Yeah. Back to Blogger. Spaces is way to restricting. Sorry for the inconvenience.
======================
I'm very confused. But you are smart so I put the question to you.
There was a recent court ruling that said no can't mean no if a woman says yes to sex and the sex has already started. In other words, if intercourse has begun, she can't change her mind and then claim rape if the guy doesn't stop.
It isn't the ruling that is confusing me. It is the reactions.
Most of the talk has centered around no means no -- no matter what. However, there are those in my circle who said a woman needed to be more responsible and not put herself into these types of situations.
One friend said women need to take more control of their own body and biology takes over at a certain point. I can see where she's coming from, but it makes men sound like we can't think with our brains, but think with ... well, you know.
Another friend (who is on the no means no side) said it was like parachuting. If you get fitted for the chute, get in the plane and go in the air, does that mean they are going to push you out of the plane if you change your mind? Of course not, but if I'm already in the air, I can't change my mind there.
An unscientific poll on my work site showed 62% said no means no. But 38% said a woman can't claim rape after she originally said yes and sex has started.
I know what I would do. And I'm comfortable with my personal decision.
But I'm interested in what you think. Does no mean no -- no matter when it is said? Or should women be more responsible? Or is there another answer?
Leave your comments below. I just think this is interesting.
"Farewell, you fool/Spare me the punch line please, I learned it well at Sunday school" -- Jellyfish
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
If at ANY POINT the woman -- or man -- says no to sex, THAT MEANS STOP. If aggressor fails to stop, that's RAPE.
There are too many variables to argue. Be it intoxication, drugs, mental state, stupidity, blondness, whatever, NO means NO. What daggone part of "NO" doesn't one understand?
What's more, that ruling leaves much too much space open for interpretation in terms of how "no" is communicated and/or perceived -- or not perceived.
"Woman (need) to be more responsible and not put herself into these types of situations."
What a load of crap. Drivers need to be more responsible and not put themselves in situations that could cause a crash. (Don't drive.)
Most women ARE responsible and that's NOT the reason why a person becomes a victim of rape.
Most arguments against "no means no" (to me) sends the wrong message to rape victims, who already tend to be more timid, embarrassed, skeptical about coming forward. The arguments against "no means no" give more sexual power to predators.
If it comes down to protecting the "seuxal advancers" from wrongful accusations, don't. That's what the court system is for. "Enforce the existing law."
No means no, period. You can use any metaphor you want, but it still comes down to no means no. No matter when it is said.
Post a Comment