Home Office Campaign an Insult to Women
The Home Office in the UK launched a campaign yesterday to, according to a spokesman, "help tackle rape by educating young men about the need to gain consent before having sex." The campaign will consist of radio ads, ads in men's magazines and posters in the gents in urban pubs and clubs.
Far be it from me to oppose any initiative that helps tackle the woefully low rates of rape conviction in England and Wales – a recent poll by Glamour magazine found that out of 11% of readers who had been raped, 80% had not reported it – but, to my mind, this campaign communicates a worrying and even destructive message.
I have always understood the term "consenting adults" to be plural, yet this campaign suggests that sex is one sided, that it is something 'done' to women which we must give our permission to be subjected to. Didn't that go out with corsets and having your beloved's dinner on the table when he gets home from earning a crust? Further, the campaign does not seem to make a clear distinction between sex and rape, when the fact is, one has very little to do with the other. The same poll by British Glamour found that 11% of respondents believed that if a woman was acting flirtatiously, she was encouraging rape. Flirting with a guy, dressing provocatively, going on a date and even inviting him into your home may invite sex; but rape is not sex, it is an attack. The sole signal that turns sex into rape is a simple one: it is the word “no.”
A few months ago, I went on a date with a friend of a friend. I wasn’t attracted to him, but we were in the midst of an enjoyable conversation when the bar closed, so I invited him back to my apartment for a cup of tea so we could finish our chat. Once inside, he kissed me – I reciprocated, thinking that as he was such a lovely bloke maybe if I snogged him for a few minutes I could start to fancy him. No such luck, so I pulled away and put the kettle on. Once on the sofa, he started to kiss me again, again I pulled away but again he – either deliberately or insensitively – didn’t get the message and carried on. I didn’t feel afraid, just irritated that he was being so pig-headed, and as it was clear that subtle body language messages weren’t getting through, I said “no, not happening,” and got up from the sofa. He left. I had been on a date with this man, my outfit wasn’t a nun’s habit, I had invited him into my apartment and initially kissed him back, yet had he grabbed me and subjected me to sex after I had unquestionably told him no then it would have been rape, pure and simple.
I realize that the Home Office’s campaign may be intended to combat situations such as my experience – had a rape occurred, presumably the guy would have argued that I had implied consent… and maybe I did: right up until I said no. Had I been attracted to him, then the date may well have continued on to a naked conclusion – and had I been attracted to him there would have been no need to formally sign a waiver of consent as I would have been too busy informing him that unless he had to scrape me off the ceiling he wasn’t finished.
The idea that I, as a capable, not to mention sexually confident adult, am required to state the words “yes I give you permission to shag me silly” lest a man be unsure as to whether or not he is raping me or not is both insulting and dangerous. A woman has every right to give out all the flirtatious signals in the world; if she says “no” and a man physically overcomes her and subjects her to sex then he is raping her. End of story. And I do not accept that he needs a poster over a urinal to tell him that.
