It's Not Rape if You're Single

[Clone]

When you click on the link, you read where the perp admits he KNEW she thought he was her boyfriend.

===========================


"So you slip into a bed occupied by an 18-year-old sleeping woman and have sex with her, admitting that, as she becomes conscious, she thinks you're her boyfriend. It's dark. She's possibly drunk. When she realizes you're not her man, she pushes you away and screams. Or not. You resist her rejection. Or not.
Is it rape?

A California appeals court weighing the case against Julio Morales today essentially said ...
... no. Why? Because she wasn't married. Say what?
The court laid it down just like we just did:

A man enters the dark bedroom of an unmarried woman after seeing her boyfriend leave late at night, and has sexual intercourse with the woman while pretending to be the boyfriend. Has the man committed rape? Because of historical anomalies in the law and the statutory definition of rape, the answer is no ...

And here's the money quote:

... If the woman had been married and the man had impersonated her husband, the answer would be yes.

Really. Not only that, but the Second Appellate District Court in Los Angeles said state legislators should revise rape law so that it's clearer for cases like this.

Details:
http://blogs.laweekly.com/informer/2013/...d_case.php

[PonderThis]

When you click on the link, you read where the perp admits he KNEW she thought he was her husband.

===========================

A man enters the dark bedroom of an unmarried woman after seeing her boyfriend leave late at night ...

This isn't making sense to me. Why would she think it was her husband when she's unmarried? There's something missing here.

EDIT: OK, I think you mean boyfriend, not husband.

[Clone]

When you click on the link, you read where the perp admits he KNEW she thought he was her husband.

===========================

A man enters the dark bedroom of an unmarried woman after seeing her boyfriend leave late at night ...

This isn't making sense to me. Why would she think it was her husband when she's unmarried? There's something missing here.

EDIT: OK, I think you mean boyfriend, not husband.

Ugh. You're absolutely correct.
Thanks for the heads up!

[PonderThis]

I didn't know a sleeping woman could consent to have sex, unless it was a preexisting arrangement of some sort. This does seem like rape, and I agree, the legislature should change law if this isn't clear.

[Clone]

How could this not be considered rape???

From Page Two:

The victim's version:

According to Jane, she woke up to the sensation of having sex. She was in a different position on the bed, perpendicular to the position she had been in when she fell asleep. She was confused because she and Victor had agreed not to have sex that night. When light coming through a crack in the bedroom door illuminated the face of the person having sex with her, i.e., defendant, she realized it was not Victor and tried to push him away. Defendant grabbed her thighs and pushed his penis back into her vagina. She pushed him away again and began to cry and yell. Defendant left her room; Jane locked her door and called Victor, asking him to come back to her house.

Morales' version:

He thought she was attractive, so he kissed her on the cheek. She turned toward him, and they kissed some more. He thought she was not asleep because she responded to his kisses, but he also thought she believed he was her boyfriend.

They kissed for several minutes, and he became aroused. He began to take her pajamas and underwear off, and she lifted her hips to help him. He unbuckled his belt, pulled down his pants, and began to have sex. He stopped because he felt he was betraying his girlfriend; he did not recall Jane pushing him away, and he did not try to reinsert his penis after he pulled out of her.

When he went to leave the room, it felt like someone was holding the door shut. He finally was able to open the door, and he saw his friend Tony standing outside, laughing.

http://blogs.laweekly.com/informer/2013/...d_case.php

[Wonky]

How could this not be considered rape???

From Page Two:

The victim's version:

According to Jane, she woke up to the sensation of having sex. She was in a different position on the bed, perpendicular to the position she had been in when she fell asleep. She was confused because she and Victor had agreed not to have sex that night. When light coming through a crack in the bedroom door illuminated the face of the person having sex with her, i.e., defendant, she realized it was not Victor and tried to push him away. Defendant grabbed her thighs and pushed his penis back into her vagina. She pushed him away again and began to cry and yell. Defendant left her room; Jane locked her door and called Victor, asking him to come back to her house.

Morales' version:

He thought she was attractive, so he kissed her on the cheek. She turned toward him, and they kissed some more. He thought she was not asleep because she responded to his kisses, but he also thought she believed he was her boyfriend.

They kissed for several minutes, and he became aroused. He began to take her pajamas and underwear off, and she lifted her hips to help him. He unbuckled his belt, pulled down his pants, and began to have sex. He stopped because he felt he was betraying his girlfriend; he did not recall Jane pushing him away, and he did not try to reinsert his penis after he pulled out of her.

When he went to leave the room, it felt like someone was holding the door shut. He finally was able to open the door, and he saw his friend Tony standing outside, laughing.

http://blogs.laweekly.com/informer/2013/...d_case.php

This does not contain the vital information necessary to make a judgment. That being, her answer when he ask "was it as good for you as it was for me"?

[PonderThis]

How could this not be considered rape???

Well, this way: Now I'm not so sure.

Morales' version:

He thought she was attractive, so he kissed her on the cheek. She turned toward him, and they kissed some more. He thought she was not asleep because she responded to his kisses, but he also thought she believed he was her boyfriend.

They kissed for several minutes, and he became aroused. He began to take her pajamas and underwear off, and she lifted her hips to help him. He unbuckled his belt, pulled down his pants, and began to have sex. He stopped because he felt he was betraying his girlfriend; he did not recall Jane pushing him away, and he did not try to reinsert his penis after he pulled out of her.

When he went to leave the room, it felt like someone was holding the door shut. He finally was able to open the door, and he saw his friend Tony standing outside, laughing.

http://blogs.laweekly.com/informer/2013/...d_case.php

This leaves me conflicted. Is there a law against kissing another persons spouse either? What if she/he acts receptive? I'm not sure. A lot of people seem to be fine with those things, too. I can see why the court felt conflicted.

[Clone]

This leaves me conflicted. Is there a law against kissing another persons spouse either? What if she/he acts receptive? I'm not sure. A lot of people seem to be fine with those things, too. I can see why the court felt conflicted.

Conflicted?
Are you saying the young woman went through all the bullshit of charging rape, going for the examination, having the smears taken, being grilled in a trial by a defense lawyer because ?

She says she pushed him away, he spread her thighs and went at it again.

IMO, the only conflict is, for some reason the law calls it rape only if the woman is married.

His frigging friends were laughing outside the door...what an ordeal.

And, no, I don't belong to the group that says: "She shouldn't have been drunk."

[PonderThis]

I've seen women go through a lot of things to find a man legally guilty of something, and I've had it done to myself too (not successfully though). I guess what I'm really saying is I'm conflicted when it comes to legislating peoples morals.

[broadzilla]

He already served his time.

[csrowan]

It's all about consent. She didn't give it.

[Clone]

I've seen women go through a lot of things to find a man legally guilty of something, and I've had it done to myself too (not successfully though). I guess what I'm really saying is I'm conflicted when it comes to legislating peoples morals.

It's your opinion and you're sticking to it.
It's not like any of us truly change each other's mind, right?

[Wonky]

It's all about consent. She didn't give it.

Unless of course, it's a "game" she enjoys. What used to be kinky is now common. So I'm told. Personally I think sex is just too messy, takes too much time, wears a body out, and all the whips, chains, and sharp objects are just too damned expensive.

[Larry]

Rape.

[Clone]

I think the court may agree but they had to interpret the law.
I think the wording of the law should be changed.
Pronto.

[illcommandante]

This is where anarchy has a better answer. This is how the law ties the hands of the innocent. This is a crime against us all. Forced down our throats by codes and covenants. This is the cold face of the state.