Posted on 06/30/2014 9:05:18 PM PDT by nickcarraway
The sorry tale of Ben Sullivan only serves to show how complex the issues surrounding rape allegations have become, writes Claire Cohen
Last week, the 21-year-old president of the Oxford Union was cleared of all charges against him – having been accused of the rape, and attempted rape, of two students last year.
Now, leaked documents appear to show one of the women admitting online that their encounter was ‘consensual’, almost a year before Sullivan’s arrest.
It’s tempting to see these leaked documents as containing a tacit admission of consent. But that would be an over-simplification.
Yes, the woman seems to agree with Sullivan that sexual intercourse took place. But that isn’t the same as consent. Nothing about it is black and white.
As a general proposition it’s vital to remember that rape doesn’t always look like rape. Sometimes, what looks like consensual sex can be rape. And even if you’ve had a consensual relationship with someone in the past, it doesn’t mean it can’t be rape either.
More than one in five women is raped by their husband, or partner. This should dispel the myth that rape involves being dragged down a dark alleyway at knifepoint. Such cases do, of course, occur but don’t constitute the majority of trials. Most rapes happen in the home - often between two people who, on the surface, might appear consenting and agree that intercourse did take place. The issue is one of consent and there is nothing ambiguous about a woman’s rights to give or not give her consent at any time. Where ambiguity may arise is whether on particular facts, sex was consensual or not. The principle is clear, the difficulty emerges in application.
There are multiple shades of grey; some not even apparent to the accuser.
(Excerpt) Read more at telegraph.co.uk ...
Written consent forms.
You said ... “He is quite right that consent is given when marital vows are exchanged and would need to be revoked with divorce if said consent is to be revoked.”
That not correct for 50 states and the law in each of those 50 states. You shouldn’t be giving people the wrong information on the law regarding this subject.
Yeah. It’s the law of the land. So was slavery. So was prohibition.
You don’t understand that the US government has lost all credibility regarding laws. They are no longer to be taken seriously, unless they have you in their sites. My own sensibilities keep me out of trouble - e.g. marrying a woman who actually wants to make me happy and has the same sexual appetite I do. And she married a man who wants to make her happy. It works out really well and we don’t need laws.
The less virtuous a people, the greater their need for laws. We don’t worry about laws much around these parts, for that reason and the fact that we are all pretty well armed.
You are right. Forced sex is rape, period. Doesn’t matter what was said in the past.
But by the same token, consent is consent, period. Doesn’t matter what second thoughts might occur afterwards.
The writer of this article seems to be implying that consent can be retroactively withdrawn. And that’s the kind of thinking that makes perfect sense to the liberal mind. Just like “she’s my wife so I can f* her when I want” makes perfect sense to a neanderthal.
The legal history of marital rape laws in the United States is a long and complex one, that spans over several decades.
The enemy of progressives is old people that actually remember what it used to be like. Way back in high school, every time I heard someone complaining about this or that proposed law and saying “people will never stand for that!” I would counter, “What you mean is that THIS GENERATION will never stand for that.”
I may not have been right about a lot of things, but I nailed that one.
My wife’s ex husband beat and raped her while they were still married. She had told him that it was over and he beat the crap out of her and raped her by force.
My wife and I have almost hit 22 years married and have the rest of our lives together. He has continued to beat the women in his life. She is not a liberal idiot or a man hater. What happened was not her fault. Your post is ignorant.
This is not the US Government. This is “each state individually” for the citizens of their own state. So it’s 50 different states, with 50 different legislatures, at different time periods for each state, with each state having its own voting public for voting in their own legislators - and they ALL come up with the same type of laws regarding this kind of rape.
Now, you may not like the laws that each of those 50 different states enacted, each in their own jurisdictions, but they are laws that are followed, or one gets arrested, tried, convicted and jailed - no matter your view on all those different laws.
What you are talking about is battery with a rape aspect. When I comment about rape between a husband and a wife, I’m actually being a little tongue in cheek. My point is that they both gave consent when they said their vows and, at least to Christians, married people no longer control their own body. It is quite literally their spouses as well.
From my perspective, there is no difference between a man having sex with is wife when he knows she doesn’t want to and a woman refusing to have sex with her husband when she knows he wants to - public exhibitionism notwithstanding, of course (unless they are both all for it).
Once it gets into actual violence, we are talking about something else. I.e. my statement has a caveat.
Today is not the past - and those laws exist today.
You are right. I erred in saying it was the FedGov, but I couldn’t edit.
Just to be clear: Many people here keep saying what the law is. My take, which I started articulating in 1981 is, “What is legal is not necessarily moral, and what is moral is not necessarily legal.”
i.e. whether or not it’s legal is not what I’m addressing. The law is the law, crazy, sane, or other. It is black and white. We hope.
You can talk and discuss all you want about what is moral for people (and what is not) and nothing much is going to happen to you.
But if you don’t know what is illegal - you’re going to face penalties in the law ranging from fines to jail time. And you certainly better know without a doubt what, in the law, can land you in jail.
Illegalities resulting in jail time are not subjects you just pass the time of day idly discussing. They are serious things that people need to be absolutely clear about.
A rape aspect!? I hope you never find yourself in jail and get battered by your cellie “with a rape aspect” On second thought, maybe that would not be real rape rape, just rape as that snapperhead on MSNBC called it.
There needs to be a sex consent ap. You’d load it onto your phone and video record the consent. The two parties will negotiate in advance on what positions and whether any oral contact will take place. Then, both parties press their thumbprint onto the phone. Then the only argument will be that she agreed to 18.5 minutes and he only lasted. .5 minutes. (Lawsuit!)
I seriously doubt that there isn't a married couple out there who hasn't had a conversation something like the following:
There are hundreds of variations on the above two scenes with various and sundry outcomes, but you get the idea. I would no more consider invoking violence to get it that my Mrs. would consider invoking spousal rape laws. We respect and love each other too much for that.
But is deception, bribery, etc. and the like involved? Yeah, I suppose you can argue that, but common sense understands the difference in these encounters even if the law does not.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.