I read what happened in the case itself and it's really just tragic for everyone. It sounds like none of the teenagers really knew exactly what they wanted or how to tell what anyone else wanted. Not that it justifies their sketchy behavior, but I'm not sure they really understood how consent works. I know when I had sex ed in middle and high school, they told us plenty about STDS, which are only an issue in a fraction of sex encounters, but never warned us about all the potential for miscommunication and uncertainty about boundaries. It just doesn't seem right to label this guy a "rapist" and put him in prison with people who rape with full intent. Isn't there another kind of charge, where he can be required to attend ASAP-like classes and do community service or something? Well, if he wins the appeal based on the letter of the law, I hope they pursue a civil suit or something
( ... )
Well, my impression was more that the boys in this case didn't actually care what the girl wanted or didn't want, and but I definitely agree with the rest of what you said. I think talking about relationship issues, and the legalities of consent, would be a good thing to be taught in sex ed. But apparently I was lucky just to have gotten to learn about contraception in sex ed; kids today probably only get to hear the message that sex is bad, don't do it. And obviously talking about consenting to sex, and communicating witht he person you're having sex with/don't actually want to have sex with, would be exactly like telling kids to go out and have sex! Which would be evil.
Sexual partners, of whatever gender, ought to be able to give or withdraw consent whenever they desire. However, the law must also ensure that the other partner is protected: if you change your mind while we're having sex, and I stop, I ought not to be guilty of rape. Given that the question then becomes a hearsay issue of "when, during the sex act, was consent withdrawn, and did sex continue afterward", I can see why the law would favor the more objectively verifiable question of "did sex occur in the absence of consent".
It's a tough issue. We get a lot of calls from people on both sides of it, and it's hard to know what to tell them.
I definitely agree with what you're saying. Unfortunately the decision in this case seems to have had nothing at all to do with those sorts of questions. A quote from the actual decision:
The concept, undergirding the Battle holding, rooted in ancient laws and adopted by the English common-law, views the initial "de-flowering" of a woman as the real harm or insult which must be redressed by compensating, in legal contemplation, the injured party -- the father or husband
( ... )
Comments 4
Reply
The world makes me sad.
Reply
Sexual partners, of whatever gender, ought to be able to give or withdraw consent whenever they desire. However, the law must also ensure that the other partner is protected: if you change your mind while we're having sex, and I stop, I ought not to be guilty of rape. Given that the question then becomes a hearsay issue of "when, during the sex act, was consent withdrawn, and did sex continue afterward", I can see why the law would favor the more objectively verifiable question of "did sex occur in the absence of consent".
It's a tough issue. We get a lot of calls from people on both sides of it, and it's hard to know what to tell them.
Reply
The concept, undergirding the Battle holding, rooted in ancient laws and adopted by the English common-law, views the initial "de-flowering" of a woman as the real harm or insult which must be redressed by compensating, in legal contemplation, the injured party -- the father or husband ( ... )
Reply
Leave a comment