Excellent post.
It's a very hard issue, worthy of discussion, and I hope we can keep the discussion civil. I hear this discussed too many times when it deteriorates into personal attack and harsh accusations.
Jewel and I are both parents of daughters, and we want our daughters kept safe from rape. I assume that we both want them to be able to go on dates and have the assurance that they will not be forced into intercourse against their will.
OTOH, you are right that most women expect and want to be wooed (this is a biological imperative, in fact, present in virtually all sexual species) and that that wooing doesn't usually have an abrupt moment in time where both people are absolutely against sex and the next second both people are absolutely for sex and neither thereafter wavers or dithers.
A clear no should be respected as a clear no, period.
But, what about a no said when the physical actions say yes, yes, yes? What about Oh, that feels so good, I love it, but we shouldn't be doing this, should we?"
It's easy to say there should be a bright line. And sometimes there are. No said with no conflicting actions is always no. Using drugs or physical force is always no.
But there can be, as you say, a hazy area between no and yes.
At least one college or university, I have read, requires a signed agreement to engage in sex; if there is no signed agreement, and the woman later objects that it was rape, even if she was as eager for the act as he was at the time, if he didn't get the signed consent, it's rape.
Now there's a bright line for you!
(Until you start arguing about whether the signature really was voluntary, or was coerced by honeyed words and kisses sweeter than wine!) |
