Tuesday, August 9, 2011

a question about the definition of rape

littlebbob's TRIGGER WARNING: RAPE mocks the way some feminists use "rape." The post makes me uncomfortable because whatever your definition of rape may be, Jack's feeling of violation is sincere, and based on the pieces of Kynn's account that have been posted, Kynn knows she went too far, even if she rejects the idea that what she did was rape.

Traditionally, a charge of rape is a call for the law or the community to act. Men of all hues have been lynched after being accused of rape. Mention rape in a police station or a lawyer's office, and everyone will assume you think the offense calls for legal action, and the only question is whether the accused can be successfully tried.

There are feminists who think Julian Assange should be prosecuted for rape because he initiated sex in the morning with a sexual partner who has said she did not want sex then but "did not bother" to say no. I believe this is the first case I've heard of in which feminists argue that a person should be charged with rape even if a sexual partner had consented and then gave no indication of withdrawing consent.

Kynn's case is more extreme than Assange's. Jack has said that he used their safeword to withdraw consent. So, if the benefit of the doubt should always be with the person who charges rape, under an ideal feminist legal system, what would happen to Kynn now?