Traditionally, rape is a crime to which consent is a defense. Consent to intercourse, that is. However, when sexual intercourse takes place between an adult and a minor, neither side has the right to consent. Thus, if a male child rapes an adult, his best defense strategy would be to get to the police first, and say that the adult, um.... Would that be let him?
The emerging rule seems to be that not saying no to a child is rape.
But from a feminist standpoint, this is problematic, because the definition of rape is based on whether it is against the victim's will; not whether the victim resisted or said no. This Massachusetts Task Force definition typifies the feminist perspective:
The Date Rape Task Force Report classifies most consensual sex between a couple as rape by the male, since most sex acts between willing partners do not meet the Task Force's requirements of "expressed consent" and "reasoned consent." If adopted, the Task Force's date rape definition will be the most far-reaching restriction of consensual sex imposed by any secular university in America.
The Task Force deems any sexual act engaged in by a couple as rape unless it occurs after an explicit "yes" on the part of the woman, even though most happily-married couples have often made love together without explicitly discussing beforehand whether to have sex. Rape, according to the Task Force report, includes "any act of sexual intercourse which occurs without the expressed consent" of the complainant. "Expressed consent" has been defined narrowly by Task Force members like co-chair Janet Viggiani to mean a "yes" following a verbal request.
The definition also classifies as rape any lovemaking that occurs without "reasoned consent," a requirement Viggiani says may be violated if the complainant is under any influence of alcohol, even if she is not legally intoxicated. Thus, if a couple shares a glass of wine and then has sex, the male can be defined by the Task Force as a rapist. The proposed rape definition applies not only to vaginal intercourse but also to oral sex and any other act involving penetration, no matter how slight.
(In this regard, I've long wondered whether and why men can't be raped by women.)
Clearly, consenting to the advances of a child can be a crime, but if the woman does not have to say no, where is the line to be drawn?
The alleged victim claims it shows her being raped by three boys in front of her screaming children, aged two and four, after being drugged.
But yesterday it was revealed that the 24-year-old woman has now been arrested on suspicion of unlawful sexual intercourse with a 14-year-old and perverting the course of justice.
Scotland Yard confirmed it will take no further action against two 16-year-olds and a 14-yearold arrested in February in connection with the video.
What happened? How do we know that the rape charge means simply that the teens got their story together and agreed that the woman instigated the sex? Or that she consented.
I am unable to ascertain any of the details, such as even the woman's name. If she was arrested, don't they provide that?
There's more here. Apparently the police believe the erstwhile victim is lying. She claims otherwise:
In a shocking twist, the 24-year-old currently living in temporary accommodation in south-west London with her partner and young children, was arrested on Friday on suspicion of having sex with a minor and perverting the course of justice.
She was subsequently bailed pending further inquiries and is due to return to the same police station later this month.
No charges will be brought against the three teens - two aged 16 and one aged 14 - who were arrested over the episode earlier this year.
The woman claimed the three youths spiked her drink and raped her repeatedly in a 14-hour ordeal at her south London home last November.
But she did not report it to the police straightaway and claimed she was too scared to do so because the teenagers kept threatening her.
It was only a few months later, when a friend spotted the sickening three-minute clip of the incident on YouTube, that her partner encouraged her to report it to police.
I'd like to know who posted the video. If she posted it, I think that's evidence that she's lacking in credibility. But if the kids posted it, who knows what that might mean?
The video had been posted on the site shortly after the episode took place and was seen by 600 people before it was removed by YouTube in February.
The footage shows the mum having sex with the teens, while she is seemingly unconscious. Two of her children are heard crying in the background and at times the youths laugh into the camera.
If they're laughing into the camera, it's a bit tough to take them seriously as rape victims. If this was in fact three teenagers on one (two of whom are 16 and probably look and act like grown men), I'm wondering whether the woman could have stopped them, even if she did instigate the sex. Again, from a feminist perspective, what matters is not what she said or did, but whether she did not want to have sex with them.
The thing to remember is that according to feminist law, if she said yes, she's the criminal. If she didn't say yes, she's the victim of a crime.
Baffling, I admit. It's also not clear whether she's actually going to be charged with a crime. Right now, she's been "arrested for investigation." (A crime we do not have in this country, where arrested persons must be charged with a crime or released.)
But despite the horrific nature of the video, investigating police officers have questioned the woman's version of events. She could now be charged with having sex with a minor and perverting the course of justice.
Her children have also been placed on the Child Protection Register and she fears social services will take them away from her.
"I had no idea this would happen - I thought everything would be OK because I have told the truth," she said. "The police are turning it on me - it's ridiculous. I can't take much more.
Her partner of 10 years, and father of her children, added: "What's happened is totally outrageous. And we've been forced to stay where we are living for seven weeks - it's unacceptable.
"We've done nothing wrong and we're the ones suffering."
A police spokesman confirmed the woman had been arrested and bailed and the teens are unlikely to face charges.
I'd like to know exactly what happened.
It's scary to contemplate that it might be a crime for a woman (or a man, for that matter) to accede to the sexual demands of gigantic young hooligans.
posted by Eric on 04.02.08 at 03:17 PM
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://classicalvalues.com/cgi-bin/pings.cgi/6400
Comments
Think of how much the world would change if we could no longer lie to ourselves about sex.
The Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler
Don?t bang your head!
Think of how much the world would change if we could no longer lie to ourselves about sex.