Hey, Can A Woman "Ask To Get Raped"?

Go ahead keep playing dumb, because the take away is that you are lying....again.
"lack of consent was clearly expressed" could very easily mean that she clearly never said "yes" . There is a world of difference between needing a yes and not getting a no, and my statute supports either interpretation.

"lack of consent was clearly expressed" could very easily mean that she clearly never said "yes"

Rape in the 3rd Degree
(a) Where the victim did not consent as defined in RCW 9A.44.010(7), to sexual intercourse with the perpetrator and such lack of consent was clearly expressed by the victim's words or conduct,

You don't have to understand consent for the above--you only have to understand LACK OF CONSENT--LACK OF CONSENT CLEARLY EXPRESSED BY WORDS OR CONDUCT.

Are you too intellectually limited to understand what lack of consent is? Can't you understand the words, "No" or "Don't do that--stop"? Or what it means if she pushes, shoves, or tries to get you off of her--while possibly yelling, screaming, or crying? Or is that how all your sexual partners act?

I'll try again...if consent should be a clear and freely given "yes" by words or action then the lack of a "yes" is non consent

Rape in the 3rd Degree
(a) Where the victim did not consent as defined in RCW 9A.44.010(7), to sexual intercourse with the perpetrator and such lack of consent was clearly expressed by the victim's words or conduct,

The Washington State rape statute defining consent as requiring 'actual words or conduct indicating freely given agreement to have sexual intercourse,' was . . . silent as to where the burden lay as to the showing of consent. The defendant in State v. Camara claimed that judge's charge to the jury improperly inferred that the burden was upon him. The Washington Supreme Court determined that there was 'support in the history and purposes of rape law reform' to conclude that the intent of the legislature was to shift the burden of proof to the defense. As a result of the Camara decision, Washington courts typically included the following instruction to juries in rape cases:

"A person is not guilty if the sexual intercourse is consensual. "Consent" means that at the time of the act of sexual intercourse, there are actual words or conduct indicating a freely given agreement to have sexual intercourse. The burden is on the defendant to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the sexual intercourse was consensual.
?

Even with your lawyer you can not be sure what a court will not decide that a level of coercion existed that invalid consent long after the event.

enthusiastic YES!" preferably with a smiley face.

set up law where a person can not know if they are a criminal or not until we have a trial?

That enhusiastic yes better had come without any pressure of any kind also.

Add to that it does not normally take a conviction to ruin a young man life

The old law was that the state had to prove that the woman said no. the new law is that the man has to prove that the woman said yes. The woman does not need to say no for there to have been a rape, she can do nothing, she can be drunk, she can claim that she felt pressure, she can claim stupidity and say she did not know what she was agreeing to.....and, and, and....

Rape in the 3rd Degree
(a) Where the victim did not consent as defined in RCW 9A.44.010(7), to sexual intercourse with the perpetrator and such lack of consent was clearly expressed by the victim's words or conduct

The old law was that the state had to prove that the woman said no. the new law is that the man has to prove that the woman said yes. The woman does not need to say no for there to have been a rape, she can do nothing, she can be drunk, she can claim that she felt pressure, she can claim stupidity and say she did not know what she was agreeing to.....and, and, and....

I liked the "no means no" law

I liked the "no means no" law, if you like it to then work with me to bring it back

Where the victim did not consent as defined in RCW 9A.44.010(7), to sexual intercourse with the perpetrator and such lack of consent was clearly expressed by the victim's words or conduct,

You are confusing the actual rape statute with a defendant's defense at trial that the sexual intercourse "was consensual". That's a defense--not the rape law. Your thinking continues to be extremely muddled. Obviously the defense for a non consensual act is to claim it was consensual. That's why the jury is given the definition of "consent"--so they can understand what the defendant's "it was consensual" defense means. But that is not what the defendant is charged with--he is charged with rape in the 3rd degree as it is defined in this statute.

dummy, there was no change from "old law" to "new law". The law says that the woman must clearly indicate lack of consent through words or behavior--she must say, or indicate, "NO"--that the sexual act is unwanted.--because that is how the rape statute reads. She cannot do nothing--she must indicate lack of consent in some way.

IDIOT--YOU HAVE THE "NO MEANS NO" LAW! READ THE STATUTE! IT SAYS THE VICTIM CLEARLY SAID, OR INDICATED, LACK OF CONSENT--AND THE PERPETRATOR IGNORED THE VICTIM'S CLEARLY EXPRESSED LACK OF CONSENT. THAT IS RAPE IN THE 3rd DEGREE. THAT IS"NO MEANS NO"!

Exactly how is that proven ?

To say that balancing the
scales to promote greater equality for rape victims is long overdue is an understatement.
Defendants enjoy special privileges, like requiring victims to have resisted,
like legally impugning the character, truthfulness, and reputation of rape
victims with their past sexual activities and even past interactions (even if not
involving coitus), and like the need for them to express nonconsent—which is
not required in other crimes and prosecutions. It is high time to give victims
a fair shake, to dismantle the zealous overprotections for men accused of this
crime, which have been buoyed up by the myths about false accusation, ulterior
motives, and so on, commonly embraced when rape charges are levied. Because
of such factors, rape continues to be, as the FBI claimed over thirty years ago, the
“most notoriously underreported offense in the country” (1975: 15). The unique
barriers those victimized by rape face dissuade them from reporting and prosecuting
offenders; the effect is that they are discriminated against: denied access
to and protection from the criminal justice system. Just think about the Kobe
Bryant case. The publicity and resultant trauma were so overwhelming that the
alleged victim finally had to retreat and withdraw her charges. The physically
disabled have been empowered to sue to gain access to courts; rape victims, disabled
for different reasons, are entitled to similar recourse (Lane 2004: A1). Leveling,
balancing, and seeking comparability are not efforts to seek privileges or
advantages for victims. Rather, serious changes are desperately needed in order
to counterweigh what has been a gross level of inequality and unequal access to
legal protection for a crime that is “particularly difficult to prosecute” (Temkin
2002: 238; also see Adler 1987; Du Mont and Myhr 2000; Estrich 1987; Fairstein
1993; Hunter, Burns-Smith, and Walsh 2000; Vachss 1993). If a “serious imbalance
between the rights of criminal defendants and the rights of crime victims”
(Kilpatrick, Beatty, and Howley 1998: 1) characterizes adjudication of crime in
general to the point of arguing for a constitutional amendment (as with victims’
rights legislation), the degree of “imbalance” between the rights of the accused
and the rights of victims in rape cases cannot be gainsaid.

"take back the night" rallies

you just know what ever we give them it will never be enough...

Walking aways with millions and millions just being pay to just go away.

Is there a list somewhere on a notice board for women to put their names down to be the next victim ? Or do they just have to come up with their own scheme