And yet life is rarely simple...

Since this is a bit of a departure from the feminist canon, I want to make clear before I begin that I in no way believe that women are responsible for their own rapes. See my previous post for further proof. I have absolute contempt for arguments that attempt to shift blame away from rapists, or downplay the enormity of rape as a crime against another human being.

All of that said, there was one element of the study mentioned in my previous post that I can't help but consider in a more ambiguous light. Participants were asked about the varying degrees of responsibility of a woman who fails to offer her assailant a clear 'no'.

Now, obviously there are many cases where it is assumed that the victim of a rape is simply not capable of giving her consent to a sexual act, and in cases like these whether a 'no' is actually stated or not is redundant. A child has no need to reject any sexual advances, since they are not legally capable of welcoming them. Similarly someone with mental disabilities, or even just temporarily incapacitated by drink or drugs, cannot say yes and so should not need to say no.

We protect these groups with a blanket ban on ability to consent for good reason. And this protection limits their personal autonomy, but safeguards their personal security. It would be massively offensive to suggest that mentally capable, adult females were incapable of giving informed consent to sex. For this particular group freedom and self-determination comes first, and rightly so.

But, if we can say yes, should we not also be able to say no? To say no, once, clearly, should be all that is needed to stop any unwelcome advances (in an ideal world) and there is part of me that feels this is a reasonable thing to expect of women, allowing us to actively assert our desires or otherwise, rather than waiting passively for a man to attain consent.

There are of course cases where a violent or agressive attack could cause fear, and in cirumstances like these, where the lack of consent is pretty much the whole point of the rape, whether the word 'no' has been said or not is fairly irrelevant.

But, in cases where rape does begin as a misunderstanding before evolving into something more sinister isn't it reasonable, and indeed respectful of women as agents rather than victims, to expect that a woman does have some responsibility to tell a man 'no' if his advances are unknowingly unwelcome?

Men who badger or pester women into sex are unscrupulous bastards who in my opinion should still bear the label of rapist. After all, all rape is a crime and all rapists should bear responsibility for committing a crime, but not all rapists are equal. I don't believe it's a betrayal of my sex to state that a woman should clearly tell a man 'no' if this is what she means. After all, I firmly maintain that a woman should have the right to withdraw consent at any moment, at which point sexual contact should instantly stop. For this to be possible either we have to endow women with enough power to state their preferences, or expect men to ask repeatedly if consent is still given. Not exactly a recipe for uninhibited rewarding sex.

None of this however is designed to let men off the hook. If you are playing with boundaries of power and desire you should be pretty damn sure you know the woman in question well enough not to need a clear 'I want this'. After all, asking is just as easy as telling.