The theoretical possibility that no means yes

The distress thing is absolute cobblers.

The idea that something becomes a crime based on the later response of someone is ludicrous. Impact is taken into account at sentencing but that is a different kettle of fish. And conversely, if someone has been quite obviously subjected to a crime but does not seem / isn't as distressed as it as others might imagine, does that mean that no crime was committed?

What a load of absolute balls, she hasn't engaged her brain at all has she.

As for "what is rape" my understanding is that there is a perfectly good definition written into law.

calamatouslywrong I think that your reasons why this is coming up so much are probably correct. I am very concerned about all of the politicians calling for changes to procedure and law around rape cases in the wake of the Evans aquittal.

I don't think most rapists are unaware that their partner is not consenting - oh no please don't stop sounds totally different in tone from a panicked what the fuck are you doing, get off, stop that, which is what you're probably more likely to say, if your body doesn't go into shutdown as a safety precaution against inciting more violence.

I can see what he was trying to say but I think it speaks more about a Dad's fear for and hope to protect his daughter, rather than any resemblance to real rape.

This thread reminds me of a very uncomfortable conversation I had with my Dad when I was about 14 - he wanted to make me aware that some people, during a 'sexual encounter', will only hear what they want to hear.

So a woman could shout out, while being raped, words like "No!" and "Please" and "Stop!" and "Don't!" but a man, who doesn't realise he's a rapist, could think she was screaming in passion "Oh, no please don't stop!"

I think my Dad wanted me to rehearse an unambiguous phrase to let a man know that if he continued, it would be rape.

I know you don't need this any more but I found the link! It came up on Twitter. It's late Nd im on mg phone but I might start a new thread about it tomorrow. But for now, its here

www.washingtoncitypaper.com/blogs/sexist/2009/11/12/rapists-who-dont-think-theyre-rapists/

Also, if the student only got approval for very broad, exploratory questions then the introduction about 'when rape is rape' and 'grey areas' was almost certainly not how she was supposed to be introducing the project. I'd imagine she was supposed to say that the project was about people's attitudes to sex and rape and nothing more specific.

If you are concerned, you could bcc her supervisor into your email too (or email him/her separately). You should find the supervisor's name and contact details on the consent documentation you signed.

You get a really small amount of supervision time for an MSc student, particularly where they're out interviewing people about when rape is rape and other minefield issues. It does really help if participants raise their concerns with you. If I had an email from a participant in a student's project I would be very careful to make sure that the student wouldn't know who had raised a concern, but in would arrange a meeting to talk more generally about the feedback I'd received for participants and to think through how to move forward from that.

I suspect the spate of dubious student projects on sexuality (etc) has a lot to do with the unfortunate direction public debate seems to be going in relation to these issues, and the increasing demonisation of feminism. It's like the spate of student projects I see taking unbelievably deficit approaches to marginalised groups that seem to be feeding off the 'broken Britain'/'troubled families' agenda.

It's depressing.

I also think almondcake's point is excellent :)

Creeping, that's interesting. It seems she really hasn't thought it through at all. The parents example is so totally off the mark (and shows her age - if I wanted to use an example like that I'd go for a married person who has a one night stand and then when they realise that they are going to lose their spouse, home, family over it they feel great distress - although here I think it's VERY clear that this is nothing to do with rape, and much less easy to have sympathy for the person in the example.)

Kissinger and frith's 'just say no?' from 1999 is useful.

This is surely based in the idea of women being in a state of continual consent. Once you have said yes to a man, by dating him, marrying him, having sex with him one time, or in any way admitting to being a sexual person, any no is not really a no at all, but merely an indication that a yes is being deferred. So we eroticise lack of consent by pretending a no is merely a form of extended foreplay where the woman is then somehow seduced into a yes.

YY to this almondcake. In a nutshell.

Surely the only legitimate angle she can be coming from (including the potential fantasy situation) is that of 'girls and women as the gatekeepers to sex' and the defining of female sexuality by men via a masculine perspective.

In other words - misogyny.

The above are complex and highly politicized concepts. I would definitely be checking out how aware she is of concepts such as rape culture, victim blaming (particularly of young women and minors), women as gatekeepers, the institution of virginity, the eroticisation of submission/dominance, etc.

I agree that she needs to consider that her topic could be triggering for many women and potentially affirming of rape myths to both male and female interviewees if not presented very very carefully. It would be so easy to slip into 'she wanted it really' territory which would be ethically dodgy, intellectually null and potentially damaging for any women she speaks to who have experienced sexual violence/non respect of boundaries (let's face it - most of us...).

If she is going to be randomly choosing people to discuss this with, I would hope that she has thought about providing support for those who find the discussion distressing.

I am of course going to say that an absence of no does not mean yes, and that active/enthousiastic consent is needed.

Enthusiastic consent is a great concept, my wife by her account began her sex life with just such enthusiasm. Unfortunately I wonder about the commonality of that in initial experiences of sex for either gender. My first time, the woman was very enthusiastic, she was experienced and I was the newbie at ground zero. I wanted to be there but my mind raced around in tight circles like a hamster in a wheel and 'enthusiasm' was off on another planet. I think 'enthusiastic consent' is an ideal a person grows into as they establish a healthy understanding of their sexuality and confidence in self.

Consent is rocket fuel, hence the heroine of 50 Shades going through internally conflicted and externally warped consent and transgressed boundaries. The erotization of confliction of consent... so not helping human sexuality.

I may be about to articulate this poorly.

In the scenario mentioned above, where a woman says no, while on some level wanting to have sex, because they have been told morally they should be saying no at this stage in the relationship, the issue then is somehow related to continual consent.

The presumable implication is that man would then convince/encourage/pressure the woman into agreeing that it is okay to have sex now, so the man is not reading it as a 'no' but a 'not yet, do your best to convince me to say yes.'

This is surely based in the idea of women being in a state of continual consent. Once you have said yes to a man, by dating him, marrying him, having sex with him one time, or in any way admitting to being a sexual person, any no is not really a no at all, but merely an indication that a yes is being deferred. So we eroticise lack of consent by pretending a no is merely a form of extended foreplay where the woman is then somehow seduced into a yes.

There can't be real consent in that context. It is putting the state of agreeing to sex as the norm, and perceiving any no as a psychological issue that the man is going to resolve by talking the woman into sex, as if penetrative heterosexual sex is some kind of therapeutic activity that will get you over your inhibitions and cure your hangups. The context of believing that warps reality and personal boundaries so much that consent becomes meaningless.

I don't see any ethical situation where a no is really a yes, unless as others have said you have preagreed that and arranged a safe word or safe action like dropping a tennis ball to mean no instead.

Well my analogy has failed! What I was aiming for is if you run a red light your in the wrong if there goes on to be a crash. It also follows that just because there is a green light if you see a lorry approaching it would be madness to proceed. It's something about being aware of the difference between taking a signal like yes or no, but being blatantly unaware of the conditions surrounding it. You don't just rely on traffic lights to drive safely, but you ignore them at your peril.

OP: do you have any idea about how you were selected to be a participant in the study?

The traffic lights analogy makes no sense at all.

Just marking my place as I would love to hear what she says.

Traffic light analogy is bizarre. They're going to change eventually. If they are actually broken, then proceed with caution and report the broken light to the council.

You come to a set of traffic lights and they are red but nothing is coming that you can see. What do you do?