really, they win both ways: they can claim that isn't what they meant, when what they meant is nowhere to be found in the legislation they actually passed. and, they can lay the blame for "misinterpretation" of the law on "activist" liberal judges, who should, by god, be replaced with good, god-fearing, conservative "activist" judges!

when the dust settles, the average constituent just hasn't a clue what their elected representative is really up to, but they know it's good, because their boy/girl tells them so.

writing a law that said exactly what it means is damn hard work, and not nearly as much fun as a 30 second sound bite. don't expect one anytime soon, from any state legislative body, or congress.

out of curiousity, what's it called if, just as the guy is orgasming, the woman says to stop? further, if the guy isn't wearing a condom, wouldn't that be sort of obvious, before penetration? as well, is "btw, i'm HIV positive" a sweet nothing normally whispered into a partner's ear, while in deep coitus?

He is convicted of rape, but the case is on appeal and the appeals court has ruled in his favor, but the state is still fighting.

The article says that during deliberations, the jury asks the judge "if it was rape if a female changed her mind during the sex to which she consented and the man continued until climax. The judge said it was for them to decide."

However, I believe the answer should have been, "Usually, no."  The reason is that most men ejaculate within 90 seconds of insertion and they are not in control of ejaculation and no one responds immediately to any instruction.

I was in a car accident once in which a fellow had made a left turn directly in front of oncoming traffic and it turned out t