Hi clo,
there was a case of a young english attorney a few years back. he had consensual sex with a girl. she achieved what she wished and then told him the thing was over before he was able to reach the same state.
he continued and ended up in prison. his life was ruined.
is this a situation in which the law should intrude? was protecting her from his resolution of the act really consistent with the scale of the problem?
i understand the importance of folks having power over decisions affecting their body. but i don't think every situation should necessarily be treated as a crime. or at least as the same crime. when one thinks of rape, one imagines something in which the line is very clear and that any reasonable person would agree that the defendant has crossed it.
the areas that give me pause are those in which sexual consent has initially occurred in some form and therefore the law is not protecting a person from the act of having sex. in which case, i wonder if the issue may be a different one.
for me, negligent exposure to the possibility of disease is not the same thing as rape. whereas negligent exposure to pregnancy may be. even though the act at the heart of the issue is the same. the former may be transmitted via sexual congress, but this is merely a form of transportation for the virus. the latter makes the activity itself integral.
so maybe this is the way to think about it. sometimes the issue isn't about the sex. it's about other things in which sex is the medium for the issue, rather than the issue itself.
or perhaps it is simplest if no means no. but then issues arise where - practically-speaking - one's sense is that the line isn't actually as clear as one expects it to be. and one's sense of justice may be coloured a bit differently.
anyway, it bears a bit of thinking. i haven't reached any conclusions. just asking questions and sizing up the different arguments.
| 