|
April 02, 2008
"if rape is inevitable"
Distinguishing coerced sex from consensual sex can be especially difficult.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.(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? These contradictions and more occurred to me as I read about the changing story of a "three-minute clip, filmed on a mobile phone, apparently showed a young and unconscious mother being gang raped as she lay helpless in her own home": 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.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.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.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.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 |
|
April 2008
WORLD-WIDE CALENDAR
Search the Site
E-mail
Classics To Go
Archives
April 2008
March 2008 February 2008 January 2008 December 2007 November 2007 October 2007 September 2007 August 2007 July 2007 June 2007 May 2007 April 2007 March 2007 February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003 August 2003 July 2003 June 2003 May 2003 May 2002 AB 1634 MBAPBSALLAMERICANGOP See more archives here Old (Blogspot) archives
Recent Entries
Having it and not eating it too?
how many buts does anyone need? When lemmings pounce! The Songs Of Distant Earth Days Unusual morning irregularity We All Pledge To The Same Flag "Hillary's terrorist ties" The Heat In The Kitchen Mr. Warman Claims Bad Reputation Bitter blowback beats Bosnian backlash? (But which elitist underdog wins?)
Links
Site Credits
|
|
Think of how much the world would change if we could no longer lie to ourselves about sex.