Please delete if necessary, but I have avoided asking this "Elephant in the Room" question for a while now. However, with a new son who recently turned 4 months old ... I frankly want to prepare him for the world he will grow up in. And, of COURSE, IANAL!
With that said, here is my question that I truly am trying to ask in the most respectful and nuanced way possible...
Am I to understand that in the eyes of this Kansas law, a man could have "unspoken consent" to be touching a woman sexually up until a point where she can determine that a successive "next sexual act" was not consensual and have grounds to allege sexual assault? Again, not talking "morally" here ... just legally. I believe in the documents for this case, the alleged victim claimed she had "given" consent for the alleged perpetrator to be touching her buttocks and then the alleged perpetrator apparently interpreted their sexual-in-nature interaction up to that point to be of a nature that he could touch her frontal private parts. And because she was only okay with the former and not the latter, this constituted sexual assault.
I mean, can we be real for a second here? If beginning to put your hands down the front of a woman's pants without formal verbal consent is potentially sexual assault, the vast majority of sexual interaction between men and women the age of TSJ could be considered potential "rape" if the woman retracts consent after the man takes it to that next step. Is a male in that situation just simply and unequivocally risking a VERY dicey situation if he does not obtain verbal consent first? And what if the woman gives verbal consent but later decides she was not okay with it? Is that a "He Said, She Said" case even though his DNA WILL be found? Did he need it in writing??
I know the situation described would be INCREDIBLY rare, and in most cases it is clear if two people are engaging in consensual sexual acts. Maybe the risk is just with a stranger? Because I can guarantee you that most guys I know do not stop and ask, haha. And I have never considered "going with the flow" of the sexual interaction to really be "RAPE." I have avoided asking this to not appear totally delusional or disrespectful toward the sensitivity of the case, but man ... I guess I really don't understand where the legal line here is drawn. Any thoughtful and respectful responses are REALLY appreciated, so thank you!
EDIT: I also want to be VERY CLEAR that I get that the basic objective of these laws is to stop an unambiguously bad thing - for someone to perform a sexual act toward a woman that she did not want. And there should absolutely be rigid laws to stop that. I merely want to understand what the legal expectation of men would be to prevent this type of legal trouble in the rare circumstance where there is a disconnect between parties.
