• Choose a category
• All
• Classic-Fiction

“Can we all agree on Professor Pilty’s definition?” Professor Athol asked.

“Why do we have to agree?” someone said. “It’s been established that Mr. Jones had an erection.”

“I think definitions are important,” Professor Athol retorted. “Without the presence of an erection, rape is impossible.”

“That’s not true. Men rape women mentally and culturally all the time,” Ms. Schanke put in. “So-called civilization is one long rape.”

Ariel Dearth, assiduously taking notes and uncharacteristically quiet, declared that “erections per se have no standing in law, as far as I know. I doubt there is a legal definition of an erection as such, but there’s considerable case law as to what constitutes penetration.”

“More to the point,” Thad Pilty asserted, “if Mr. Jones is accusing Ms. Spronger of rape then we have to establish that not only was there an erection involved but that under the circumstances its presence was involuntary.”

During a tedious back-and-forth that ensued, the issue arose as to exactly how far into the act of heterosexual intercourse in which the genitals of both partners are “in deep contact” can a woman legitimately change her mind and ask her partner to withdraw.

Professor Pilty cleared his throat and opined that once there had been “consensual penetration without any obvious trauma,” it seemed unreasonable to ask the male to withdraw. Certainly, he continued, “once ejaculation has begun, it’s unrealistic to think that a man can just stop and pull out.”

“That’s total bullshit,” Ms. Berthe Schanke proclaimed. “Rape is rape and nothing you say changes that.”

Constance Brattle reminded the subcommittee that coitus interruptus had been practiced since ancient times and was considered a legitimate part of the sexual repertoire. She wondered aloud why Mr. Jones, if he had wanted to end the intercourse, did not simply detumesce?

I’m afraid some of the men smirked.

Ms. Brattle, noticing that response, said, “What I’m saying is that he could have thought of something to distract himself.”

“Such as?”

“I don’t know … preparing his income tax …”

“Or sleet falling on nettles.”

“Or battery acid.”

“Or having a root canal.”

“Or his wife.”

“Please, gentlemen, this is a serious matter.”

Izzy Landes sensibly argued that perhaps Mr. Jones was not in a position to withdraw given Ms. Spronger’s considerable weight. “If a man is expected to desist at any point along the way, then certainly women should be expected to do the same.”

Ms. Doveen, in what seemed to me an attempt to keep up sexually, so to speak, with the Joneses from a gender point of view, retorted that “when a lady gets her groove going, there is nothing going to stop her.”

Somewhat surprisingly, I was asked by Professor Athol for my opinion before I had a chance to proffer it.

I stated that whether a man is responsible or not for his erections, surely he remains responsible for what he does with them. I also remarked that I was starting to understand more and more why those so-called old fuddy-duddies of yore insisted on both high standards of conduct and their enforcement, through chaperones if necessary. Certainly if that young woman in the White House had been more closely supervised, there would not have been that encounter with the former President and the disgrace it brought to his exalted office.

No actual finding was made as to the merits of the case. We took the matter under advisement while recommending that both parties seek counseling and that they avoid having lunch together unless others were present.

I was not long back from this meeting when Mr. Castor accosted me by phone again. He asked me if I had any questions about the contract he had sent by overnight mail some days before. I told him I had no questions insofar as I had not read and did not intend to read the contract he had sent me and that my first answer was my final answer. When he tried to engage me in conversation I put him on hold long enough for him to hang up.

It should not have surprised