It's true that consent can be taken back, but, while the situation here is simple and we don't know all the information, there's no evidence that it was taken back. The law as I understand it would automatically revoke the consent (and I understand that the "consent before the fact" is entirely mythical anyway, which is why I'm speaking for my opinion and not for the law) anyway as she became intoxicated, but if there's no revocation, the telling someone to stop scenario doesn't apply here.
One thing that I haven't seen asked: Does the woman in our scenario think it's rape? Some would consider sex with several when expecting sex with one a bonus. Others may be neutral, and chalk it up to "something I did once when I was drunk". Still others may consider it sex she regretted, but not know, feel, or particularly care about it beyond that and chalk it up as an L. How she considers the situation makes all the difference in the world as to what it was.
But, as I said in my first post, it absolutely is rape in the eyes of the law. All other statements are what I'd consider the court of my own personal opinion.
Consent before the fact and implicit consent are not reliable defenses- and they leave room for the unethical to make false claims- but they are not mythical.
One thing that I haven't seen asked: Does the woman in our scenario think it's rape? Some would consider sex with several when expecting sex with one a bonus. Others may be neutral, and chalk it up to "something I did once when I was drunk". Still others may consider it sex she regretted, but not know, feel, or particularly care about it beyond that and chalk it up as an L. How she considers the situation makes all the difference in the world as to what it was.
But, as I said in my first post, it absolutely is rape in the eyes of the law. All other statements are what I'd consider the court of my own personal opinion.
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment