'No' Means One Thing

"RAPE IS UGLY, violent and dehumanizing," wrote Jon E. Morgan in an editorial last week. "It makes its victims fear their communities and is a painful reminder to all civilized people of the results of not respecting the sovereignty of an individual."

But Morgan moves from this powerful statement of the seriousness of rape to a vision of a world in which rape is inevitable. In Morgan's world, men and women will never be able to communicate about sexual desire, and all of us will have to bear the consequences.

Bringing forward a charge of rape is not something undertaken lightly. To acknowledge a rape is to admit that you are not always in control, not always safe, not always respected. This is particularly true when your rapist is a friend, a date or a classmate.

Charges of rape are, of course, painful for men as well. This must be particularly true when a rape occurs because of miscommunication, in which a woman's resistance is interpreted by a man as just part of the game. To realize, after the fact, the hurt that you have inflicted must be mortifying.

No woman or man should have to go through this experience. But in Morgan's world, we are all at risk.

MORGAN ASSERTS that "'no' is the bare minimum statement to constitute resistance." But he goes on to argue that in our society "'no' does not always mean 'no.'" This leaves women in a very dangerous position--they must say "no" to indicate lack of consent, but "no" is not understood to be a lack of consent.

"No" does not necessarily mean "no," Morgan says. "No" can mean a lot of other things. "No" can mean "convince me" or "later" or "not here" or "yes, but I need another drink."

The practical problem with this assumption is that "no" must have a universal meaning in order to avoid the possibility of non-consensual sexual activity (which is, by definition, rape). As long as "no" can be interpreted to mean almost anything--including "yes"--there will be no way for men and women to communicate about sex.

So what does "no" mean? According to the Oxford American Dictionary, "no" is "used as a denial or refusal of something." Maybe that is a definition we can all start to agree on for the future.

Of course it would be foolish to pretend that "no" has always meant "no" in the bedroom. As Morgan points out, "the language of courtship is not clear." It is precisely because of this ambiguity that acquaintance rape is so prevalent. And because the "language of courtship" has not been clear, it must be made clear now. Because women do not want to be raped, and men do not want to be rapists, we must all work together to eradicate rape.

However, Morgan leaves no room for this effort. According to his analysis, not only is "the language of courtship" not clear, but "it never will be."

'No' must have a single, unambiguous meaning for both men and women.

Morgan's conclusion that this ambiguity "is the nature of the game" leaves both men and women in dangerous positions. If women cannot trust that they will be understood when they say "no," they cannot ever trust. Likewise, if men do not have some way to understand when a woman is not consenting, they must always fear that misunderstanding will lead to rape.

Reaching a common understanding of the "language of courtship" may not be an easy process. It may be awkward or embarrassing. It may not always seem "natural." But a little discomfort is not too much to pay to end the perennial problem of acquaintance rape.

Morgan accurately says that men and women are responsible for making themselves understood in bed. We are also responsible for taking steps to understand each other, because sex--as opposed to rape--is a mutual experience.