Sympathy for the Devil

It seems that quite a few people in power think that the definition of rape is too broad, and the law should offer greater protections for accused rapists. This issue has been gaining popular attention especially after the Todd Akin comments about "legitimate rape" containing egregious factual inaccuracies about women's health that seem to inform a lot of current right-wing policy. Since then, there has been a great deal of right wing statements supporting a stricter view of rape - presumably in order to eventually do away with abortion exceptions in case of rape and/or incest - including one defender of Akin who stated that rape victims are "blessed" with a child (and said the popular phrase of those who don't want to take back their disgusting opinions but instead are expressing their disappointment that they weren't able to trick the public better: that Akin "spoke badly").

Today the Connecticut Supreme Court decided that a woman with severe cerebral palsy was not in fact raped because she did not communicate her refusal of consent. Apparently the demonstrated facts that she "cannot speak and has little body movement" is not enough evidence that she was physically incapable of expressing her refusal. The court indicated in their 4-3 decision that biting or kicking would have been an acceptable form of communication.

Let's set aside the ready-made belief that the victim should have been considered physically incapable, as an unconscious rape victim would be, of communicating her refusal - an argument I agree with. The real issue here is the purpose sexual assault law is supposed to play. The Connecticut Supreme Court upheld a legal understanding of rape that promotes the idea that sex is always consensual unless one party, usually the woman, explicitly declines. This case hinges on that interpretation. If the law instead stated that a sex act could be legally considered rape if it was committed without obtaining consent, then the need for the handicapped to bite or kick would be irrelevant. But with the law as it is, it is the duty of the victim, again, usually the woman, to unequivocally say no to sex - in this case, even if she is incapable of doing so. Men can coerce, force women to give partial consent, bully them into willing sex acts under threat of violence, and if the women do not refuse for fear, confusion, disorientation, uncertainty, or whatever, the man is completely justified under this interpretation of the law.

Despicable.

It should not be solely the woman's duty to definitively express, sometimes in a unclear, rushed moment, her adamant refusal. Women do not need to take responsibility for the depraved actions of a sexual assaulter. The value system of the Connecticut ruling places all onus of "legitimate" rape on women - only they can determine whether rape has occurred, and the violent and destructive behavior of the assaulter is barely important. This is wrong. The interpretation of the law that informed this ruling lets men have sex without consent and forces women to decide in the moment whether it's a crime. The crime is not a crime because of the actions of the perpetrator but the cries of the victim. It would be as if someone who broke into your house was acquitted because you hadn't told him to leave as he was burglarizing your possessions. Completely despicable. Expressing this style of legal sympathy for rapists, such as the man in today's ruling, is sympathizing with sexism and subjugation of women.