In an era when some 40% of U.S. births are to unmarried women, in a culture where “Girls Gone Wild” and “hook-ups” are normative, where threesomes, bisexual experimentation and amateur video-porn orgies have become a virtual rite of passage for many young Americans, where chlamydia and herpes are pandemic — in this era of rampant sexual decadence, I say, does Jill Filipovic (J.D., NYU) seriously expect horny strangers to negotiate consent calmly on an act-by-act basis while they’re knocking boots, making the beast with two backs, in flagrante delicto?
Listen up, sweetheart: You buy the ticket, you take the ride.
If you will forgive the puns, I take his thrust, but not his point.
Sex does not submit well to legalese. It is the animal in us, acting on non-rational desire, creating an experience that our bodies ride but do not fully control. Contracts made in such a state lend themselves easily to misunderstanding.
And yes, women would do well not to shag impressive-seeming strangers just because their goddamn names are in the paper. That's stupid, and no one should be subject to a harpy-bomb of dull denunciations ("slut-shaming!") because they point out that it's stupid. Sex should come from a well-ground of mutual respect and commitment. You can't have that with someone you don't know, and it's stupid to assume otherwise, and it's irresponsible to teach young people the contrary.
So yes, so-called "sexual liberation" has made it easier for cads like Assange to behave caddishly.
That said, just because a gentleman is hip-deep into a lady does not prevent her from applying the breaks, however foolish her actions up until that point. I don't accept the idea that once the pants are off, she's obligated to cut him a slice of trim. No man could walk into any court of law and say "Hey, she took my pants off. She owes me at least an old-fashioned." Life just doesn't work that way.
So yes, when she says "STOP," he's obligated to stop.
Whether his failure to do so meets the legal definition of rape is another question. The circumstances would play an enormous role. Say, for example, he doesn't hear her, because he's climaxing, and her protests aren't loud enough. Say she tells him to stop, and she does, because of some sudden thing he did/said that kicked her completely out of mood. But then they talk some more, and he moves in again, and she doesn't say "no"? Tacit consent? Not? Murky?
I don't know, myself. But I suspect that yelling the louder will not illuminate the issue.
No comments:
Post a Comment