"No" means nothing once sex has started
Thanks, I guess, to Jessica at Feministing for bringing this scary piece of news to our attention: A Maryland appellate court yesterday ruled that the state's rape law is clear on the fact that no doesn't mean no if it comes in the midst of consensual sex.
The three judge panel yesterday tossed out a rape conviction on the grounds that when the jury on the case asked the judge to clarify whether a woman could legally withdraw her consent after the start of sex, the judge should have informed them that she could not. According to this panel, Maryland law is not ambiguous on this point
Are you trying to tell me that if I was having 'relations' with some guy, and he pulled out jumper cables/small animal/another person/a gun/whips and chains/some horrible and nasty thing of unknown provenance, I couldn't say, "Look here, buddy, you need to go fuck yourself, because I'm certainly not going to continue to do so?" AND THERE WOULD BE NO LEGAL RECOURSE?
What is this, a particularly ill-considered and timed April Fool's Day joke?
No comments:
Post a Comment