Failure to withdraw instantly is now rape

According to a 6-to-1 decision by the California Supreme Court, if a woman engages in consensual sexual intercourse with a man, and if in the middle of the act she changes her mind and says, “I should be going now, I need to go home” but does not say “stop” or cry out and struggle, and if the man continues the act for another minute and a half before he ceases and desists, then the man has committed rape. That’s right. On just such a set of facts, the Court confirmed the rape conviction of a seventeen year old boy, who served six months in a juvenile detention facility for his crime.

Columnist Kathleen Parker concludes: “John Z. wasn’t guilty of rape; he was guilty of being male. If I were a guy, I’d find another country.”

Posted by Lawrence Auster at January 13, 2003 02:47 AM | Send


Columnist Kathleen Parker’s objection to the court’s finding seems to center around her feeling that the boy couldn’t reasonably be expected to understand that in saying she had to get home, the girl wanted the act to stop there. I don’t see that as the objection. To me, it’s clear that even if the boy had understood that to be what the girl meant, this still wouldn’t have been rape. The girl consented to penetration; all the rest seem to have been details irrelevant to that fact. Even had the boy used violence in order to continue the act against the girl’s wishes, where the latter changed her mind in the middle, he would be committing not rape at that point, but battery (and ought to be appropriately punished for it). But the girl having initially consented to the act of intercourse, and continued to consent up to the point in question, he could not have been guilty of rape. That seems a no-brainer.

Another no-brainer these days is that husbands cannot rape their wives. If a husband uses violence to have sexual intercourse with his unwilling wife, then he may be charged with battery. The seriousness of the battery-type charges will be proportional to the seriousness of the battery, of course. But a husband cannot, by definition, “rape his wife.” These cases we hear about from time to time of a husband being accused of raping his wife are the most outrageous anti-male nonsense.

That such nonsense occurs probably reflects strong lesbian influence. The Dem party has seen to it that lesbians are heavily involved in jurisprudence these days, and lesbians are to a large extent viciously man-hating, anti-heterosexual-marriage, violently sexually jealous-of-men individuals. In my work I have a few times seen this extremely passionate lesbian man-hatred and, especially, sexual jealousy of men in regard to the women whom lesbians want for themselves — and it is something impressive to behold, I can assure any doubters. Furthermore, the same Bill-&-Hillary-type left which has installed lesbians galore throughout the government and courts has allowed only those men who are PC-intimidated eunuchs to have positions of power, with completely predictable results — court rulings such as the one in question.

Finally, Parker asks when girls got so stupid. I’d ask another question: When did judges, or the people who put incompetent ones into office, get so stupid?

Posted by: Unadorned on January 13, 2003 8:55 AM

Excellent point about the distinction between rape and battery. But I don’t see the impossibility of husband-wife rape.

Posted by: Ian Hare on January 14, 2003 6:16 PM

This idea of “one more thrust is rape” has been around at least since ‘95 when I when through basic training. A woman JAG officer told us men this at a “sensitivity training” seminar. The idea sounded as perposterous then as it does now. Proof I suppose of the addage that some ideas don’t improve with age.

Posted by: Jason Eubanks on January 14, 2003 6:19 PM

Ian Hare writes “I don’t see the impossibility of husband-wife rape.”

The reason it is impossible, is because rape can only occur if there is a lack of consent, but in the marriage contract a wife gives her consent. The husband is given rights over his wifes body just as he gives rights to his wife of his own.

St. Thomas does write that a husband or wife can forfiet thier right by committing adultery.

Posted by: F. Salzer on January 14, 2003 7:56 PM

It seems a peculiar idea of the marriage contract that it gives the husband the right to sex on any occasion against the wife’s wishes at that time.

Posted by: Ian Hare on January 16, 2003 5:48 PM

Thanks for the link to this page

Posted by: play-boy on November 1, 2004 1:58 PM
Post a comment

Email Address:



Remember info?

Email entry

Email this entry to:

Your email address:

Message (optional):