« WATCH SHORT FILM ILLUSTRATING CONSEQUENCES OF SOUTH DAKOTA ABORTION BAN | Main | PROCRASTINATION MEME »

Comments

Richard

>>> Dday wrote: I'm not saying that males wouldn't have an interest in ending sexist laws.

Ah, yes you did DDay. Quote: “The judges on this case were all males and [ … ]” How does it feel to be a sexist, DDay?

powderblue

Feminists who are not vegans, or who do not have the ethical goal to become one, may gain empathy for the males who wrote and enforced those terrible laws in the past by examining their power relationships over nonhumans today. Property, chattel existing only for and at the pleasure of the dominant beings, kept in their exploited positions for their own “protection” – the similarities should be considered. Most agree that “might does not make right”, but too often that’s overlooked by those whose power is bestowed by tradition and sanctioned by prevailing notions of justice, however unjust they may be.

Richard

>>> Happy wrote: So? I don't think women should sexually assault men any more than the reverse.

Super. How many years would you give the woman in my example?

The Happy Feminist

Richard, Dday clarified and/or modified his/her statement. 'Nuff said.

As for what sentence I would give the woman in your example, it depends on what we're talking about. What sex act was she engaged in? What do you mean by "linger" after consent is drawn? How many seconds or minutes did this lingering last? Was the sex act causing pain to the man? These same considerations apply to male defendants as well.

This whole role reversal idea is a red herring. My opposition to sexual assault is not contingent on the genders of the people involved. I think women who sexually assault men SHOULD be held accountable, just as men are.

Bunny

Richard-- so, do you agree with the ruling, then? Do you think that a man has no moral or legal obligation to stop fucking a woman who's crying and begging him to stop?

I agree that it's murkier, but good god. It seems like you're much more interested in nitpicking than in seeing actual justice done.

Also, I really have no idea why you would imagine that feminists would be outraged at the idea of women being prosecuted for rape. Where are you getting this idea that feminists want women to be able to run rampant and do whatever they like while men have their heads in the stocks or something? I'm baffled.

Liz

Richard,

You say, It is next to impossible in “traditional” never-was-any-consent-in-the-first-place rape cases for a woman to rape a man.

Why? I really don't understand.

Shawna R. B. Atteberry

I can't tell you how shocked and sickened I was when I read that on Feministing. Thank you so much for the step-by-step break down and showing how this could be "legal" at all.

Farther down in the 2nd part of the appeal.

The appellant had been previously been tried on the same charges, was facing life imprisonment on his retrial. His co-defendant had entered a guilty plea. So, co-defendant, the guy who went first, already entered a guilty plea to rape. After co-defendant by his own admission, raped this woman, the appellant pushes himself on her.

human

Good lord, in what way is that consent? "I don't want to rape you, can I have sex with you?" What the hell was she supposed to say. That jury must have been a bunch of asshats to even ask their question.

Gwen

Yech, what a terrible decision. It does seem to be crying out to be overruled - I hope that happens soon. Though, more generally, I think rape is one of those areas that shouldn't be left to the common law anyway, because the historical roots are so appalling - it needs systemic legislative reform, from first principles up.

The comments to this entry are closed.