![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
You Poke It, You Own It. Legally
Nov. 1st, 2006 11:19 amThis little horror is spreading across the blogosphere, rendered even more horrible by being from my own state. Which I had thought was liberal, but apparently not liberal enough to think that women legally belong to themselves!
In the court decision on Maouloud Baby vs State of Maryland, the court has rendered that once a man has started having sex with a woman, she cannot repeal consent.
The "sex" to which she consented in this case, is quite clearly something she did in order to prevent what she thought was leading up to a beating and a violent rape, since a guy had already sat on top of her and tried to stick his dick in her mouth after she refused to give him a blow job and he had "briefly" sodomized her "by mistake." ETA: As several people point out in comments, it is not the guy mentioned in the case title that did those things to her, but they were parts of the original encounter. And y'know what? I don't care WHO did it, I care - deeply - that the court referred to unwanted sodomy as a brief mistake.
Disgusted yet? It gets worse. Pages 29-30 of the decision show that according to English common law, which became American common law which in turn informs Maryland common law:
The concept...views the initial 'de-flowering' of a woman as the real harm or insult which must be redressed by compensating... the injured party - the father or husband... After the initial infringement upon the responsible male's interest in a woman's sexual and reproductive functions, any futher injury was less consequential. The damage was done. It was this view that the moment of penetration was the point in time, after which a woman could never be 're-flowered,' that gave rise to the principle that, if a woman consents prior to penetration and withdraws consent following penetration, there is no rape. Maryland adheres to this tenet.
I'm allowed an education, a career, the ability to own property... but because women were chattel a millenia ago, I am not allowed to determine what happens to my own body after that first poke.
In the court decision on Maouloud Baby vs State of Maryland, the court has rendered that once a man has started having sex with a woman, she cannot repeal consent.
The "sex" to which she consented in this case, is quite clearly something she did in order to prevent what she thought was leading up to a beating and a violent rape, since a guy had already sat on top of her and tried to stick his dick in her mouth after she refused to give him a blow job and he had "briefly" sodomized her "by mistake." ETA: As several people point out in comments, it is not the guy mentioned in the case title that did those things to her, but they were parts of the original encounter. And y'know what? I don't care WHO did it, I care - deeply - that the court referred to unwanted sodomy as a brief mistake.
Disgusted yet? It gets worse. Pages 29-30 of the decision show that according to English common law, which became American common law which in turn informs Maryland common law:
The concept...views the initial 'de-flowering' of a woman as the real harm or insult which must be redressed by compensating... the injured party - the father or husband... After the initial infringement upon the responsible male's interest in a woman's sexual and reproductive functions, any futher injury was less consequential. The damage was done. It was this view that the moment of penetration was the point in time, after which a woman could never be 're-flowered,' that gave rise to the principle that, if a woman consents prior to penetration and withdraws consent following penetration, there is no rape. Maryland adheres to this tenet.
I'm allowed an education, a career, the ability to own property... but because women were chattel a millenia ago, I am not allowed to determine what happens to my own body after that first poke.
