Regarding Illinois’ new rape law (see the post before this one for details on that), several folks, like Don of Anger Management, seem to be objecting based on a serious misunderstanding of the California case that inspired this law. The problem is that instead of reading real news, Don is relying on Foxnew’s report:
But the facts of the case (pdf file) are nothing like what Don (or Fox) describes. (Note: what follows is the court’s description of the rape victim’s testimony; please don’t read on unless you’re prepared to read a description of rape.)
Once the condom was in place, the minor left the room and Juan got on top of Laura. She tried to resist and told him she did not want to have intercourse, but he was too strong and forced his penis in her vagina. The rape terminated when, due to Laura’s struggling, the condom fell off. Laura told Juan that “maybe it’s a sign we shouldn’t be doing this,” and he said “fine” and left the room.
Laura rolled over on the bed and began trying to find her clothes; however, because the room was dark she was unable to do so. The minor, who had removed his clothing, then entered the bedroom and walked to where Laura was sitting on the bed and “he like rolled over [her] so [she] was pushed back down to the bed.” Laura did not say anything and the minor began kissing her and telling her that she had “a really beautiful body.” The minor got on top of Laura, put his penis in her vagina “and rolled [her] over so [she] was sitting on top of him.”
Laura testified she “kept . . . pulling up, trying to sit up to get it out . . . [a]nd he grabbed my hips and pushed me back down and then he rolled me back over so I was on my back . . . and . . . kept saying, `will you be my girlfriend.'” Laura “kept like trying to pull away” and told him that “if he really did care about me, he wouldn’t be doing this to me and if he did want a relationship, he should wait and respect that I don’t want to do this.” After about 10 minutes, the minor got off of Laura, helped her dress and find her keys.
[And then, from the version of events brought up by cross-examination:]
[…]He asked her to lie down and she did. He began kissing her and she kissed him back. He rolled on top of her, inserted his penis in her and, although she resisted, he rolled her back over pulling her on top of him. She was on top of him for four or five minutes, during which time she tried to get off
but he grabbed her waist and pulled her back down. He rolled her over and continued the sexual intercourse. Laura told him that she needed to go home but he would not stop. He said, “[J]ust give me a minute,” and she said, “[N]o, I need to get home.” He replied, “[G]ive me some time” and she repeated, “[N]o, I have to go home.” The minor did not stop, “[h]e just stayed inside of me and kept like basically forcing it on me.”
After about a “minute, minute and [a] half,” the minor got off of Laura.
Don described the above incident like this: “…in this particular case there was no indication that the boy was forcing himself on the girl nor that he had any intention of raping her. He simply took too long to stop.” How did Don mis-remember the case so badly? I don’t know, but my theory is that he read Wendy McElroy’s Foxnews account of the case:
Because John Z. continued for approximately four minutes after she first expressed what might have been reluctance, he was convicted of rape.
Compare McElroy’s account to what I quoted from the court’s summation of the testimony. Note how McElroy leaves out the fact that the vicitim struggled with her attackers physically; how she quotes one thing the victim said (“I have to go home” – the complete quote is “No, I have to go home,” but if McElroy had quoted it correctly she couldn’t have claimed that Laura never said the word “no”) but leaves out others (“if he did want a relationship, he should wait and respect that I don’t want to do this”).
So let’s consider the context. She’s saying “no, I have to go home.” She’s struggling to get up and to push the man off. She’s saying “you should respect that I don’t want to do this.”
According to right-wingers like Wendy McElroy, men are such stupid morons that we cannot be expected to understand that all this together adds up to nonconsent (as Trish Wilson once pointed out, such anti-male arguments are commonplace among anti-feminists). And if the woman can’t find a way to more clearly express herself than struggling against her rapists and asking them to stop, then she deserves whatever happens to her.
And the disgusting thing is, I’ve never once seen a fellow right-winger criticize McElroy for her deception, or for the horribly bigoted views of men underlying her arguments. For too many right-wingers, any lie – no matter how disgusting, and no matter that it lets rapists off the hook – is acceptable, so long as the liar criticizes feminism..
I find it interesting that there are some conservatives who describe themselves as standing up for “men’s rights” by essentially saying that women are confusing us poor, stupid men by changing their minds and asking us to control our sexual desires.
I think to a certain extent the arguement against this case may be fueled by the misogynistic belief that women are fickle and so will change their minds a lot but not really mean it. I half-expected Ms. McElroy to indicate in the course of her article that she was rolling her eyes and then saying “Ugh. Women.”
I wonder if McElroy would support a woman beating the shit out of her male sex partner if he lost his erection halfway through intercourse. Hell, what right did that asshole have to change his mind before *I* got every last thing I wanted ?! It’s not about mutual pleasure and respect, after all;It’s about me me me me !! (rolls eyes)
How I do hate ifems/FOXfems. Same thing anyway.
Wow… how primal can you get? If this is the case, then why aren’t us men just knockin’ women out with rocks and dragging them back to our caves to do our bidding? Oh wait, that’s right, we are.. it’s called Rufinol.
Although I’m quite the virile 24 year old, I have no problem with stopping in the middle of intercourse if my partner tells me no. Having sex is not like a gym membership… you can change your mind if you decide you don’t wanna get screwed.
I wrote about the California rape case when the decision was first made. Bean, you’re right: It wasn’t merely a matter of “she changed her mind.” It was much more involved than that. Plus, there were two assailants, not one.
Here is my original post:
The California Rape Case
Here is the opinion: (.pdf file)
The People v. John Z.
For what it’s worth, I just read that there is a similar rape law in Colorado, which will affect the Kobe Bryant rape case.
Whoops, sorry Amp, you wrote the post, not Bean. I remember we both had things to say about the California rape case. I haven’t had enough coffee yet. Plus the creme just curdled with visions of a buck nekkid John Ashcroft (yuck!).
I don’t get that John Ashcroft reference, which is maybe a good thing.
The aria “La donna e mobile”, women are fickle, is sung in Verdi’s Rigoletto by the duke who has just raped the jester Rigoletto’s daughter and then abandoned her. The aria is a lot better known than the awful scene it comes from. The theory that women are fickle is directly opposed to the theory that women are monogamous and men sleep around, but whoever expected logic?
I think the folks on Fox News do it mainly for the money. There’s one born every minute. There’s a good book about Murdoch’s UK paper The Sun, one of his first vehicles, making this point at length.
Thanks for the correction, guys. Additional comments here.
There was an essay I used to use with one of my classes. I can’t remember what it was called and who it was written by ( I know that is not very helpful, but it is a fairly famous essay and I am sure one of your readers will recognize it. Besides I have been up most of the night with the baby and my brain is foggy, so I should get a pass on the details.)
Anyway, on first read many of my students got the message that women had to take responsibiity for themselves when it comes to rape. They have to be aware of where they are and what they are doing. That they have the ultimate responsibility to protect themselves. This message is not neccessarily a bad one, and one that should be applied to all people. However, they never managed to see the actual point of the essay, or perhaps the logical implication which is more important. The implication of the above is that women must take responsibility for their own protection because MEN ARE ANIMALS and CANNOT BE HELD RESPONSIBLE FOR THEIR OWN BEHAVIOR. When I pointed this out to the students, particularily the men, they changed their tune quickly.
The reality is that we all- men and women- should take responsibility for our own safety and work to avoid putting ourselves in obviously dangerous situations, but, at the same time, we should have a certain sense of security in the fact that the majority of people have self-control and decency. Those who don’t are criminals and should be prosecuted and punished.
The dissent characterized the facts quite differently. There was no jury as it was a juvenile proceeding. The fact that the appellate judges can’t agree on the facts makes it hard to believe there was proof beyond a reasonable doubt. There are two issues: Was the girl’s withdrawal of consent clearly communicated to her partner, and if so, did he thereafter use force in continuing the act? Here’s what Justice Rogers Brown wrote, after finding that the girl said she enjoyed the threesome part of the activity:
I’m interested in the whole physical struggle aspect of the testimony (Laura testified she “kept . . . pulling up, trying to sit up to get it out . . . [a]nd he grabbed my hips and pushed me back down and then he rolled me back over so I was on my back . . . and . . . kept saying, `will you be my girlfriend.'” Laura “kept like trying to pull away”).
Either the majority opinion simply made it up (which seems impossibly unlikely to me), or the girl did testify that she struggled physically to get away, and the dissenting judge (at least in the passage you quoted) chose to ignore that testimony entirely when deciding what the rapist could reasonably have understood her intentions to be.
A comment on the Illinois rape law: I think we’ll be having a larger number of frustrated men. I think more women may use this against men. The only advice I can give other men is if she says no during sex then zip up your pants grab her by the arm and throw her out of the room (no need to be gentle about it). The alternative is to also zip up and start howlering at her for being such a bitch and slam the door behind you.
Yeah, those poor guys. After all, being invconvenianced is entirely comparable with being raped.
God, I haven’t seen the ‘blue balls’ defense for sexism in ages. And of course, it’s so bitchy of a woman to withdraw consent. It’s not entitlement for a guy to think he’s got a RIGHT to have sex.
Your definition of sex isn’t something two people do together. It’s one person doing it to another.
Hey, Doctrine, here’s some better advice for paranoid guys who think they are entitled to sex:
Grow up, stop whining, and take the chip off your shoulder. It will do wonders for your love life.
Not to mention your sex life (which is not mutually exclusive from one’s love life). The sex with 2 willing and eager partners is infinitly better than sex with one willing and eager partner and one unwilling and uneager partner. Too bad men like Docterine will never know that sort of pleasure.
Pingback: The Green[e]house Effect: a Weblog
Pingback: Long story; short pier.