Reader Response

In May The Playboy Forum discussed a California Supreme Court decision that dealt with postpenetration rape ("Rape or Regret?"). During a party Laura T., a 17-year-old girl, ended up in a room alone with 17-year-old John Z. Laura testified that John Z. began kissing her, got on top of her and penetrated her, during which she said nothing. After he rolled over so she was sitting on top of him, Laura testified that she "kept pulling up, trying to sit up to get it out and he grabbed my hips and pushed me back down." She told him repeatedly that she wanted to go home. The justices voted six to one that John Z. had raped Laura.

You suggested that your readers should be outraged about the court's decision. We are, but for different reasons.

You say the ruling means, "A person who consents to sex may claim 'postpenetration rape' if she changes her mind midstroke, even if she fails to communicate the change of heart." This case says no such thing. Rather, it clarifies the law in California: If a woman consents to "initial penetration and then withdraws her consent during an act of intercourse, but the male continues against her will," it is rape. Surely this is a reasonable premise. All of us can imagine circumstances under which, for whatever reason--physical pain, a boyfriend pounding on the door or a change of heart--we might wish to cease and desist sexually.

Six of seven justices concluded that "substantial evidence shows Laura withdrew her consent and, through her actions and words, communicated that fact." She told John during the act that "I don't want to do this." How much clearer does it get? She further attempted to stop intercourse by telling him three times that she needed to go home. When he wouldn't stop (instead telling her, "Just give me a minute"), she reiterated, "No, I need to get home."

You focus on the lone dissenting opinion of Justice Janice Brown, who contended that Laura did not "officially" tell John that she didn't want to have sex, and that her words and actions did not sufficiently communicate her unwillingness. Justice Brown's opinion is disturbing. It implies that Laura's actions prior to the incident--which included being alone in a dark room with men and kissing them--are relevant to the question of Laura's consent to intercourse. They are not. Agreeing to one form of sexual activity in no way obligates someone to another form. Those who attack the strength of Laura's dissent to sex may be missing the point. Sex without consent is always a crime.

Delilah Rumburg National Sexual Violence Resource Center Enola, Pennsylvania

Do you seriously argue that "I need to get home" carries the same message as "Stop. This is rape"? Have you never kept a lover in bed in the morning, despite protestations of "I need to get to work"? Laura said lots of things that night. "I don't want to do this" was part of a discussion about "respect" and the future of the "relationship," such as it was. John did not hear "withdrawal of consent" in her words. Neither did Laura T.'s two girlfriends, who, after hearing from Laura what happened, concluded that she had not been raped. Neither did the judge who filed the dissent. Is every such ambiguous act to be decided by committee or a panel of judges after the fact?

In The Name of Terror

Iraq's torture chambers now stand empty. But few know about the Bush administration's own murky position on torture. Two Afghan men--a 22-year-old taxi driver named Dilawar and 30-year-old Mullah Habibullah--were in U.S. custody in Bagram, Afghanistan in December when they died. A medical examiner concluded the deaths were homicides involving "blunt force injuries." The federal government has promised to investigate the circumstances of the deaths.

What happened to these two men?

Although the Bush administration has stated it honors international laws that ban torture, it has apparently not ruled out what it calls "stress-and-duress" techniques. Former U.S. detainees say that they were hooded, deprived of sleep, food and medical care, exposed to extreme heat or cold or had their arms chained to the ceiling.

If the allegations are true, the methods clearly violate the international prohibition on torture and cruel, inhumane and degrading treatment of prisoners. The failure of U.S. officials to issue a categorical denial that our forces engage in this type of behavior fuels the perception that such abuse is now acceptable, in the name of fighting terror. This is reckless and dangerous, with grave consequences for our democracy.

Alexandra Arriaga Amnesty International USA Washington, D.C.

Pussy Foot

"Attaching a story to a shoe to sell it makes a great deal of sense, but attaching a hot woman to a shoe? God!"

--James Twitchell, an advertising professor at the University of Florida, criticizing Pony shoe advertisements that feature porn stars.

We would like to hear your point of view. Send questions, opinions and quirky stuff to The Playboy Forum, Playboy, 680 North Lake Shore Drive, Chicago, Illinois 60611, e-mail us at [email protected] or fax your comments to 312-951-2939. Please include a daytime phone number and your city and state or province.