Maryland rescinds "once it's in, it's in" law

[PeaceNikki]

http://feministing.com/archives/009037.html

Thank god.

After the highest court of Maryland reheard the case which made the horrifying ruling that a woman cannot be raped once she has consented to sex, the court has overturned the decision and broadened the definition of rape to, um, rape:

With this expansion of the legal definition of rape, Maryland joins seven other states whose courts have determined that a woman can revoke her consent after intercourse begins.

'This goes to the heart of women's autonomy,' said Lisae C. Jordan, legal director of the Maryland Coalition Against Sexual Assault, which filed a brief in the matter. 'It says that, yes, women do have the right to make decisions about something as intimate as sexual intercourse.'

The Maryland Court of Appeals' opinion in a rape case from Montgomery County overturns what defense attorneys and a lower appeals court said was existing common law and the high court's own 1980 opinion.

It's hard to believe that this was actually up for debate in the first place, but at least the right decision was made. (Nearly two years later.)

[Lerkfish]

1. bizarre. under that bad law, a rapist could date rape with inpugnity.

disgusting.

[Orrex]

2. I recall a case in Texas from the early nineties

Defense claimed that a woman wasn't raped because she had consented to sex.

How was her consent determined?

Because, having realized that the attack was inescapable, she convinced her attacker to wear a condom!

She had the presence of mind to make a very responsible and potentially life-saving request, and she's subsequently beaten over the head with it.

As I recall, that line of defense was unsuccessful. Pretty goddamn sick, all of it.


I'm delighted to hear that this stupid MD law has been overturned.

[PeaceNikki]

3. That's pathetic and awful.

:(

[Iris]

4. Why is it so hard for some people to take this shit to its logical conclusion?

I mean, my GOD! Once you give yourself over to someone, he then has the right to do anything he wants from that point on during that particular act?