An über-radical gender feminist blogger, who does not get a link here, suggests that what matters in determining whether a rape occurred is, apparently, the purported victim's "experience."
Specifically, she decries "put[ting] all the relevant criminal statutes first and any logical identification of the violation someone experienced second." Such approach, she opines, "deliberately and selectively divorces the criminal justice system from the harm people experience at the hands of someone else."
Such naiveté, though breathtaking, is sadly typical of a twisted strain of feminism that deigns to metamorphose the most basic and fundamental human interaction into criminal activity on the part of males.
No extended explanation is necessary to posit what every thinking person already knows: our criminal statutes articulate a societal consensus that decides which acts or omissions are criminal and which are not. This consensus changes over time, evolving and devolving.
It is certainly legitimate to ponder whether and how the criminal statutes should be changed to convict more criminals while protecting the rights of the innocent. It is not a legitimate exercise to ponder changing the laws without regard for the rights of the innocent, as many of these persons do.
To suggest, as some radical gender feminists do, that men and boys should somehow be obligated to mold their conduct to fit some some amorphous, free-floating, moving target, subjective, secret whim of a woman's experience, including her after-the-fact, ex-post facto, false and belated hissy fits of regret about having sex, is beyond absurd and barely worthy of discussion.
Barely, because it does provide another example of the forces of unadulterated evil that innocent men falsely accused of rape must deal with.
These persons apparently advocate convicting men and boys on the basis of a female's subsequent declaration that that their acts somehow "harmed" her. And every female thus becomes judge, jury and executioner, based on her impulse, her caprice.
Such a standard furnishes the male no guidance prior to the act as to what conduct is permissible. This, of course, is repugnant to the most fundamental notions of due process. Such tactics have always been widely practiced in dictatorships where the rule of law is trumped by some fanatic's fancy.
The following is neither radical nor controversial to the vast majority of reasonable people: What matters is a woman's objective manifestations of assent at the time of the act. A woman so drunk that she can't give valid consent is a rape victim. And a man who proceeds to have sex when, without threat of physical force on his part, a woman indicates by words or conduct her willingness to have sex, whether or not such willingness is expressed enthusiastically, is not a rapist even if her subjective "experience" tells her she is being "harmed." Any claim that she was raped in those circumstances should subject her to incarceration.
On second thought, this subject is not worthy of discussion.
Persons who spew these theories don't need a blog, they need intense counseling to help them understand why they hate approximately half the population of planet earth.