Who was the dickhead politician that suggested that if rape was unavoidable a woman should just lie back and enjoy it?

She told him they could have sex as long as he stopped when she asked him to, the documents say.

But as they were beginning, the woman told a prosecutor, she asked Baby to stop and he didn’t for several seconds. [from JanetLand's second link, emphasis added]

The State maintained throughout that Jewel L’s apparent consent was never volitional. Had the jury accepted the State’s major premise, the issue of withdrawal of consent would never have been considered during the deliberations. The issue of post penetration consent, was, to be sure, injected into the case, not by the appellant or the State, but rather by the jury in its consideration of the evidence during its deliberations. Although we cannot know precisely the thought processes of the jurors, the evidence was that appellant and Mike had suggested that Jewel L. and Lacey S. get a hotel room because the girls were older and that, when appellant and Mike began discussing sex and the former produced three condoms, Lacey, apparently uncomfortable with the turn of events, made it clear that she did not want to accompany the trio. After complying with Lacey’s request to drive her back to the restaurant, Jewel L. drove the two boys, at night, to a residential area and parked her car on the street. She then climbed into the back seat of the car between appellant and Mike. Notwithstanding the State’s theory that Jewel L. was tricked into joining appellant and his accomplice on the back seat of the car, the evidence presented to the jury provided at least a rational inference that (1) Lacey sensed that a sexual encounter was contemplated by the two boys and chose to leave the trio; (2)that, although Jewel L. certainly did not relinquish her right to refuse appellant’s sexual advances by climbing into the back seat of the car, by agreeing to remain with the two boys, she had abandoned the security provided by Lacey’s presence; and (3) the earlier conversations about sex and appellant’s production of three condoms should have been indicia of their intentions. All of the foregoing evidence was before the jury for its consideration in contradistinction to the State’s theory that Jewel L., an eighteen–year-old college student, was tricked by two sixteen–year–old high school students. The rape trauma syndrome, discussed, infra, was competent evidence to explain the unusual behavior of Jewel L. subsequent to the sexual encounter, but would have no bearing on her actions preceding the alleged rape.

Hmm. Get back to me after you've been through something like this, because maybe then you can look at it as something that happened to someone and not something that some court reporter typed up.

Get back to me after you've been through something like this, because maybe then you can look at it as something that happened to someone and not something that some court reporter typed up.