Rape and Consent

Feminists were rocked last week by a pair of "no-rape" rulings in London and New York. First came word that Britain's highest judges, the five-man Law Lords, had reviewed the convictions of four men who forced a woman to have intercourse. One of the men was the woman's husband and had suggested the idea to his three drinking buddies, warning that she was "kinky" and only "turned on" by struggling. The Lords asked themselves: Can "a man be said to have committed rape if he believed that the woman was consenting," no matter how unreasonable the belief? "I do not think he can," wrote Lord Cross of Chelsea as part of a 3-2 majority. Thus, in theory, a man who believes no means yes cannot be convicted.

Next, a New York judge stated that a man may use any nonviolent means, "even deceit," to get a woman to say yes. Martin Evans, 36, had bedded a 20-year-old woman after telling her he was a psychologist doing research. But, concluded Justice Edward J. Greenfield, he used no violence or threats. Calling Evans "an abominable snowman," Greenfield added, "Bachelors and other men on the make, fear not. It is still not illegal to feed a girl a line." Agreed Evans: "I seduce. I don't rape."

Understandably, many women were outraged at the judges' language, and their view of the male right of conquest. Yet in both cases the offenders fared poorly. Evans was found guilty of escaping from police after his arrest and of trespassing in the apartment that he used. As to the British four, the Law Lords upheld their convictions, saying that the jury had enough evidence to conclude that the four did not really believe their victim meant yes.

This file is automatically generated by a robot program, so viewer discretion is required.