Right, Absolutely Not.

Published by Anonymous (not verified) on Sat, 03/08/2019 - 2:54am in

What would the world be like if women were unable to withdraw consent with regard to sex? You would be living in North Carolina, is what. Now, as an aside, I would totally live in North Carolina (please don’t tell my dad I would live in the wrong Carolina.) It’s lovely. But boy howdy does it have some terrifying rape laws and legal precedent. I mean, would I let my daughters live there?

Some cases are more difficult than others, especially if the initial act began with consent.

In 1979 the Supreme Court of North Carolina that once a sex act begins, a woman cannot withdraw her consent.

The court wrote that: “if the actual penetration is accomplished with the woman’s consent, the accused was not guilty of rape, though he may be guilty of another crime because of his subsequent actions.”

DA Welch called this a “troubling precedent.”

“I feel like you should be able to withdraw consent at any time,” Welch said. “If you have consented to one act, to me it doesn’t mean that act can keep going as long as necessary.”

“However, again it comes back to juries and how they view consent.”

“You will see someone who is consenting to a particular act, and all of a sudden it gets rougher than what they bargained for, or they change their mind, and we’re stuck,” Welch said. “If it goes from one act to another I don’t feel that that law apples, but you still have to deal with that issue in front of a jury, and that’s going to be very hard to convict.”

Oh but surely at least sometimes the juries are reasonable, right, and see that the law shouldn’t apply to cases in which people go from one sex act to another? Wait, or at least the prosecutors, right?

Two cases she’s [Monika Johnston Holster, head of NC Coalition Against Sexual Assault] heard recently are very similar. The prosecutors told both there is nothing they can do.

Even though the women did not consent to sex, “the offender felt like fooling around was consenting to sex,” Johnson Holster said.

OK let’s think about how banaynays this is. To be blunt and explicit about it, you could consent to making out with someone and touching them in explicitly sexual ways, but with both of you having your clothes on, and then that person can force you to have anal sex. This might strictly violate the law as noted above, but the prosecutors don’t appear to think so, because they won’t even try to bring a case. But wait, there’s more!

While state law defines sex with an incapacitated person is rape, court precedents say those laws don’t apply if the person caused the incapacitation through drinking or drug use.

OOOOoookay, as far as I can see this means you could just wait around at a party for a women to get too drunk to consent to sex, and then rape her with impunity. That can’t be right at all. But on the first part about withdrawing consent, I think we can all see how important and it is that a woman (or man, but these laws are written explicitly with women in mind) be able to say “no” at any time during any sex act and that the person having sex with her be required to stop, and the minute they go on regardless, then they are raping the woman, full stop. (The N.C. legislature apparently made some changes in the law, but left the treatment of withdrawal of consent alone.) Here I expect Kiwanda’s hypothetical thread in which I force everyone to agree with me, because it’s my party. Except I won’t force you, you’ll just all agree anyway. “Wow Belle that’s terrifying,” you’ll say.