7/31/2003 03:41:00 PM | Brad Plumer Sex and consent in the Midwest: Illinois has passed a new law stating that people can change their minds during sex and withdraw consent at any time: (c) A person who initially consents to sexual penetration or sexual conduct is not deemed to have consented to any sexual penetration or sexual conduct that occurs after he or she withdraws consent during the course of that sexual penetration or sexual conduct.My first reaction was that this is no big deal. If a woman changes her mind during intercourse and clearly states that she wants to stop, she should be able to stop. I'm guessing that this situation wouldn't occur very often. I would hope that most men could deal with the ensuing disappointment (and slight discomfort), and simply call the whole thing off. But naturally, questions and doubts are bound to come up. As Dahlia Lithwick points out in this must-read Slate article, modern sexual assault laws are now stacked against men, after a long legal evolution. Whether this is justified or not-- and I think it is-- is a debate in itself. The issue here is that the Illinois laws make the male position even more precarious. Consensual intercourse is no longer safe; a man must now have unmitigated consent from the very first sultry glance to the final orgasm. And as the initial consents pile up, it becomes more and more difficult for any later refusal to seem at all meaningful. If a man has received consent right up until midway through intercourse, how seriously can he be expected to take a sudden display of hesitancy? I can't imagine very many people can just "turn off" during sex, especially if they're receiving vague signs of doubt. So does this make it that much easier for women to accuse men of rape, even when the man might have reasonably thought that he did absolutely nothing wrong? I can imagine scenarios where this law becomes abused: Woman consents to sex with Man, Woman thinks otherwise halfway through, confused Man doesn't stop right away, Man finally gets the hint and stops after 2 minutes, Man gets charged with rape. I don't know if this scenario is common or not, but it's within the realm of possibility, no? Well, that's that. Ampersand has a longer post defending the law, and one with which I probably agree in the end. Even so, between this and the Kobe Bryant case, I think we very well might start seeing more discussions about protecting men from sexual assault charges. perma link |
| 0 comments
0 Comments: |
Dartmouth The Free Press Alums for Social Change The Green Magazine The Dartmouth Dartmouth Observer Dartmouth Review Dartlog Inner Office The Little Green Blog Welton Chang's Blog Vox in Sox MN Publius (Matthew Martin) Netblitz Dartmouth Official News Other Blogs Ampersand Atrios Arts & Letters Altercation Body and Soul Blog For America Brad DeLong Brad Plumer CalPundit Campus Nonsense Clarksphere Crooked Timber Cursor Daily Kos Dean Nation Dan Drezner The Front Line Instapundit Interesting Times Is That Legal? Talking Points Memo Lady-Likely Lawrence Lessig Lean Left Left2Right Legal Theory Matthew Yglesias Ms. Musings MWO Nathan Newman New Republic's &c. Not Geniuses Ornicus Oxblog Pandagon Political State Report Political Theory Daily Review Queer Day Roger Ailes SCOTUS blog Talk Left TAPPED Tacitus This Modern World Tough Democrat Untelevised Volokh Conspiracy Washington Note X. & Overboard Magazines, Newspapers and Journals Boston Globe Ideas Boston Review Chronicle of Higher Education Common Dreams Dissent In These Times Mother Jones New York Review of Books New York Times Salon Slate The American Prospect The Nation The New Republic The Progressive Tikkun Tom Paine Village Voice Washington Monthly Capitol Hill Media ABC's The Note American Journalism Review Columbia Journalism Review CQ Daily Howler Donkey Rising The Hill Medianews National Journal NJ Hotline NJ Wake-up call NJ Early Bird NJ Weekly Political Wire Roll Call Spinsanity Search Search the DFP |