This is revolting. This is why I cannot fucking stand the law.
Maryland Court Rules Consent Only Needed Prior to Sexual Act in Alleged Rape
Cases.
I cannot believe the sick appropriateness of this, but Maryland's state motto is "fatti maschii parole femine," loosely translated as "manly deeds, womanly words." In the sense that "womanly words" have no ability to stop "manly deeds," I guess this ruling is consistent. The only word this court is able to hear from women (yes, I'm essentializing) is "yes." Can they not conceive that you cannot say a meaningful "yes" unless you can also say a meaningful "no?" It reminds me of the rape case in Italy when I was studying there where the judge said rape could not have occurred because the woman was wearing jeans. Jeans = consent. Yeah...I have no words. Which I guess is really their goal, in the end. Fuck you too, Maryland.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
I think the Italy ruling is worse - it's like blaming rape on women who don't wear a full head scarf in Muslim countries - the 'she was asking for it' defense. But I agree about the law - legally, I suppose you could make that claim, but it's just WRONG.
We are sliding backwards these days. I guess when these fucking neo-con capitalist imperiliasts begin to lose their power around the world, it is time to start taking it out on the women at home. I'm with you... FUCK MARYLAND!
Yep, they've got to get their power somewhere, women (and girls and boys and those in between) at home are awfully convenient. And the Italy case actually was similar to the Maryland ruling, because the idea wasn't that if you wore jeans you must be asking for it (though that's certainly been said before, as you point out, with everything from lack of headscarf to ankle exposure), the "rationale" was that it is difficult to take off someone else's jeans without their participation. It was also a 17-year-old girl who was raped by her 56-year-old driving instructor, but we'll leave that aside for a moment. Two assumptions being made here (can you tell I'm about to go teach the formal logic LSAT class?):
1) Someone cannot force you to remove your jeans, just as they can force you to do other things (is this really a hard leap to make?).
2) By taking off your jeans, you have consented to whatever the other person/s wish to do to you. Again, there is no meaningful "no" or "yes" because any hint of encouragement or participation in a preliminary activity is seen as full consent to whatever comes next.
Women in Italy's parliament all wore jeans to work in outrage after that case, outraged jeans-wearing that spread to California's legislature as well. L.A. now has an annual Denim Day in honor of this case (read about it at www.denimdayinla.org). I wonder if there will be something comparable for Maryland.
A plague o' both your houses! This is madness! Perhaps it is best that we're scattered to the four winds as this could have ignited a shit storm in McKenzie that would have been so powerful it would have opend up a blackhole...
I miss McKenzie shit storms!
I miss the shit storms...not McKenzie with the hustler phantom roaming the hallways....
creeeeeepy!
Post a Comment