[T]o be sure, it was the act of penetration that was the essence of the crime of rape; after this initial infringement upon the responsible male’s interest in a woman’s sexual and reproductive functions, any further injury was considered to be 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, having adopted the common law, which remains the law of the Land until and unless changed by the State’s highest court or by statute.
So, according to a Maryland appellate court, rape is bad because it's a form of property damage -- and once your property isn't a virgin anymore, it's basically too worthless to be damageable. When was this appalling opinion handed down?
(c) The day before yesterday
Answer below the fold!
Of course the answer is the day before yesterday (pg 32).
I think I'm saving this one; it's a fantastic example of how some really nasty notions about sexuality are incredibly pervasive, and it would be good to have students read this along with some radfem material from a couple decades ago.
Via Amanda, who has links to discussions at feministing, feministe, and Broadsheet.