Home

[BAPHOMET.]

North Carolina is the one state where the law explicitly says you cannot revoke consent once it's given. A bill that would remove this "unacceptable loophole" has little traction.

One May evening in 1977, Beverly Hester was sexually assaulted. According to the summary included in the North Carolina Supreme Court decision State v. Way, she testified that the perpetrator, Donnie Way, threatened to beat her if she didn't have sex with him while hanging out at a friend's apartment. When she tried to leave the bedroom, he allegedly slapped her in the face.

Hester went on to tell the court that Way penetrated her anally and forced her to perform oral sex on him. She said he began having intercourse with her?though she begged him not to because she was a virgin?but stopped when she complained of severe stomach pains. Later, at the hospital, she told her mother she was raped.

Despite her testimony, the jury appeared to be swayed by the defense's argument that Hester initially agreed to have sex with Way. During deliberations, they returned to ask the judge "whether consent can be withdrawn." The judge noted that it could, especially in cases where intercourse has turned violent and thus "no longer consensual." Way was convicted of second degree rape.

Read more: A Convicted Child Molester Just Moved in Next Door to His Victim

The state Supreme Court, however, disagreed with the lower court's interpretation of withdrawn consent. "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," the High Court wrote.

As a result, for the past 38 years, women in North Carolina?like 19-year-old Aaliyah Palmer, who allegedly agreed to have sex with a man at a party but changed her mind when he got violent?have been unable to legally revoke consent after sexual intercourse begins. "It's really stupid," Palmer recently told the Fayetteville Observer. "If I tell you no and you kept going, that's rape."

On March 30, state Sen. Jeff Jackson, a Democrat, filed a bill that would change this horrific law. (He filed a similar bill with two Republican co-sponsors in 2015.) The text of SB 553 is short and to the point, reading, in part: "a person may withdraw consent to engage in vaginal intercourse in the middle of the intercourse, even if the actual penetration is accomplished with consent and even if there is only one act of vaginal intercourse."

Women in North Carolina have been unable to legally revoke consent after sexual intercourse begins.

Currently, the bill sits in the Senate's Rules Committee, where it is likely to be tabled. Jackson tells Broadly he plans to refile the bill again next year. "This really shouldn't be a controversial matter," he says. "North Carolina is the only state in the country where no doesn't really mean no. Right now, if a woman tells a man to stop having sex he is under no legal obligation to do so, as long as she initially consented. If sex turns violent, the woman has no right to tell the man he must stop."

Jackson says he first encountered this loophole when he worked as a criminal prosecutor, when his office was forced to dismiss a rape charge because of these circumstances. "Very few legislators are aware that this is the current state of our law," he says. "They're very surprised when I tell them. Most of my conversations have been educating our members about this plainly unacceptable loophole in our rape law. I have not had any members defend the loophole. Every legislator I've spoken to agrees we need to fix this."

But traction has been slow in getting this change implemented. He points to one conservative blog as an example for why. In it, the writer ridicules Jackson's work to address the "'rules' of fornication" as "pandering to the Wimmen's Studies Department alumni."

https://broadly.vice.com/en_us/article/43y99g/men-legally-allowed-to-finish-sex-even-if-woman-revokes-consent-nc-law-states

jesus...

[GRAND]

V

So pretty much don't go anywhere that's private if you have no intentions of sex

[RAY7]

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,"

Im paying attention to the latter part of this and its dumb but I guess instead of rape
these men (or women) just end up charged with assault, battery, etc instead of SEXUAL assualt/rape?
are those lesser crimes?

[Freemala Harris]

Not NC again

What a backwards ass place

[DVDDY.]

Ironically, NC also has the one of the most restrictive abortion laws in the US

[Eternal Bell]

NC is kinda tryna come for florida

[BAPHOMET.]

Florida is the best place on earth.

[Buy The Stars✨]

But what about a Man and a man .. asking for a friend

[CHOKE]

 

[Lane Bryant Jumpsuit]

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,"

Im paying attention to the latter part of this and its dumb but I guess instead of rape
these men (or women) just end up charged with assault, battery, etc instead of SEXUAL assualt/rape?
are those lesser crimes?

I am kinda inclined to agree
You were fine with his dick inside yew
so he didn't force his way in

but if mid fuck he gets wild and  your over it
its not rape its moreso assault with a deadly dick

[Lane Bryant Jumpsuit]

But what about a Man and a man .. asking for a friend

Mee too

[KING BENTLEY.]

 

[CHOKE]

the south is big on manners so I guess this makes sense.

its only polite to let him cum inside of u once you said it was ok
no backsies

!!!!!!!!!!!

I mean I thought this was always a thing tho

Once you agree to let him inside you it would be rude to change your mind mid way through 

[GLOCK]

dddddddd

[Vonc2002]

I mean hmmmmmmmm
Iono how i would feel if mid way thru sex u just said oh changed my mind.  I definitely wouldnt keep going tho because I'm not fighting for a nut. Im a gentleman tho