On these matters I am a genuinely concerned individual. This is why I have some extensively written conceptions, moving forward.
We need to have an open and extensive discussion on, discerning and evaluating matters pertaining to sexual impropriety, to address them head-on, and thus make social and political traction and progress thereon. It is incumbent upon all adults, young adults and teenagers to get their heads around appropriate intimate and sexual behaviour(s).
For the need to evolve to an unequivocal, nuanced and comprehensive verbal intimate/sexual consent model, please see below:
In more specifically addressing the title of this blog post head-on: some feminists allege we have a ‘rape culture’. I don’t think this is fair, but there is certainly sexual dis-etiquette (neologism for a lack of sexual etiquette) on the part of probably the vast majority of males and men at some point in their lives (typically at a younger-age and without adequate sex education).
The case of Julian Assange is in point. To my knowledge, he had unprotected sex with a woman wherein she had earlier communicated to him that she wanted him to wear a condom. She alleges he ignored her request and penetrated her anyway, without wearing a condom, sometime in the morning after having protected consensual intercourse the night before. She had consented to some level of sexual activity earlier, but the higher and more nuanced level of consent was missing when he penetrated her in the morning without wearing a condom. I allege that this is not rape, as the force, fear and intimidation components1 required for an objective finding of rape were missing. This is likely a high degree of sexual dis-etiquette (not rape). Many commentators in supporting Assange hold that this – choosing to prosecute for rape – may have been *at least partially* politically motivated.
A judicial finding of rape in the Assange case would not only be erroneous, but a criminal conviction of rape and its punishment would be grossly disproportionate to the harm inflicted by Assange on the woman by the sexual dis-etiquette. We see that even with the retributive form of ‘justice’, which we shouldn’t condone nor practice in the case of sexual dis-etiquette, a criminal record for rape, and its ensuing imprisonment time, destroys the life a person so afflicted, whereas being victim to sexual dis-etiquette does not. So, it is not a proportionate form of retribution.
Men intuitively understand rape as using force, fear and intimidation with the physical overbearing of a woman (or person) to penetrate a woman (or person) and sustain penetration in spite of her (or their) overt physical and/or verbal protests seen as annulling consent – physically overpowering another person to sustain penetration. Physically overpowering another to elicit (not sustain) penetration would qualify as sexual assault.
However, we need better and more comprehensive sex and consent education to (particularly) teach males and men to act with better sexual etiquette, at an age just before they may become sexually active, to successfully annul sexual dis-etiquette culture.
Back to Assange’s case-study, he should not be found guilty of rape as he did not physically overbear her to sustain penetration – not using male athletic power to subdue her. To reiterate – the only remedy for sexual dis-etiquette culture is better (sex and consent) education in schools from a young age. See, for an Australian case-study on consent in sex education for school attending teenagers:
Further adding to sexual dis-etiquette culture, is the liberal consumption of hardcore pornography, which can train for unreasonable sexual expectations which, without offsetting with sophisticated and comprehensive consent education, lead to various, and a whole plethora of, different kinds of sexual dis-etiquette. Further on pornography and its influence on culture, please see:
People should be encouraged and trained to negotiate verbally, prior to sexual activity, what sex-acts and styles of sexual expression a person would feel comfortable with before the differing stages of intimate or sexual activity at any given point in time.
We should acknowledge that male sexual dis-etiquette is very hurtful to women, however, it should not engender a finding of criminality. The legal definition of rape, most apt, appropriate and socially just, is the Californian statutory model2 as ‘sexual intercourse without consent’ wherein “[r]ape requires force, fear of other intimidation in order to complete the act of sexual intercourse” (https://www.wksexcrimes.com/difference-statutory-rape-rape-california/). We should have a legal, or at least social, definition and understanding of sexual dis-etiquette which would deal with a nuanced conception(s) of consent as on a continuum as a layered contextual process and where consent is viewed as mutually and dialectically negotiated between agents and sustained by them throughout sexual acts – with kinesic and/or verbal cues. This will show us where the higher levels of consent become obfuscated in cases of sexual dis-etiquette, without the force, fear and intimidation components to sustain sexual intercourse (needed for a finding of rape) which annuls consent altogether. What’s the alternative – to imprison, say, 80% of the male sex class, objectively guilty not of indecent assault, sexual assault and rape, but of the non-criminal sexual dis-etiquette, who have been consuming hardcore pornography from a young age, and without comprehensive consent training? That is socially and politically ridiculous.
The intuitive understanding of rape, in a large proportion of men’s minds, is typically conceived (without being trained in the higher levels of consent from a young age and through liberally consuming hardcore pornography) as using male athletic power to subdue – forcing penetration and sustained penetration in spite of overt physical and/or verbal protests by another person or subduing and the taking away of sexual agency of another altogether (e.g. tying a person up without their consent and then penetrating them). This is typically objectively rape (no consent) when there is no build-up in intimate exchange preceding the intercourse. This is in general accordance with the legal definition of rape, canvased above, requiring force, fear and intimidation instilled in the victim(s) by the perpetrator(s). In contrast, consensual intercourse typically proceeds from a build-up in intimate exchange, prior to the intercourse – kinesic sexual negotiation between two (or more) people. This build-up tends to select for consent, but each sexual act or progression is (sexually) negotiated and consent can be terminated by either party – either declining/repudiating a particular kind of sexual activity or declining all sexual activity altogether – at any time in or at any level of sexual change. Regrettably and shamefully, there is the rather commonplace and typical dis-etiquette of males ignoring a verbal request not to penetrate without using an overbearing or restraining force subduing the woman. Her communicating that she does not want a particular kind of activity and the man trying to anyway despite this communication, is a high degree of sexual dis-etiquette (without the force, fear and intimidation that would constitute rape). Her voiced and express verbal wish(es) are seen as a threatening radical negativity to male reason, that the man knows what is best for her, that she is incapable of reasoning in sex, and that she might secretly desire the sex-act she has declined. This is a repugnant social affliction in urgent need of redress: women reason in sex and have agency.
There is a spectrum of harmful male sexual behaviours towards women: from the differing degrees of sexual dis-etiquette in harm done, to the differing degrees of indecent assault in harm done, to the differing degrees of sexual assault in harm done, to the differing degrees of rape in harm done.
This has a parallel in sexual cuckolding wherein typically a heterosexual man is subjected to acute predatory sexual and emotional ‘consensual’ humiliation (see my other blog post on ‘consenting to harm’: https://henrywilloughbyssocialjusticeblog.com/2021/05/11/liberal-consent-versus-structural-consent/). This harm done is a question of degree of the humiliation-acts themselves.
Rape of a woman is so damaging as it is an attempt at annulling her socially-symbolic reproductive strategy and power. Similarly, sexual and reproductive cuckolding, are aimed at subjugating a person’s socio-symbolic reproductive strategy (sexual cuckolding) and genetic-biological reproductive strategy and autonomy (reproductive cuckolding), respectively. Related to this are the gender sexual politics of the sexual penetration of heterosexual males and men, for a blog post thereon, see:
Furthermore, males and men are taught to ‘over-sex’ and to pursue ejaculatory forms of sex with fertile women when he may not want to reproduce with her. For a much needed sobering examination of legitimate reproductive power of males/men see:
The objective test for rape should be the forceful and overbearing use of athletic/physical power to instill fear and intimidation in the victim in order to sustain penetration despite the overt physical and/or overt verbal protests of the victim. Courts should rally around this objective test and objectivist distinction, whilst working to rehabilitate and give redress to victims through restorative forms of justice for sexual dis-etiquette, retributive forms of justice and punishment(s) for serious sexual violations such as indecent assault, sexual assault, and rape. The subjective mens rea test of intention to rape should also remain a factor in investigating whether there is a judicial finding of rape.
Anti-carceral feminism holds that we find other more productive ways of eliminating sexual objectification and harm, and this I proffer, re sexual dis-etiquette, is the humane and constructive way forward. It is not that the vast majority of males and men do not want to eliminate sexual dis-etiquette *and its ensuing sexual dis-etiquette culture* – it’s that they have not been taught how in a comprehensive fashion from a young age (before becoming sexually active). Taco and milkshake ‘ads’/campaigns are not sufficient and are an insult to a young teenager’s capacity for prowess in consensual sex without dis-etiquette!!
Particularly males need to ensure they do not penetrate another whilst that other person is asleep. Just because they had consented to sex previously (say a couple of hours before falling sleep), even if they are in the same bed, does not mean they are entitled to penetration whilst the other is sleeping. This particular scenario is a form of sexual dis-etiquette, and also qualifies as unwanted sexual behaviour and is very common (rife even). Women also need to understand that if they manually put a man’s penis inside their body, whilst the man is asleep – say vaginally or orally – that this is a form of sexual dis-etiquette and is unwanted sexual behaviour. And, fondling a man’s penis whilst he is asleep is also a form of sexual dis-etiquette. These three scenarios are currently commonplace – particularly in cases where there has been a proximate temporal consensual sexual exchange before in bed together where their partner has fallen asleep (which tends to mitigate the severity of the dis-etiquette, but still qualifies as unwanted). It is more common for males to do this to females, mainly because the differences in socialisation of courting rituals, where there is the expectation on males to instigate and solicit a sexual exchange. In these instances, the overbearing physical force is absent, so it does not qualify as rape (sustained penetration through physical overbearing despite overt protests of the victim) nor sexual assault (penetration through physical overbearing despite overt protests of the victim). I would suggest that this rather high degree of sexual dis-etiquette in penetrating another whilst they are asleep or putting a penis inside a person’s body whilst that man/male is asleep or fondling another person’s genitalia whilst they are asleep, also qualifies as unwanted sexual behaviour.
Sexual dis-etiquette is indeed a very serious problem in need of holistic rectification.
Let us also discuss a working definition of indecent assault. This is a more serious wrongdoing than sexual dis-etiquette. It occurs through sexual groping of a person’s private parts – i.e. where there has been no consensual build-up of intimate/sexual exchanges, nor a temporally proximate consensual intimate exchange, and not within a pre-existing and established intimate/sexual relationship.
I would also like to point out the unfortunate phenomenon that there is also bodily dis-etiquette – destabilizing a patient’s bodily autonomy, and even on occasion – unwanted penetration of a patient in medical practice. We should acknowledge the inherent power imbalance between a treating doctor and a patient, and thus proceed cautiously to deliver high standards of consent in medical practice/praxis. Doctors should expressly ask for written (or at least verbal) consent before touching a patient’s genitals or private parts or before vaginally or anally penetrating a patient in order to perform a medically sought function, operation or procedure. This unwanted penetration (no consent) approaches borderline indecent assault as there is no consensual intimate build-up immediately prior to penetration as there is in courting rituals outside of medicine/medical practice. However, it falls short of, and does not constitute, indecent assault, as there exists a medical reason for penetration. However, it does qualify as unwanted bodily dis-etiquette. Our medical practitioners need to be similarly trained in consent to touching genitalia or private parts of patients, and trained in consent to penetration of patients, in adherence to, and congruent with, the (do no) harm principle – nonmaleficence.
A sideways note on binge drinking culture: unfortunately binge drinking culture entails non-consensual sex on a mass scale, since a person or persons cannot consent whilst intoxicated. This is a highly regressive social practice, which we should and would do well to completely overthrow!
We should not seek retribution for dis-etiquette sexual or bodily wrongdoings, but instead pursue restorative forms of justice such as mandating sincere written apologies from perpetrators to victims; in the case of indecent assaults and the even more serious wrongdoings of sexual assault and rape, we should seek punishment to dis-embolden other potentially predatory people who have irrevocably chosen their quest to power through a Manichean-evil subordination of others. We should also encourage apologizing, in social accountability, for acts of sexual dis-etiquette.
These are a nuanced, yet non-exhaustive, philosophy of sexual impropriety, around which legal principles need be scaffolded and applied.
There are many more forms of sexual dis-etiquette and sexual exploitation, not canvased here. I deal with these in other blog posts and in my published books. I have written extensively on pornography (real and virtual), sexual surveillance, BDSM, kink, the contextual virtues of both softcore and hardcore sex, the sexual permissiveness of liberal hedonism, love-making and true love intimacy for couples and micro-monogamy in polyamory3, the issue of consenting to harm in sex, sexual false consciousness, virtues of monogamous and restrained polyamorous intimate/sexual relationships, and the different stages of and sustaining real intimate exchange for couples/partners. An engagement with and dialectics between different forms of feminisms and masculinisms have assisted me greatly in my quest for meaningful synthesis regarding a healthy intimacy and (healthy) sexual relations (in relationships).
In my blog and in my published books, somewhat related to impropriety in sex, I also critically engage with the ancient dimorphic reproductive strategies of men and women, a source of much (horrendous and abyssal really) gender tension(s), their now more socio-symbolic forms, and how to reconcile these differences, in cooperative good faith.
In concluding, I would like to draw your attention to a very troubling matter, see my blog post on covert paedophilia:
It means, disturbingly, there are many covert pedophiles, particularly intra-familial pedophiles, walking scot-free, among us. Pedophilia is a form of rape, as the victims, here with babies without conscious memory formation, cannot give their consent due to their age.
- See Klarich, S 21 September 2017, ‘Difference Between Statutory Rape and Rape in California’, Wallin and Klarich, last accessed 15 December 2024, https://www.wksexcrimes.com/difference-statutory-rape-rape-california/ ↩︎
- California Penal Code 261, last accessed 15 December 2024, https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?sectionNum=261.&lawCode=PEN ↩︎
- See Willoughby, H 3 February 2021, ‘The Ideal of Monogamy? The Ideal of Polyamory? The Choice is Yours! Rejecting Polygamy’, https://henrywilloughbyssocialjusticeblog.com/2021/02/03/the-ideal-of-monogamy-the-ideal-of-polyamory-the-choice-is-yours-rejecting-polygamy/ ↩︎
Henry Willoughby's Social Justice Blog 
3 thoughts on “On ‘Rape Culture’ Allegation”