Wait! THAT WAS RAPE? Nah, sorry, but it wasn't.

It was rape. When a woman tells a man to to stop and he won't, that is rape. It doesn't matter if it started out consensual, every human being is allowed to change their mind. Even if it wasn't because of the condom factor (which is a very valid reason since she was trying to avoid both pregnancy and disease) if she just changed her mind because she felt like it was the right thing to do (second thoughts that came a little slow because she was drunk) then it's still her right. You can call her a tease if you want to, but only if the guy did as she said and got off her. Since he didn't, you can call her a rape victim because that's what she is.

@Lisaluv1: Um...yeah, so it's her fault for not being on the pill. That makes a lot of sense...no wait it *beep* doesn't. How in the hell would that protect her against anything other than pregnancy? What about diseases? Hmmm? Or are you the kind of moron who thinks the pill covers that too? It doesn't matter her reason for wanting to stop, she doesn't owe him sex just because she initially wanted it. Once she doesn't he has no right to continue with it. You shouldn't be allowed to have a vagina.

Was not rape, at all. It's like giving a friend $20 and then as they are spending it, realising you need it after all and charging him with theft.

You consent to sex, you cannot un-consent during the sex. He didn't hit her or start choking her, he continued to have sex with her in exactly the same way they started and she consented to.

She was planning on having sex with him until he couldn't produce a condom. Remember, she was raised in a time when the media and schools indoctrinated every student with the idea that unprotected sex meant you would get AIDS. We don't see that level of propaganda today, but in the 90's, the school hallways were wallpapered with posters saying such.

When he didn't dress up his little soldier and forced himself on/in her anyway, the terms of those sexual negotiations were breached. He should have just settled for feeling her up and making out. She may have given in to him later, if only he kept things hot and sexy. If not, he could have relieved himself before returning to the party.
Either way, he was in the wrong. He was a rapist. he deserves jail time in a 'pound-your ass' prison and the label of "sex offender" on his record.

There is no excuse for his behavior and she had every right to say "no" at any time during the encounter.


Aye. The haggis is in the fire for sure.

[deleted]

Here is common sense:

At one point during the act of intercourse, the female character clearly shouts out "NO!" and "STOP!", but the male character continues having sex with her. He even physically restrains her after a point, presumably in the hopes of finishing the task at hand despite her pleas for him to cease the act of intercourse.

That's called rape. End of story.

[deleted]

[deleted]

The definition of rape is having sex with someone without there consent. She told him to stop clearly taking away her consent and he continued so that is by definition rape. Anyone should have the right to change their mind at any point and who would carry on with someone who is telling them to stop besides a rapist?

Just because she consented to sexual activity before and would have consented to sex does not mean that him continuing is any less painful, humiliating or traumatizing. So why should it be treated less seriously.

People talk like its unreasonable of her to only agree to sex if she's allowed to protect herself from STD's. Or that its not that simple that a man can stop during sex. It happens all the time when kids go to their parents bedroom in the middle of the night and most men will stop if asked to cause they aren't rapists.

"An insult to true victims" is what people always come out with when they are trying to trivialize certain types of rape. You went to organizations who deal with "true victims of rape" everyday - which are staffed largely by survivors of sexual abuse - and said what you say in this post and they'd order you out.

Do research into the subject of rape and you'll find out that what he did does fit the definition of rape, that being raped under those circumstances is no less traumatic than being raped by a stranger in fact if anything its worse because people are more likely to be blamed and not taken seriously and that the perpetrator is a danger to society.

To people mentioning false accusations. All the research that hasn't been debunked shows that about 2-8% of rape accusations are false. About the same number as for any other offense.