This book explores the law's casual treatment of simple rape cases when a woman is forced to engage in intercourse with an unarmed man she knows -- a neighbor, an acquaintance, a date.
Simple rape is far less likely to be reported, prosecuted, or to result in a conviction than aggravated rape. The weight given to prior relationship, force and resistance, and corroboration effectively allows prosecutors to define rape so as to exclude the simple case. A historical review of the common law as it governs rape argues that judges have translated distrust of women victims, often found in 19th and early 20th century law, into clear presumptions applied against a woman who complains of simple rape. In rape cases from the 1970's and 1980's, force has replaced consent or corroboration or unchastity as the rubric for expressing the law's distrust. Criticisms of rape reform statutes address (1) their gender neutral definition of victim and offender, (2) redefinitions of what counts as intercourse or sexual conduct, and (3) what makes sexual intercourse criminal. The key legal question is not simply whether intent should govern, but what society should expect and demand of men in simple rape situations -- in essence, 'no' should be understood to be final. Chapter notes, index of cases, and general index.