« The Daily Memo - 11/2/06 | Main | But the perks aren’t nearly as good »
‘A Woman’s Right to Change Her Mind’ Denied by the Legal System
Different law schools, of course, offer minor variations on the first-year experience. Some are more Socratic than others, a few don’t record grades, and yet others have professors who are more inclined to sleep with their students in exchange for an above-the-curve grade. But no matter what law school you go to, there are two things about the first-year experience that are universal: 1) it’s completely fucking miserable, and 2) the worst part of the entire academic year is the week-long discussion of rape in criminal law. In fact, it’s so awful that many professors rightfully excuse students who are sensitive to the subject.
And if you’ve been there, you know exactly what I mean: The rape discussion, though tense, usually starts off tame enough. But, invariably, once the issue of “consent” arises, things get downright nasty. Some asshole — that guy that just wants to hear his own goddamn voice, no matter how ridiculous his arguments are —inevitably offers up the lame “she was asking” for it argument. And then the militant lesbian-feminist — that girl you really liked your first semester because you’re from a small town and never knew a lesbian or a feminist but you kind of hate her by the end of the year because all she talks about is being a lesbian feminist — turns the debate into a personal one. Then, during the rest of class, the asshole and the militant feminist-lesbian square off, exchanging increasingly personal insults while the crim law professor tries to moderate the discussion, but only makes it worse when he attempts to put the “she was asking for it” argument into more relatable legal terms. Good times!
Anyway, imagine what the legal system would be like if three of those “assholes” were on a three-judge panel of the Maryland Court of Special Appeals deciding a rape case. Actually, you don’t even have to imagine it, because it’s a reality after a Maryland appeals court ruled that ‘no doesn’t mean no when it follows a yes and intercourse has begun.’ In other words, according to the court’s interpretation of Maryland’s rape law, a woman cannot withdraw consent after intercourse has begun, which presumably suggests that a woman who consents to missionary sex has waived her right to refuse the rougher varieties.
According to the Associated Press, “activists” were startled with the decision. In fact, I’m guessing that “activists” in this instance is just an AP euphemism for people with a goddamn ounce of common sense. Welcome to 1922, Maryland!
