Who's to Blame?

CNN had a link to an article from Time regarding what should be considered rape. Out-and-out sexual assault is pretty clear: man wants woman, woman doesn't want man, man takes woman anyway. Consent on the part of the woman is central in this case. But what if the woman initially gives consent, then withdraws it during the act?

The Time article notes a case where a man and woman began sex consensually, then she asked him to stop, which he did. The article made it sound like that although the guy stopped almost immediately and did not ejaculate, he was found guilty of rape and sentenced to five years in jail. If the facts are correct, that's just wrong. Guy and girl start banging, girl says stop, guy does without blowing his load, and yet that counts as rape? Bullshit!

Obviously, true rape is a brutal mala in se crime. However, "withdrawal-of-consent rape" doesn't seem to be of the same level. A woman has the responsibility of judging who she lets in her bed. If she changes her mind partway through, then she's relying on the man to be honorable enough to stop. She did the screening, and should accept responsibility for such decisions. From a moral perspective, if a man doesn't stop, I'd say that makes him a scumbag, but not necessarily a criminal.

Of course that's discussion at a theoretical level. Saying that a woman is fully responsible is not acceptable because men could easily claim that she gave initial consent. I've read that some rapists seem to actually believe that their victims wanted the act. Plus, not punishing the man for continuing after 'stop' would accentuate the date rape problem. On the other hand, making it too easy for women to blame men after the fact, i.e. having consensual sex and then due to some later event, such as the discovery of other sexual partners, changing her story and declaring rape, is a disservice to men as well. (Promiscuity may be immoral, but it is not a crime.)

Ejaculation doesn't seem like a good criteria, either, because in the case of a "minute man", the woman might stay stop just a second too late; or in the case of a "marathon man", going against the woman's will would be a protracted assault!

The notion of a "consensual sex contract" is legally on-target, but practically absurd. Who would have sex with someone that asked for a signature first?

The bottom line is, in my opinion, that rape should only be used to describe a forced non-consensual sexual act, where the whole affair is from the start against the victim's will. If initial consent is given and later retracted, then it becomes simple assault. The former should carry much greater penalties than the latter, because the intent behind each act is very, very different. Of course either way, as with any disagreement between a couple, the issue will degenerate into a bout of he-said, she-said.