Tuesday, February 6, 2007

"[T]he initial de-flowering of the woman as the real harm."

Time magazine is running an article about states which have adopted the position that women are unable to retract their consent to intercourse, based largely on the theory that once a man is in the midst act he's incapable of stopping. I find the argument ridiculous and rather insulting to men as a whole.

Does this mean a woman can't withdraw consent if the condom breaks? Or would that change in circumstances "allow" her to change her mind? The article offers a hypothetical where a woman has learned her partner has HIV and wants to withdraw consent and her partner refuses to stop, is that rape if he continues, or "just" attempted murder if she becomes infected? In states which have adopted this position is the opposite also true? Once a woman has said no-as we all know some women do to play coy-can that lack of consent not be revoked? Is that rape when a man coaxes her into sex, which she agrees to even if she had previously said no?

The arguments in favor of consent not being retractable seem to equate being "blue balled" with forcible sex, which seems completely ludicrous to me.

Discuss amongst yourselves.



Essien said...

I've thought about it. Conclusion: We must cut this withdrawal challenge off at the root!

Nicky said...

This is absurd. Is it a joke?

How about if sex is for some reason painful? Does she get to change her mind then?

Also for how long does the consent last. Can a husband rape his wife 10 years after they divorced?

It gives no credit to men at all. Are they such weak creatures that they cannot control their impulses? People who kill in a rage are still convicted of murder because they are told they should control those impulses. Should the same not apply to sex?

If men truly are that weak they should all be locked up for our protection.

Elle Woods said...

It seems pain doesn't matter, since once you've been penetrated you're already damaged so you don't matter.

As for how long consent lasts, what about those times then the guy is just taking WAY too long? Clearly that can get painful-maybe consent should have to be renewed at set intervals-that would be romantic.

And what if a guy accidentally comes out? Or he wants to change positions? Can you withdraw your consent then?

Essien said...

Perhaps there should be time-conditions on these contracts, and outcome requirements! This could bode well for unhappy women, perhaps even for those putting up with men who take way too long, or whose men are only focussed on one outcome - their own pleasure! Further, would premature withdrawl, or premature "action", constitute breach of said contract...or breach of fiduciary duty?

Lyco said...

This is just disgusting. For one, the assumptions about what the harm is stupefies the mind. I actually thought for a moment that we had moved beyond the idea that the harm was in making the woman a "used" good and instead was about the woman as an equal partner with a right.

And anyway, it's true - it is insulting to men to assume that once they start they do not have the capability to stop when they see their partner no longer desires them. Sick all around.

Nicky said...

Conversely does this mean if a man changes his mind we can force him to continue? (personally I don't see how we would do that ... but the mechanics of it is beside the point).

Perhaps we should create a ticketing system based on entries? One ticket one entry, if he wants to change positions or slips out ... well that's another ticket.

It makes me wonder what Time is thinking by publishing the article and what the author is trying to gain. Is he setting up a defence for use at a later date?

Also if men cannot control impulses then what does that say about paedophiles? Are they to be found innocent because they cannot control themselves?

It goes to the very heart of a civilised society that we can control our impulses and care for each other, that is what makes us adults and gives us our humanity. To suggest that men cannot control impulses implies they are somewhat less than civilised humans.

lalagigi said...

ive heard of the blueball thing from guys...that they probably can't stop sex

as for the opposite hypo, coyly saying no, and then become seduced into the sex act would mean a yes if its a consenting adult. if its a person that is mentally unstable or physically uncapable of knowing the difference or underage, then maybe no.

i guess this hypo goes into the 'date rape' territory

how many women influenced this policy?

if only you could have a penis for one day and find out what its like to have one, or the very next best thing is to think deeply about having had one inside you