Alas, a Blog

(Note: a lot of this post, I’ve cribbed from what I wrote in the comments to a previous post).

Having watched the controversy for a few days now, the most persistent argument against the Illinois rape law (actually, just an amendment to an already existing law) is that this legislation would result in men being thrown in prison for failing to stop “instantly.” For instance, Allison at Ain’t That A Kick in the Head writes:

And Don of Anger Management (who is able to admit when he’s made a mistake – a rare and admirable trait in the blogoverse) writes:

What struck me is that both of these writers put the word “immediately” in quotes, but what is it they’re quoting? Certainly not the Illinois law in question, which says nothing about “immediately.”

In Illinois (ignoring cases where “did she consent?” isn’t an issue, such as statutory rape or an unconscious victim) it’s not legally “sexual assault” unless there’s force or a threat of force. This new law doesn’t change that; even under this revision, prosecutors still need to prove use of threats or overcoming force.

Remember if the state can’t convince a judge or a jury that “threat of force or violence” was used, then the accused can’t be convicted of rape. The new amendment to the Illinois law doesn’t change that.

What the amendment does is make it clear that “but she consented before she changed her mind and said no” isn’t a valid defense. Other defenses – like “she’s lying!” or “I never used threat of force or force” – remain valid. And the burden of proof remains with the prosecution, not the defense. This is why Allison’s concerns that men will need “a signed contract and a stop watch” to defend themselves are misplaced..

Some folks have commented that men – and especially teenage boys – cannot be expected to be able to stop intercourse once they begin. There’s a point of no return, they argue, yadda yadda yadda.

Consider this counterexample: Imagine John Z. of the much-discussed “In re John Z” California case. He’s in the middle of the sex act; his victim is ineffectually attempting to pull away and saying wishy-washy things like “No, I have to go home now” and “if you really liked me, you’d respect me and not do this.” But John Z. can’t be expected to stop, because that’s beyond a teenage boy’s ability, right?

Okay, now imagine that in the middle of the scenario above, John Z’s mother walks into the room and says “John Z., what are you doing?”

Is it imaginable that John Z. would be “unable to stop” under that circumstance? That he would continue for another minute – or another five minutes?

Of course not. If something that really made him want to stop – like his mom watching – had entered the situation, John Z. would have jumped off Laura and yanked his pants on so fast he might have set off a sonic boom.

That’s the standard men (and boys) should be judged by, in my view – is this a situation where they could stop, if they genuinely felt it was critically important to stop?.

A new law – or, more accurately, a new addedum to an old law – in Illinois declares:

(Here’s a Foxnews article on the law, which only gets one or two things wrong that I noticed, so that’s good for them).

To me, this seems like a pretty obvious thing: Consent, once given, is not forever. If I’m having sex with John Ashcroft, it doesn’t matter how much Ashcroft begged me to screw him, or how much he’s been enjoying it up to this moment; once Ashcroft says “stop, Amp, you’re just too much man for me,” it’s my responsibility to stop. Sure, it might take me a few seconds to absorb what Ashy’s telling me and say “are you serious?”; but once I absorb it, if I keep on fuckin’ despite Ashcroft’s objections, that’s rape.

Who could disagree with that?

It turns out a lot of people on the right of the blogoverse, that’s who.

I think the objections, however, are weak at best. For instance, Susanna of Cut on the bias (whose blog was the first to cover this story, that I saw) writes:

But not all men are “screwed” (Susanna’s pun was intentional, she wants us to know) – only those who would refuse to stop having sex just because they don’t have consent. That is, the rapists. And who cares if rapists are screwed?

Lurking behind Susanna’s comment is a belief – shared by many in our culture – that us men are brainless animals, whose tiny little brains are unable to overpower our almighty dicks. But I think that’s a myth. Yes, in the heat of going bump in the night, many of us (male or female) are slower thinkers than we are normally; it might take a few moments to absorb that our partner has just cried out “get off me please!” But once we’ve reached that point, every man is perfectly capable of stopping if he really wants to. To say that we can’t expect men to stop once consent is withdrawn is an insult to men.

Allison of Ain’t that a kick in the head? writes:

Allison also complained that “you can’t legislate morality.” Why not? Murder laws are legislating morality. So are rape laws, for that matter.

Which is a major reason I object to Allison’s logic – if you accept her premises, not just this rape law but all rape laws are wrong and should be done away with.

The answer to Allison’s question is, yes, this law is necessary – in response to the minority of guys who do rape women, and to help protect unlucky women who date those guys. Just like all the other rape laws are necessary, for the exact same reason.

The existence of laws against rape is no more of an insult to non-rapist men (and non-rapist women, for that matter) than laws against car theft are an insult to those of us who buy our cars legally.

Dale at The Review has an interesting proposition:

I’ll take that bet, Dale. Shall we say $1000?

Dale also clearly thinks that once having consented, no woman can be raped:

But why should initial consent mean that one has lost the right to change one’s mind?

In the California case that inspired the Illinois law, the girl was involved in some semi-consensual petting which she said she enjoyed, but during the sex act itself physically struggled, attempted to push her rapist off, and attempted to talk him out of continuing. In other words, she was “actually raped by force” – just like the imaginary women Dale supposes will be insulted by her example.

Dale’s black-and-white construction of sexuality is too simplistic for the real world. Just because a woman (or man) initially consents to sex doesn’t mean that she can’t change her mind; or that, once having changed her mind, she can’t be forced.

Dale also complains about feminists who yammer on about “delicate flower of femininity” – without, of course, linking to an actual feminist saying anything of the sort. (It must be fun to be a right-winger – if you want to make a charge against feminists, you don’t have to actually provide any evidence; you just make up whatever lie you like, as Dale did, and the other right-wingers will take your word for it.) He then goes on to say:

Of course, Dale’s logic here is nonsense. Once a woman initially consents to have sex, if a woman changes her mind that’s “taking no responsibility”? How about a women who allows a date to buy her dinner and then consents to make out with him – is she taking no responsibility, too, if she chooses not to have sex with him, or objects if he forces the issue?

In fact, all the law requires is that men and women take responsibility for their own actions. If your partner (whatever their sex) asks you to stop, you stop. If you choose to “persist in nonconsensual intercourse,” then you’re breaking the law and you can be held responsible in court.

And that, really, is what Dale and too many of his fellow-travelers are objecting to here – the idea that men who freely choose to continue after being told to stop might be held responsible for their own actions. The horror! The horror!.