This piece of utter, laughable buffoonery was posted at a feminist blog that I refuse to cite. There are so many things wrong with this inanity, so many legal defects, that I can't possibly begin to explain them. Suffice it to say that there is a peculiar strain of radical feminism that teaches young women a definition of consent so narrow that they suffocate the concept by strangulation. If the following definition were accurate, virtually every male in America should be imprisoned:
"Sexual assault is more than forcible rape. Any strategy which is designed to eliminate rejection or overcome someone's reluctance or indecision or non-participation or which reduces the other person's options is a strategy of sexual assault."
Did you get that? "Any" -- not just some, "any" strategy that is "designed to eliminate refection or overcome . . . resistance . . . ." So if you buy her dinner, or treat her nicely, or promise to go visit her mother with her, or agree to fix her car in an effort to "eliminate rejection" or "overcome [her] indecision" and thereby increase your chances of taking the relationship to the next level, you are acting out "a strategy of sexual assault." While it is written in a gender neutral manner, make no mistake it is designed to address male sexual advances because since the dawn of man, males have been the ones pursuing and females have been the ones playing "hard to get."
This, of course, is nothing but über-radical feminist blather gussied up to resemble a legal definition. In fact, it is as if the writer held the words of our statutes up to a funhouse mirror: the image it creates is so misshapen that one must look elsewhere to discern reality. It resembles no definition of consent, legal or otherwise, that is accepted anywhere outside Womyn's Studies classes and one dark and twisted corner of the blogosphere.
With this definition, the writer manages to pull off the seemingly impossible task of insulting two genders at one time by positing that males who are trying to convince even somewhat reluctant females to have a physical relationship are acting out a "strategy of sexual assault," and that females are too weak or too stupid to resist even the non-physical advances of males. It's as if every guy is a Svengali capable of decimating every women's free will, and every woman is a powerless child.
And my guess is it doesn't work the other way: when a woman uses sex to overcome the man's "reluctance" or "indecision" about doing something the woman wants him to do, that's perfectly fine, right? She's not acting out an illicit "strategy," is she? Because, you see, über-radical feminism is only concerned about penalizing male sexual desire. Women can do to men as they please.
Anyone who is capable of writing that inane quote must truly be called a misandrist, a man hater, of the first order. That quote would be hilarious until you stop and consider this: is it any wonder that false rape claims are an epidemic with misinformation being fed to our daughters like this?