Withdrawn Consent?

From Tapped
"The court threw out a rape conviction because the judge failed to instruct the jury that a woman could not legally withdraw consent after penetration. The Court's ruling was based on dicta in a 1980 decision, which it itself was based on common law definitions of rape. The court describes the principles animating the 1980 decision as follows:

But, to 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.

The court's reasoning is unconvincing; it seems highly unlikely that the statute enacted by Maryland in 1976 was intended to reinscribe common law definitions of rape, and by definition the dicta of a 1980 decision are not binding. But whether the court was straining to uphold common law standards that saw rape as a criminal act not because of injury to the victim but because it represents "damage" to an "asset," or -- more frighteningly -- it's an accurate representation of Maryland law in 2006, it's certainly disgraceful and chilling either way. Hopefully the Maryland Supreme Court will forcefully overturn this court's decision, but it's ridiculous that this could even be an issue at this late date."

This falls into the category of "icky things people don't like to talk about". But really, it's obvious that these laws are far out-dated. The whole ruling is disturbing to say the least. While I don't agree that current precident considers women "chattel" whose "assets" are destroyed, it is pretty obvious that the laws in question don't fully appreciate the sexual situations that can be encountered and where a line should be drawn. In my belief, rape should be defined simply as "a sexual act performed without the consent". To expand, that means to me that at anytime during an encounter if one person is uncomfortable and asks the other(s) in question to stop and the "performer" continues it's rape. End of story. Sure there are people that would say that a woman or man that stops in the middle after already consenting shouldn't be allowed to make accusations, but clearly this opinion is jaded and vindictive. When someone says "stop" it's over. When someone shows signs that they don't enjoy what's going on and physically attempts to stop the action, it's over. Anyone that doesn't appreciate that pretty much deserves to be charged with rape. Sentencing can solve issues of actual intention by the assailant.