Apr 22, 2008 23:26
So apparently in Maryland a judge has essentially expanded the definition of rape in a kind of unsettling way by setting a new precedent.
Man and woman agree to have sex. Ok.
After they begin to have sex, the woman tells him to stop (withdrawing consent). Ok.
Man stops "about 5 seconds later." Ok.
Man is charged with rape. Huh?
I fully support the right of anyone to withdraw consent at any time. That element I completely agree with.
But to me, not stopping means continuing for...well I don't have an exact time I can quote, but 5 seconds seems ridiculous. I suppose 30 seconds is too long, though. So in theory the limit would be in between the two...And if they're going to uphold this ruling, I think in all fairness they need to provide some sort of specific time limit...
But honestly, do we really want that level of intrusiveness built into our legal system? Remember that old proposed system where you swere supposed to ask someone before proceding with additional intimacy (May I hold your hand now? May I kiss you now? May I touch your back now?) How long before you have to proactively gain consent every minute or so during the act itself (May I continue for another minute?)? Hmmm....