VSThis is a mistake – and a sexist mistake! – than defining rape by non-consent. Some countries have done this because their definition of rape was previously based solely on violence and this is undeniable progress, but French legislation does not have this problem. It is because of the importance that I attach to the fight against sexual violence, and on the basis of the years of research that I have devoted to rape and sexual consent, that I think that the French definition of rape should not be modified and that the solution for a better fight against sexual violations lies elsewhere.
There is no doubt that the notion of consent is crucial to thinking about good sex and that our sexual lives should only be made up of consensual relations. However, a number of feminist works have shown that this notion is crossed by heterosexist representations: we think that consent is the business of women, who must choose to accept or refuse sexual assaults from men.
We think, in short, that men constantly want sex, that they cannot help themselves, and that it is up to women – who we presume to want love rather than sex – to stop them or let them do it. The man proposes, the woman disposes. In this model, men cannot be raped, women cannot instigate sex, and only women’s behavior – their refusal or agreement – distinguishes sex from rape. At best, for them, they give in. At worst, they prevent.
Far from preventing men from raping, these representations exonerate them: it is considered that for them sex and rape are not so different, that it is something they do to their partner and that the opinion of the partner -this or that only counts as a possible obstacle. We are giving credence to a false and harmful representation of male sexuality.
Clear practical consequences
Contrary to the hypothesis that some defendants defend in court, there is no misunderstanding between the men and their victims, it is not that they do not understand that the other did not want it. Laboratory studies show that men and women presented with the same scenarios of consent and non-consent interpret the situations in the same way, without men failing to understand refusals.
Sexual violence does not result from misunderstandings or problems in communicating consent, but from the fact that men believe that they have or should have the right to impose sexual relations. Believing that it is enough to define rape by non-consent to end it is illusory. Rape is not sex without consent, it is a violation inflicted by a criminal on a victim that has little to do with sexual “intercourse”: an activity joined and shared by partners.
You have 55% of this article left to read. The rest is reserved for subscribers.