Judge Throws Out Rape Case After Equating Fantasies with Consent

Since when does entertaining the idea of a sexual scenario equate to giving sexual consent?

It seems that in the wise world of a U.K. prosecutor and his judge, not only does maybe mean yes, but yes once means yes always. The duo were at the trial of an alleged rape victim who claimed she had gone to the house of someone she met online, wanting to have sex with only him, but that he and five other men had proceeded to gang rape her. When the prosecutor revealed that the alleged victim had once had online discussions about engaging in group sex, the judge cleared all six men of their rape and conspiracy to rape charges -- before hearing any actual evidence.

The prosecutor had said, "There is material in the chatlogs from the complainant, who is prepared to entertain ideas of group sex with strangers, where to use her words her 'morals go out the window.' This material does paint a wholly different light as far as this case is concerned." And why in the world is that? The prosecutor said the woman entertained ideas of group sex, not that she agreed to real-life group sex. (The press covering the story never even made entirely clear whether these discussions were with the men in question or with others, as though that part is just incidental.)

The online conversations may be relevant to the case and worthy of further examination, if they involved the men in question. Still, those online conversations do not constitute consent -- and by extension, eliminate the possibility of rape -- in any way, shape, or form. Consent only counts when it is actively given at the time of sex. But perhaps in this prosecutor's mind, and apparently the judge's as well, any woman dirty enough to entertain the idea of group sex has already given tacit consent to any and all sex with any and all strangers at any and all times. In the judge's estimation, "her credibility was shot to pieces."

Maybe these two men have wafted so far up into the lofty heights of jurisprudence that they've lost sight of the common sense truths upon which the law and justice are based. Namely, people have all manner of wild and crazy sexual fantasies. Sometimes, people take their fantasies one step further by discussing the possibility of acting upon them. Sometimes sharing a fantasy can be titillating in and of itself -- people don't necessarily want or need to physically execute a fantasy in order to get pleasure from it. Sometimes, people discuss a sexual scenario, decide they're up for it, and then go for it! Other times, they decide they're up for it ... and then change their minds! Sometimes, people agree to engage in a sex act on one occasion but don't want to engage in similar acts on other occasions.

And sometimes these very same people are raped.

How convenient would it be for rapists if they got a free pass any time they could show that their victims once thought about or engaged in "similar" sex acts consensually. I estimate this would give them license to rape, oh, the entire female population.

Photo Credit: Steve Punter