No means no...

[denny]

...unless you took your own knickers off, in which case apparently it means 'go for it'.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-2216046_1,00.html

Comments

[bluecassandra.livejournal.com]

I'd like to say I'm enraged, but I think there wouldv'e had to have been more of a shock involved. The poeople who say its the two tier system but by the back door and that this just restates current case law are right.
bastarding bastards.

[libellum.livejournal.com]

I don't have the energy to be angry. I'm just upset.

[pooloftrees.livejournal.com]

I think one of the worst things (other than it having been advised in the first place) is that it's not defined, so if the jury find the accused guilty in a case such as they described, it is basically down to the judge to decide how much leniency to give regarding the prior 'sexual activity' (and what is that supposed to include exactly? Snogging even?).

I can see this being used to basically give husbands a slap on the wrist if they are found guilty of forcing their wife to have sex (although isn't that the case already?)

Stupid bloody legal advice, I hope it gets overturned quickly...

[burritob.livejournal.com]

Oh awesome, so I guess they're going to resurrect the notion that rape can't exist in marriage either.

So much for enlightened society..

[hamsterine.livejournal.com]

When I first read about this, I could kind of see where they were coming from, but the more I think about it the more it sucks. The way it is worded is careful. All it is apparently saying is that the circumstances surrounding the offense should be taken into account. This is reasonable. There are some cases where the offense is more violet and/or traumatic than in other cases, and this should be taken into account. However, people could easily infer from this that it is simply not a serious offence to rape someone who had been up for sex initially and changed their mind, or had consented to sexual activities which didn't include intercourse. It is not said explicitly, and could be denied. However, if this is not what we should infer, then what is the point of saying any of it? Every case should be judged on its details, and this is the way it works already.

[fellcat.livejournal.com]

This is just another way of claiming that it's OK to rape a woman who is sexually active, isn't it? I feel sick.

As the WAR spokeswoman said, women have the right to change their minds, and it is insulting to men to suggest that they can't not have sex after foreplay.