This is an interesting article and throws nuances into what has been painted as a very black and white situation — you have articulated something very new, primarily that it is not okay to blame the victim, which is entirely correct, but in not blaming the victim — it must be the fault of the other person involved. This can be problematic.

In British law … (1) A person (A) commits an offence if —

(a) he intentionally penetrates the vagina, anus or mouth of another person (B) with his penis,

(b) B does not consent to the penetration, and

(c) A does not reasonably believe that B consents.

(2) Whether a belief is reasonable is to be determined having regard to all the circumstances, including any steps A has taken to ascertain whether B consents.

There are three standards to meet. That a sexual act occurred. That the second person didn’t consent and then thirdly (and crucially) that the male reasonably believes that the second peson didn’t consent— I am not sure that this part of the law is contained in the American legal system.

The ‘tacit ok’ contained in your article is where this third standard would not be met and a rape case based on this scenario would likely collapse, causing untold heartache and/or bitter recriminations to both sides. It is more than possible for a man to

It is reasonable to presume that someone who comes into your room and takes all their clothes off and rubs against you and then when you ask ‘do you want to have sex?’ they nod — that they want sex. It’s unreasonable to presume that someone dressed in tight clothes who passed you in the street wants to have sex with you because of the way they are dressed.

These are exremes…

It is reasonable to presume that a woman can change her mind mid way through sex and a man should stop — to continue after this point would be rape. It is unreasonable to presume that if a female changes her mind mid-way through sex (or even retrospectively) that the male will know by default. This played heavily into the Aziz Ansari issue and why men (and some women) reacted so defensively and why it became a significant split in the movement.

Your article is nuanced and well written, culture and the complexities of human psychology should play more heavily into the discussions as we unpick this further. A binary and simplistic view of ‘good’ vs ‘bad’, ‘men’ vs ‘women’ and ‘right’ vs ‘wrong’ doesn’t accurately reflect the world around us nor does it help us come to a more equitable and fair society. All it does is entrench pre-existing beliefs and enflame both misandry and misogyny in equal amounts.

Thanks for writing, plenty of food for thought — and I hope this article gets the traction it clearly deserves.