for a minute and she said stop and he went 10 seconds longer then that would be a higher percentage of total time than say they were going at it for 20 minutes and he went 10 seconds after she said stop, that would be a lower percentage of the total time.

And then again, they could have been going at it quite vigorously like banging the headboard against the wall vigorous. In that case it could have easily taken five seconds to even realize she was saying stop and then another five seconds to pull it out.

Thats just fucked up, dude. 5 to 10 seconds to stop is rape now? It's not like he refused to stop. Even if she didn't like it, that definitely does not, or should not count as rape. This almost makes me never want to have sex. Judges from this case, you sicken me.

I am completely ashamed to live in the same state as this judge. She was a legal adult and he was not, that is legally rape. If anyone should go to jail here, she should. It doesn't matter how much discomfort she was in, she was an adult before constent was given and afterward. He was not an adult and still isn't. By this standard almost all American husband's are rapests.