TwasBrillig
1st Like
I've practiced law for many years and this is one I would have gotten wrong. My first inclination would have been to say that once consent to penetration is given, even if for a moment (as in this case), rape is no longer an issue. But, as some caselaw has recently shown, I would have been wrong:
"The crime of first-degree rape includes post-penetration vaginal intercourse accomplished through force or threat of force and without the consent of the victim, even if the victim consented to the initial penetration," the Court of Appeals wrote. Md. Court Rules Women Can Withdraw Sexual Consent - washingtonpost.com
This clearly reflects a newer standard society holds for relations of all kinds between men and women. While it is morally balanced, it makes me wonder how the Courts will handle issues such as the length of time between the "no" and withdrawal. It should at least make for some interesting testimony...and future decisions.
Now that does open a whole new world of ambiguity, doesn't it? Just when has non-consentable entry occured? Not long (large, satisfying)? enough? Forced? Substance abuse temporary inability to refrain?