Coitus and the Law

I read an article in the Baltimore Sun the other day that just blew me away. There is a case before the Maryland Court of Appeals that is trying to decide if an act is rape if the sex was initially consented to, but then objected to later in the act. This blows my mind. Apparently, there is actual law that discusses various stages of sex and whether or not consent is needed throughout. I feel like I'm on some other planet.

When the lawmakers get together and write these laws, do any of them ever think it odd that this should even be decided by them? How many years will it be before a woman's right to consent is no longer decided by lawmakers? It's taken us this long to acknowledge that rape occurs, which implies that woman have a right to consent. But what I didn't realize until reading this article was that after a woman says "yes," she has to keep going until the man is finished. Sure, she can say "no" but the guy doesn't have to stop, and when he doesn't stop he's not raping her.

Help me understand how this happened. Help me understand how anyone ever felt entitled to write laws that govern when women can consent to sex and when they can't. Apparently, when a woman consents to sex, she's entered into a binding contract. What would happen if a man took a woman to court for not completing her obligation? "She said yes, and half-way through she wanted to stop which caused me duress. I'm suing for damages. She broke her contract." That's absurd, right? You know, I know it may be inconvenient to have to stop in the middle, but life is full of inconveniences.

Clearly, our laws still favor a man's right to sex. A woman, by her biological nature, is obligated to provide sex to a man, except under certain circumstances. You can say "no" and then the man has to respect that, but if you say "yes" you are fully obligated to follow through.

If the court doesn't rule in favor of changing the law, the only recourse will be the legislature. I'm having reflux here. The argument to keep the law the same will be to reduce the instances that woman will cry "rape" when, according to men, rape didn't occur. But our justice system should be able to discern a real rape. And frankly, that's just a fear tactic played on the feeble sensibilities of men who aren't sure they want their own sexual behavior to undergo scrutiny.

I hope the court will see fit to make the right decision on behalf of women.

Another topic - City Cafe in Mt. Vernon. I went there this morning to study and I bought a fresh squeezed orange juice ($2.95) and a bagel. After a while I decided to order some soup. When I went back to the counter, one of the staff was preparing more cups of fresh squeezed OJ. The City Cafe gets its fresh squeezed OJ from cartons of Tropicana Orange Juice - No Pulp. Hey, if you're going to lie about your product, maybe you should prepare it out of sight of the customers. Just a thought.