Comments on: Does a Sexual Position Indicate Consent?

By: M

Mon, 26 Oct 2009 00:33:11 +0000

I had heard about this incident before but not the specific details about the “position” and reading it now just makes me sick, makes me remember why I thought it was unlikely anyone would listen to my own assault story. Rape is rape, regardless of the position, making that question completely irrelevant in seeking a sentence for someone clearly guilty of the crime. I’m just so disgusted that even the justice system works so well FOR rapists rather than against them.

By: Prudence

Prudence — Thu, 10 Sep 2009 00:29:29 +0000

It never astounds me just what attitude judges have to rape. They seem to forget all the surrounding circumstances and only look at whether the woman seemed to consent, ie whether the man could be excused from the charge against him by arguing he didn’t know that she didn’t consent. This assumes reasonable behaviour from the man, but this cannot be presumed and in this case there was clear evidence that the woman already feared the man, she’d already gone past the point where her lack of consent was going to make any difference. He was going to get the sex from her anyway, regardless of the position. I wrote about this at my blog (my first post) about the fact that there is a time in the rape scenario when the victim gives in to the situation and then tries to make the best of it. If you are threatened with violence or you don’t know whether that person will be violent or not, then you will go along with what they want to get yourself out of the situation as unscathed as possible. The line has already been crossed by the man, he’s already made it clear that the normal boundaries do not apply, so the actions of the woman can not be interpreted as if the situation were consensual sex.

And people wonder why rape victims don’t bring cases to trial…

By: Cara

Cara — Tue, 01 Sep 2009 23:56:51 +0000

Woman on man rape is not “essentially non-existent.” Happening at a hugely, intensely lower rate as the opposite is not the same as “essentially non-existent.” If there’s any reason that the example given is a bad one, it’s because there’s an implicit assumption that most rape apologists would change their tune in the case of a male rape victim and female perpetrator — it’s just not true.

Also, just a tip: if people want to visit your blog, they can do so by clicking on your username. By placing your url at the end of your comments as well as in the URL line of the comment form, many commenting systems tend to read it as spam, because it’s a common tactic of spammers.

By: factcheckme

factcheckme — Tue, 01 Sep 2009 21:49:51 +0000

lets not derail the conversation by introducing the essentially non-existant “woman rapes man” scenario. but you raise an interesting point. why not ask the question this way: is male-on-male rape *never* rape then, since a man should be able to fight off another man in all instances? the judge is obviously using the average sizes and strength of women versus men in his assessment of self-defense in this case. what would his assessment be, in the case of 2 men?

http://factcheckme.wordpress.com/

By: Angie

Angie — Sun, 30 Aug 2009 20:58:58 +0000

Well, I guess according to the Judge, men can’t be raped *unless* the woman is strong enough to pin them down and be on top. Not to take away from the outrage or minimize the stupidity of his comments, but it’s another angle that proves just how ridiculous his comments were in the first place.

By: factcheckme

factcheckme — Sat, 29 Aug 2009 19:35:31 +0000

i am often struck at how many men (and women)vehemently argue that if a woman “didnt say no” that means she consented. misogynistic notions of aggressive, entitled male sexuality, and passive, compliant females abound, and are often brought to center stage after a rape occurs. specifically, that even if a woman wanted sex, she would still lay there passively “taking it” or coyishly play-fighting him off because thats what passive women “do.” so how was he supposed to know right?

how about reframing “consent” by asking not whether she said no, but whether the woman actively “said yes”? is the woman an active, enthusiastic participant in a voluntary exchange? so far, the very definition of “consent” seems particularly useful to men, and men only as a guideline for keeping them out of prison. rather than as an actual concern for whether the woman desired to have sex with that particular man, at that time and place. whether something was “against her will” or “unwanted” almost requires, by definition, that she make known her opposition it. rather than requiring that, before an encounter take place, that she had made known her desire *for* it.

of course, they also cover all their bases dont they, in presenting evidence that she “wanted it” with her manner of dress, etc. but i think a reframing of the very concept of consent is deperately needed here.

http://factcheckme.wordpress.com/

By: abyss2hope

abyss2hope — Fri, 28 Aug 2009 17:44:36 +0000

Cara,

I’m glad you found out more information about this case. Disgusting. Judge Fine’s actions are directly helpful to the most violent rapists. He should resign now that the transcripts have been released.

His definition of sexual assault clearly does not uphold the law and someone who shows a lack of understand of the law has no business being a judge.

By: emandink

emandink — Fri, 28 Aug 2009 17:18:51 +0000

OMG. Seriously, I am not entirely sure that there are words adequate to describe just how revolting this is.

Thank you, Cara, for finding them.