Consent

[flexibeast]

moominmuppet brought my attention to the following appalling piece of news - Court: Woman Can't Say No After Start Of Sex:

An appellate court said Maryland's rape law is clear -- no doesn't mean no when it follows a yes and intercourse has begun. . . .

The appeals court said that when the jury asked the trial judge if a woman could withdraw her consent after the start of sex, the jury should have been told she could not. The ruling said the law is not ambiguous and is a tenet of common-law.

!!!

This decision seems to me to be saying: "Once you consent to sex, you no longer have the right to make decisions about what happens to your own body." If Maryland's law is so "clear" on this point, then Maryland law 'clearly' needs changing.

i am disgusted and outraged.
 

Comments

[happyevilslosh.livejournal.com]

I don't disagree with anything you're saying. I'm more thinking that in the event someone does "acquiesce, hoping that the experience will end as soon as possible" it would be essentially impossible to prove rape after the fact, and I can understand the courts not wanting to get into the sort of his word vs. her word that would result from that.

[flexibeast.livejournal.com]

Well, technically, of course, all parties involved (regardless of gender - men get sexually raped and assaulted too) are under oath to tell the truth, so the question "Did not the plaintiff say 'No, stop!' to you?" should be enough to determine whether consent was or was not given and/or removed. (The acquiesence i was thinking of takes place after the victim has already said "No", but the perp continues anyway.) Obviously, though, to think that people don't perjure themselves in such a situation is naïve at best, which does make things more complicated. Ultimately, due to presumption of innocence, it means many actual perps go free. In fact, the friend i referred to in my last comment knows that so many victims of sexual assault, rape and abuse see their attacker getting light-to-non-existent sentences that she's actually starting to think that defendants in such cases should be presumed guilty until proven innocent. Which, although i understand where she's coming from, i strongly disagree with.

At the same time, i do think that our society needs to get away from the "The victim is obviously making it up / The perp is obviously lying" dichotomy that almost inevitably arises in these cases. i think our attitude should be "The accused is innocent until proven guilty, but the accusations must be taken seriously and with respect for the plaintiff."