That is totally illogical to me. If it starts to hurt, or there's no protection, and he doesn't pull out, it may be unwanted sex at that point but it's not rape. Let's not trivialize real rape to accomodate definitions of consensual sex gone awry. Make up a new crime for that if it's going to be illegal. But to brand someone as a sex offender for life, require sex offender registration, submit them to possible life sentences? Come on.
I have to say that I'm a bit confused about this post. I think it conflates some issues together and misses some of the consequences of the Maouloud Baby decision.
First, the argument that once a woman consents to sex, she can't withdraw that consent closely parallels previous claims made against rape laws that once a woman kisses a man/goes to his apartment/wears seductive clothing/flirts/engages in foreplay, then a man can presume consent. Thankfully, those interpretations of rape law are largely relics of a past era. One could respond that those prior analogies are not appropriate because in this case consent to sex was actually given, so there was no presumption on the part of the defendant. However, this line is not as clean as it may appear. In the marital rape situation, we no longer presume consent to sex in a particular instance because of prior consent. TalkLeft seems to be supporting a "consent lasts for the duration of the act" standard. However, I can't see where that interpretation is supported by any statutory language. And I think TalkLeft's statement that "it may be unwanted sex at that point but it's not rape" illustrates how problematic such a hypothetical standard would be. What, after all, is the difference between "unwanted sex" when a victim says "no" and actual "rape?"
Second, if we accept the Maouloud Baby rule, then a man is free to continue to force intercourse on a woman for any duration after consent has been withdrawn. That means we are not talking about an instance where a woman says "stop," a man takes a couple seconds, and then he withdraws. Instead, under Maouloud Baby, a man is free to answer pleas of "stop," with a simple "shut up" and continue. Admittedly the facts in Maouloud Baby were not the especially egregious case, but I don't see how the rule in the case can be read any other way.
Third, this is HIGHLY unusual case. Withdrawal of consent cases are virtually nonexistent. This case was unusual because both parties largely agreed upon what happened. That, in itself, makes for a very unusual rape case. So, as with most unusual/hard cases, I think it is a big mistake to create a much further-reaching rule based upon an anomalous fact pattern.
Fourth, if TalkLeft's concern is really just the "rape," label, then I think that is a fair criticism. Perhaps the defendant, in these narrow fact circumstances, should have been charged with a lesser offense. However, it should be noted that many states don't even use the word "rape" in their statutes. Instead, different degrees of "sexual assault" replace the crime traditionally known as "rape." And while the word "rape" carries a lot of baggage, a man who doesn't stop when a woman asks certainly may deserve that label in the same way a man who has sex with a severely drunken woman does.
Fifth, the criticism that the punishment is too severe to this defendant's indiscretion conflates the guilt and penalty issues. I certainly agree that the sex offender label is too widely applied and the life-time use of it in various sentencing/regulatory schemes is problematic. However, it strikes me that one can oppose those harsh sentences, support a lesser sentence in this particular case, and still think the rape statute should not be interpreted in the way the Maouloud Baby court did.
However, TalkLeft had more to say which softens my criticism somewhat:
I also don't agree that the problem is with the word "immediately." It's with the communication of the initially consenting person's demand for cessation. Only if the demand for withdrawal was clearly and unequivocally communicated to the partner, who then forcibly continued, should it be construed to be forced or unwanted sex.
My reading of the facts of Maouloud Baby was that the withdraw was definitely not immediate, but it wasn't incredibly long either. If TalkLeft is defending the idea that a man may have a "reasonable" period of time in which to withdraw, then that doesn't strike me as a horrible rule. However, that isn't what the Maouloud Baby rule is. So, perhaps with further clarification, I may find some middle ground with Jeralyn at TalkLeft on this issue, but right now I find the post very problematic, particularly the first paragraph.