There's also a sort of no that means no which I find troubling. It's a no said once one partner is satisfied and which denies the other satisfaction.
There was a case of that type in the UK in which the man carried on and was sent to jail. There was no suggestion that the woman was in pain or anything. There was no discussion of the man demanding or even requesting unusual forms of sex that offended her. As I remember things, she simply said no more after she was satisfied. She had got what she wished.
For me, there was an implied consensual agreement to mutual satisfaction in that situation, in which the withdrawal of consent was a breach of the agreement. In effect, in this way, the man was abused and not the woman. He was treated as a mere service provider for her sexual wants. As soon as she was done, she issued her no. She denied or sought to deny him his wants, having implicitly agreed to honour them.
What interest does the public have in protecting her? She wasn't some weak innocent whose parts wanted protection. She wasn't the victim. She created the circumstances of which she claimed to be the victim. Her no was a denial of the mutuallism intrinsic to consensual sexual situations. At a minimum, this ought to remove the matter from investigation as a criminal matter.
Use of the word rape for this situation dilutes its meaning in situations in which it properly applies.
Not only this, but in an era of equality between the sexes, men cannot only be seen as aggressors and women as victims. We need to be careful of everyone's interests if we enter the bedroom.
But such matters don't belong in a courtroom, in my view. Unless we want attorneys in bed with us arguing about biology and the nature of passion, upon which subjects they are not expert.
| 