Can anyone elaborate on  Utmost resistance doctrine in rape?
490844
"Under the utmost resistance doctrine, a man could be found guilty of rape only if his victim could demonstrate that she had physically attempted to fight off the rape but had been overpowered."
839370
Of course not. "Probing" is not making love any more than is "raping."\n\nStop proposing sexual assaults.
1004896
Rape is not a matter od sexual satisfacition but a matter of power. Most victims are not completely naked and usually know the suspect in some way or another. However, just because a man and a woman know each other, does NOT mean that the victim automatically consents to sex.\nAlso, due to the epinephrine increase within the body, it can take as long as 45 minutes for a man to feel the effects of being hit or kicked in the groin, therefore, he would still be capable of committing rape.
879356
Depends on how the law is written, and it should be in the law!! There is no reason for anyone to automatically think that a man can't get raped, even if they have an erection while drunk! That is an autonomous response for the most part. Men usually have erections at night while asleep. It doesn't mean they want to be raped!
822753
Yes, sure.  IF there is a story in the bible about rape, then ALL rape victims and ALL rapists must act the same way in every rape scenario.  Sounds perfectly reasonable to me.
68313
If it was rape she would most likly have some trauma to her arms or hands from trying to fight back.or maybe a broken nail. She wont talk untill she has had quite some time to let the reallity of it all pass.Good luck.
407148
http://www.law.stetson.edu/courses/crimlaw/assignments/download18.htm\n\np.s. I googled it.  Google search: Adrienne Rich "Rape"
1097862
I see the difference, asker. If you are not from the Middle East and would be interested in learning more of womens' lives in Saudi Arabia, you should read the book I cited in the source. It was so difficult to put down, and very enlightening. I'm glad I read it.\n\nThe Qu'ran regarding women who break the Islamic law against sex crimes:\n\nSura IV, 15\nIf any of your women are guilty of lewdness, take the evidence of four witnesses from against you, against them; and if they testify, confine them to houses until death do claim them.\n\nTHIS DOESN'T MEAN THE "GUILTY PARTY TESTIFIES - IT IS THE TESTIMONY OF THE FOUR WITNESSES - It means she will be put into a completely darkened room with nothing at all and nobody will ever speak to her again. Food and water will sometimes be pushed under/through the door. Death could take many years.\n\nThe Qu'ran regarding men who break the Islamic law against sex crimes:\n\nSura IV, 16\nIf two men among you are guilty of lewdness, punish them both. If they repent and amend, leave them alone.\n\nCRIMES OF HUDUD (crimes denounced by God):\nthey include theft, drinking of alcohol, defamation of Islam, dornication, and adultry:\nguilty of theft - pay a fine, improsnment, amputation of right hand\nguilty of drinking or doing drugs - receive 80 lashes\nguilty of defamation of Islam - usually flogging\nguilty of fornication - flogging (usual number is 40 lashes)\nguilty of adultry - if the guilty party is married - death by stoning, beheading, or shooting\n\nCRIMES OF QUISAS (crimes against a victim or his family):\nThe family of the victim has the right to retaliate and decide the sentence. Generally "an eye for an eye" type of thing, but sometimes a monetary fine.
680483
Perm dude, have you ever actually read about Islam???\n\n\nFirst of All, Rape is considered a terrible crime in Islam. A raped woman is regarded as a total victim and It is stated in the Quoran that rape is one of the greatest sins/crimes.\n\nThis sounds like asking, if someone was robbed, will his people disown him? of course not and if that happened it has NOTHING to do with Islam...\n\nIn Islam, the raped woman is a total victim and the rapist is regarded as a ciminal who should be severely punished...or even killed! \n\nIf the raped woman was a virgin, she has the right to do a re-hymenization surgery and not tell anyone about the rape.\n\nTrue muslim people sould fully support rape victims.\n\nIn Muslim countries, Rapists are usually jailed for 25 years and sometimes condemned to death..\n\nIslam NEVER asked people to disown rape victims, he asked people to support them and punish rapists....\n\n\nPeace!
93607
Physically it is certainly possible.  Rape is forced and/or unwilling sexual activity, so a woman could certainly force a man to unwillingly have sex (see News articles below).\n\nI'm certain from a legal standpoint it is also possible, but different jurisdictions likely define rape differently.  I would be surprised if the definition of rape changes based on gender, however.
728623
Capital punishment is VERY expensive -- with appeals and public defender costs, far more than life in prison without parole.\n\nIt has been suggested that more effective than the death penalty (which accomplishes little because it is so rare) would be plucking out the eyes of the offender.\n\nOne problem with proposals to punish rapists "more severely" is that rape is often difficult to prove; if you make the punishment too severe the jury, having doubts, acquits. One doesn't hear of all the extortion cases where a woman has sex and threatens a rape charge unless she is paid off. And of course one doesn't hear of all the cases of date rape where the woman fears she will not be listened to and believed. \n\nIronically, the best solution is one proposed by an off-the-wall cult: never have sex alone and unseen, in private. One subculture where charges of "rape" are unknown is the "dogging" subculture. Google "dogging".\n\nThink of all the cases of technical and statutory rape without violence of any kind. Think of those cases of men charged with raping their wives -- simply because the wife was underage ("nonage")\n\nThink of all the lying women -- it's not just the men who lie.
441231
if the person who was forced to bend over did not consent, and felt threatened, then it was definitely assault.\n\neven if it didn't fit the definition of sexual assault, it certainly fits the definition of simple assault.
374667
All of them.  That's why it is called rape.  If it were not rape, then there would be nothing to to to court about.  Regardless of individual court cases, the trick is whether or not the courts are convicting the true rapist or not.  One fine line, however, may be that of statutory rape in which the so called victim has consented or even initiated sexual relations. Of this I do not know of any specific court cases.
579753
The whole notion that a rapist can beat the charge because of way the complainant was dressed is so ridiculous that it almost rises to the level of an urban legend.\n\nThere are circumstances in which a complainant's style of dress might come up in cross-examination, but no accused rapist ever got acquitted because the alleged victim was dressed slutty.
284059
You sum it up perfectly, "...they found the rapist not guilty since they couldn't prove it..." \n\nThat is just it. Someone is truely innocent until proven guilty. Unless there is something that proves he knew that she did not want to have sex or there was a witness that saw the act, there is no way to prove it happened.\n\n I would be interested in what book that came out of. Will you tell us? The situation you describe sounds like it would not be an "ignorant" woman, but mabey a woman who was metally handicapped or an invalid. These cases come up from time to time and are a b*i*t*c*h* to prove. The tuely sick  predators rape these types of women.
790477
Perhaps because if the penalty for rape or other sex offenses becomes too close to that for murder, offenders might see sense in making sure that their victims are unable to ever give evidence against them.\n\nDead men (and women & children) tell no tales......\n\nIf you are the offender, going to be sent to prison for ever (or executed) for the sex offence, you have ZERO reason not to comit murder too. You can only be executed once or serve one lifetime in prison.
577270
I've never seen that in the Bible... perhaps you should ask the person that said it, and if he or she can back it up, let me know so I can study it. Thanks.\n\nWell, now that he has posted it, it can be explained, as I have in fact read it.\n\nKeep in mind that "lie" does not mean "rape" it means sex whether consensual or not.\n\n[23] If a damsel that is a virgin be betrothed unto an husband, and a man find her in the city, and lie with her;\n[24] Then ye shall bring them both out unto the gate of that city, and ye shall stone them with stones that they die; the damsel, because she cried not, being in the city; and the man, because he hath humbled his neighbour's wife: so thou shalt put away evil from among you.\n\nThis is not saying that the girl was raped - it is talking about a girl that makes no objection to lying with the man when if she didn't want to lie with him, she could object and try get help since she was in a populated area. She is having consensual adulterous sex.\n\nIf she objected, fought, screamed, cried out, then she would not be held responsible. All the women in the area knew this, as it was part of the law. Because of the culture and the value of a woman's virginity, a woman would have cried out and struggled violently with a man who was raping her to try and get help - just as any woman would do today if she were in a populated area where help was available.\n\nYou'll notice that in the following verses, the woman is presumed innocent if the event occurred in an isolated area even if it cannot be proved that she made an objection, because there was no one to help her. The man is put to death for adultery, since she was betrothed.\n\nIn the last verses, if a man and a woman have sex, and she is not betrothed but is a virgin, then he has to marry her. This is to protect the woman - no one afterwards would have married her and taken care of her. It was meant to discourage men from taking advantage of girls, or being "players" so to speak.