Is there any statute of limits on a woman withdrawing consent after sex?
Can a woman withdraw her consent ten years later and claim rape?
- Anonymous1 month agoFavorite Answer
According to #metoo ...
A woman can retroactively withdraw consent after the act.
So yes - 10 years later, she can say "I no longer consent to the sex I had in 2010"...
And feminists will demand justice for the rape victim.
- SammyLv 51 month ago
If you film the event (without her knowledge, of course) you could use that evidence to prove your case.
- ElanaLv 71 month ago
Your wording is deliberately misconstruing the actual problem and therefore adds no clarity.
The LEGAL issue is whether or not a person has competently consented prior to the event, and then not withdrawn (or lost competency) since that consent.
The problem is that evidence is often imperfect and witnesses are incredibly imperfect. Determining what actually happened is damned near impossible so we end up dealing with people's interpretation of what happened.
Let's take your example:
A woman enthusiastically engages in sex. It was her idea. She was happy she did it, at least for a time after she did it. Assuming she was competent throughout, she was not raped, even if 10 seconds after the event she has second thoughts, recognizes that what she had just engaged in might completely ruin her life etc etc.
AND YOU KNOW THAT.
Let's say that she then realizes that this was a horrible mistake and she then claims she was raped.
Legally, objectively, she was *NOT* raped. She competently consented.
However, do we as the rest of the world, know that? What if, later on, she says she wasn't willing? How do we know if she is lying?
It is an issue of fact whether or not she was willing AT THE TIME, not what her opinion is now. That being said, what she says now may be a significant part of the evidence of what we have about what was going on then. After all, we don't have the ability to read her mind (in ANY time frame, but particularly at the time of the rape).
The idea that women should be uniformly believed after the fact is clearly bogus as it would either imply that women never lie (waaaaaay too much evidence against that) or that we should LET women lie and others should suffer the consequences.
But the idea that a woman can withdraw her consent after the event is clearly and obviously not true. And you know it. You're trying to make a point by pointing out appearances rather than fact. If she says she didn't consent and she actually competently did consent, she is lying (or her memory is faulty).
Unfortunately, even without liquor, it's nigh unto impossible to determine what people are thinking. It's an issue of what actually happened, what people were actually thinking.
And we have no good way of knowing. THAT is what makes rape such a hard thing to prosecute: What people were thinking *AT THE TIME OF THE CRIME* is a key element of the crime. Unfortunately, often the best evidence of what people WERE thinking is what they say now - and as evidence goes, that well and truly sucks.
All that being said, the variants of rapes, as crimes, usually do adhere to statutes of limitation, though different types of rape in different places will have different times.
In the US, rape generally has a statute of limitations under a decade unless it is part of a continuing crime (weird complex legal concept truly not germane to what you are trying to get at).
Of course, even if the statute of limitations for the alleged rape has passed, there is nothing stopping somebody from claiming that the crime happened and the alleged perpetrator will suffer all of the reputation implications (without any sort of formal way of refuting them).
Perhaps that is unfair genderwise in the sense that all other things being equal, Western society is more likely to believe women than men. Moreover, there is no useful way of saying "I don't know who to believe so I'm going to pretend nobody said anything or forget that it was said."
I agree, THAT sucks.
- 1 month ago
Women always get what they want
- How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
- The_Doc_ManLv 71 month ago
First, if it isn't reported very quickly, the odds of the claim of rape being believed drops like a stone. But second, there is a statute of limitations on various sex crimes. I would say that the answer to your specific question depends on the laws of a given state as to the putative event in question. Statutes of limitation are a matter of states' rights to write their own laws.
- nineteenthlyLv 71 month ago
There's an argument that consent for heterosexual sex is never genuine. For this reason, we should probably either be celibate or pursue homosexuality for political reasons until the patriarchy ends.
- FoofaLv 71 month ago
Given that even an hour after a real rape few DA's will take the case without DNA evidence there's not really a chance in a hell that a decade old charge would stick.
- Anonymous1 month ago
As we see with #MeToo, women can decide to regret a sexual encounter decades later, especially if they feel they may profit from this change of heart.
- Ron AkiaLv 61 month ago
Unfortunately, if she changes her mind, it's her word against the guy's.
- oldprofLv 71 month ago
I hear you buddy. What I'm hearing in lots of these sexual harassment/rape cases is cases of morning after regrets. Probably a bit drunk; so they were feeling a bit horny and let their better judgements go to hell.
Next morning, they ask, "What have I done?"
Then later, after talking to their lawyers, "What did he do?" Note the blame shifts from her to him after talking to the lawyer.
- JetDocLv 71 month ago
Apparently it happens all the time. Ask Harvey Weinstein.