Today I read an article about a court ruling in Maryland. In this particular case, a woman agreed to sex and then in the middle of it, that is after penetration, she said no. The man, Baby (it took me a moment or two to realize that was in fact his name), continued for 5 to 10 seconds after she had told him to stop. Baby was convicted of first degree rape.
On the woman's side of the argument, it can be said that it is for her to decide whether or not she wants to have sex. And the right to this decision does not end with the beginning of sex. But here is what's bothering me, the only form of defense for the person being convicted of rape is the absence of physical injury. If now you say injury is not a criterion nor is consent to sex, then how in god's name is the man supposed to defend himself?! Since it's just her word against his, he'll inevitably end up in prison for the next year or two. Seem a bit sexist?
Under different circumstances, say had he carried on for minutes after she said to stop, the act would qualify as rape for then he would be forcefully having sex. But not here. In this instance, the guy may be called a variety of splendidly obscene names but he is certainly not a rapist.
P.S.: I think Baby appealed, I don't know what happened after. I was too lazy to do the research.
Read more...
