The Crazy Years Are Upon Us.

http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2012/10/03/947981/court-requires-disabled-rape-victim-to-prove-she-fought-back-calls-for-evidence-of-biting-kicking-scratching/

This is outrageous!  The Connecticut State Supreme Court overturned the conviction of a man who had been accused of raping a woman with cerebral palsy.  They say she didn't indicate lack of consent.

When we consider this evidence in the light most favorable to sustaining the verdict, and in a manner that is consistent with the state’s theory of guilt at trial, we, like the Appellate Court, ‘are not persuaded that the state produced any credible evidence that the [victim] was either unconscious or so uncommunicative that she was physically incapable of manifesting to the defendant her lack of consent to sexual intercourse at the time of the alleged sexual assault.’
 

EXCUSE ME??  She “has severe cerebral palsy, has the intellectual functional equivalent of a 3-year-old and cannot verbally communicate.”

I am absolutely livid about this!  Just how was this woman supposed to communicate her lack of consent?  She might not have even been aware that what he was doing was wrong.  She probably had no idea what he was doing, period!

Anna Doroghazi, director of public policy and communication at Connecticut Sexual Assault Crisis Services said,

 “By implying that the victim in this case should have bitten or kicked her assailant, this ruling effectively holds people with disabilities to a higher standard than the rest of the population when it comes to proving lack of consent in sexual assault cases. Failing to bite an assailant is not the same thing as consenting to sexual activity.”
 

Will someone please explain to me how a 3-year-old can give consent for sex?  Or are we running off the old maxim that states, "If they're big enough, they're old enough?"

I would like to know how these people manage to get to be judges. 

This has very unpleasant implications in other cases.  The phrases, "legitimate rape" and "forcible rape" come to mind.  We are inching galloping towards the day when, if she hasn't had the shit beaten out of her, no woman will be able to charge her attacker with rape.

The real question is (IMO), why are these judges and other politicians so willing to support and promote the right of men to rape?  Given what we know about rape (primarily that it's about power and control, not sex), it appears to be yet another backlash against the empowerment of women.

I have said it before and will again.  "Handmaid's Tale," here we come.