Jwill's Log

Arousal does not mean consent.

It’s a seemingly random question, but it has been on my mind for some time. I first got to thinking about it after watching an episode of Law & Order: SVU titled “Ridicule” (Season 3). In this episode, the detectives and other law officials take different sides on whether a male can be raped and, consequently, whether being aroused means that you consent to the sexual act. One detective refuses to believe that a man can get raped, asking if he has gone to the gym, even though he claims to have been raped by three women. Not one, but three. It was also interesting that the female lead detective and the female assistant district attorney both believed that he was raped but the male detective refused to believe so. It made sense that the defense attorney argued that a male could not be raped as it was her job to discredit his story.

I agree with the female detective and with the district attorney. Women can rape men, as much as society may want to believe that a woman cannot overtake a man. We are living in the days of equal rights and equal suffrage, and any woman can very easily overpower a man with brute force if she’s strong enough, or at knifepoint and gunpoint (men sometimes use weapons, too). Just because the man is aroused by a sexual act does not mean that he consents to it. There are times that men do not want to be aroused but their brain sends off the signals anyway. We may sometimes try to do things that will bring about arousal, but we ourselves do not control it. Consent is a verbal or written statement stating that one is willing. Without that consent, the answer is no, no matter how aroused a man or woman is. Men can rape their girlfriends if the girl is aroused by the guy but not in the mood for sex; thus, women can likewise rape their boyfriends (and other guys) if the guy is aroused by the girl but not in the mood for sex. Saying anything else is building a double standard for men and women. The “does he go to the gym” business is blatantly sexist; sure men are naturally stronger than women, but one man against three of anything is, in my mind, a struggle. Lastly, we need not think that men are sex-driven pigs who will take sex at any welcome opportunity; we are generally decent human beings who employ rational thinking before doing something.

Source: Boston.com (Read Article)

MADISON, Wis.—The wife and daughter of a man who committed suicide can inherit his estate even if they assisted him in the act, a state appeals court ruled Thursday.

State law prohibits anyone who “intentionally kills” another from inheriting from the person, but Wisconsin’s District 4 Court of Appeals said that provision does not apply to those who assist in suicide.

According to this law in Wisconson, someone assisting a family member in committing suicide remains eligible for inheriting property and other things listed in the family member’s will. In support of her statement, the leading judge says, “Providing (the man) with a loaded shotgun did not deprive him of his life: he deprived himself of life by shooting himself with the shotgun.” The organization Wisconsin Right To Life claims that such a ruling gives people incentive to help people kill themselves.

I agree with the organization on this one. The implications of such a ruling are astounding. People could easily try to convince their depressed or otherwise unhappy relatives to kill themselves. This is true regardless of the ruling. Now, at least in Wisconsin, these people can also provide the means with which their relative could commit suicide and still be off the hook. It is true that “providing (the man) with a loaded shotgun” did not in itself kill him; however, by providing this shotgun, the person has brought him or herself closer to gaining an inheritance, whether it was his or her intent to gain the inheritance or not. It is not the job of the law to determine what one’s intent is; if an obvious, negative intent exists, the law should work against the act in question.