This is not strictly a problem of individuals. As I said, ideally we would be able to live in a culture where there is no fear, no discomfort based on past experiences, no imbalance of power between two people. But we don't, and that's part of the problem.
I understand that calling the young man in your example an assailant sounds harsh - he didn't rape her, he didn't actively physically intimidate her, he responded to the signs he was able to perceive. Do I think he should locked up, branded a sex offender, screamed at not to be a male chauvinist pig? No. But I think calling it 'assault' puts a serious name on something that is serious. This hypothetical young woman does not need to be told that nothing bad happened. She felt uncomfortable, frightened, intimidated and pressured into performing a sexual act she did not want to. Until we start recognizing and labeling things in a serious light it's not going to change. And I think most people would agree that we want things to change for the better.
So is calling it assault harsh? Yes. But if doing so means this hypothetical young man starts to realize what sort of world we live in and how he is responsible for the safety and well-being of so many people and maybe he starts to adjust his attitudes and reactions, then things might start changing for the beter.
No, I'm saying that he has to accept the even explicit consent does not mean she's okay with it, and that he should understand there are dozens of reasons why his actions might be considered intimidating and pressuring even if he doesn't intend them to.
It sucks. It really, really sucks. It's unfair, and wrong, and I'm no happier about it than you are. But I wholeheartedly believe that without recognizing and protecting victims, giving them acknowledgment that bad things happening to them isn't their fault, there will never be a change away from this sucky, unfair, wrong way of being. It is not meaningless to recognize someone's pain and acknowledge it by using a harsh word to describe it.
No, you can either have a world of patronising chivalry where womens' sexual agency is denied, or you can have a world where people sometimes have bad experiences.
And yes, I acknowledge the hypothetical lady's pain. Her previous traumas have led her to put herself in a traumatic situation. But, calling it assault implies that he could have done something different.
...he could have. He could have not kissed her. He could have gotten to know her better, learned about her past, figured out if she was interested in him that way. He could have waited for her to kiss him. There are plenty of things he could have done differently.
And I hope you don't assume I think men should be in charge of every woman's sexual agency - I do believe firmly that women should have charge over their own agency and take full responsibility for that. But I don't think that necessarily means it's okay to accept that sometimes people will have bad experiences, just because men aren't in charge anymore.
In case you hadn't noticed, most young women tend to lose interest very quickly if a young man fails to respond to positive encouragement.
And again, if she's explicitly up for it, isn't it really very patronising indeed to pat her on the head and say, "let's get to know each other better"? What if *she* just wants a disposable one-night stand?
Back to the scenario: In the middle of sex, she's goes crazy, screams, hits and goes into spasm.
As he frantically fails extricates himself, the flatmates kick the door in and come to her rescue.
Now he's pretty well traumatised - did I mention this was his first time? - and his only sin is not being telepathic, but in your language he's still an assailant.
Yes, both sexes do have bad experiences. That generally is the price of freedom. Lose use of language simply makes it worse.
"In case you hadn't noticed, most young women tend to lose interest very quickly if a young man fails to respond to positive encouragement. "
At this point in the thread I started to think that perhaps you were just trolling a little.
There are many the things that you could say about that statement which erindubitably already has much more eloquently than I could ever could but it also something that can be equally applied to young men too (she won't put out so you move onto the next girl that will). When I was growing up there was a huge peer pressure on /everyone/ to react positively to sexual situations and even if they were to a certain extent uncomfortable or unwelcome there was always an understanding that this was to be expected.
But it shouldn't be expected. It shouldn't be the norm for anyone. Sexual actions should be comfortable for everyone all the time and if they are not then they shouldn't happen. By not defining things with the words they deserve we are perpetuating this notion and normalising it.
I have been the victim of the worse kind of sexual assault and when it was over my very best friend who I relied on for advice and guidance treated it like it was something that due to the circumstances was okay and could be brushed off. 15 years later and I am still traumatised in many many ways by the encounter. The fact that it was not treated by my peer group with the language it should have (rape) meant that for years I endured many other very unwelcome sexual advances and allowed myself to get into situations that I really did not want to be in because I felt that this was how the rest of the world functioned. I have been the victim of repeated sexual assault many times over since then - because I was lead to believe that if I didn't acquiesce to male advances they would loose interest in me and therefore I have never learnt to say no. But I have still be assaulted and the more we continue to take away from that definition of that term then the this will continue.
I didn't want to jump in here with all my own personal crap but statements like the ones you made (even you are trolling) are just maddening to hear.
First let me salute your frankness. It says a lot about you that you can set any of this down. And it's why, with some trepidation, I'm dropping back into the discussion.
Really, I'm not trolling. I am actually bewildered and horrified having fallen into a looking glass world where all relations between the sexes are fraught with peril, and where it's possible to commit "assault" without realising your doing it, regardless of your actions or what precautions you take. Think about that from the male point of view for a moment.
Obviously, a "yes" obtained through bullying and implied threat is not consent. What you describe is rape, assault and abuse compounded by friend-fail. It is high time - and quite horrifying that this is even an issue in the C21st West - that we called such things what they are.
All that said, we're left with the question of how the sexes should interact sexually in the real world.
The statement you disliked was in response to the proposal of a protracted and delicate mating dance, perhaps lasting weeks, in which the male assures himself through friendship and so on that "yes" real does mean "yes".
My problems with this are practical and ethical.
Practically, people tend to lose interest if a relationship doesn't move forward. If we're looking for a new etiquette, then this isn't it.
Ethically, this asks the male to take responsibility for the sexuality of an adult female. It also dictates that only one sort of sexual encounter is permitted. To me this denies her agency and is downright sexist.
As you describe it, your experiences have damaged your agency. However, is that really *on its own* enough to turn every sexual encounter into an assault?
Practically, people tend to lose interest if a relationship doesn't move forward. If we're looking for a new etiquette, then this isn't it.
Er, what's wrong with talking? Doesn't that keep the relationship moving forward and help ensure that the speed with which things move is acceptable to both parties concerned?
"In case you hadn't noticed, most young women tend to lose interest very quickly if a young man fails to respond to positive encouragement. "
Repeat: Talking. Asking if things are okay, asking what people want (it's amazing how many people don't do this or are afraid to talk about what they want), and then working from that. It's all about communication and the importance of learning how to communicate, rather than trying to go on unspoken signals which can be so very easily misinterpreted.
Not everybody wants to talk, or can articulate about sex. Not everybody values conversation. And, as you point out yourself, not all such communication is truthful.
I think each person has to set their own pace and be responsible for that, and not expect the other person to second guess them.
I know and agree; but I also think this lack of communication comfort is a big problem and that learning to communicate would do a lot to solve some of the ambiguities surrounding definitions of assault.
I think each person has to set their own pace and be responsible for that, and not expect the other person to second guess them.
Again, completely agree, but inherent in that is the responsibility for ensuring other people know what your desired pace is.
Yes, exactly. Hence my original comments up thread - some time back in the Jurassic. :)
Look, a good few years ago I was mugged by teenage chavs. It was in its own way traumatic - a black eye is also a violation of self etc etc.
For a long time, I had difficulty coping with crowds of teenage boys going about their own teenage business; couldn't walk through them, felt an adrenaline surge if they asked the time, couldn't assert myself easily if they were out of line.
So, in a thankfully limited way, I have some empathy with the way a trauma can damage a person's ability to function normally in certain contexts.
However, then and now, I wouldn't expect society to change in order to cushion me from the effects of my trauma. (Well, OK, I fleetingly wanted to hire Serbian mercenaries to clean out a certain city-centre estate with fire and steel.)
Nor would it be fair for me to point at a crowd of oblivious and loud lads on a street corner and say, "They are victimising me by being boisterous."
It was the half-dozen chavs who mugged me that victimised me. Other groups of lads might unknowingly trigger uncomfortable feelings, but that would not be their problem or moral responsibility.
The alternative would be to return to a Conservative wet dream where young people live in fear of violence from their seniors, backed up by rule-bending police.
The price of not living in a deferential society is the suffering of people whose experiences have kicked them outside the psychological norm. I think it's worth it.
In the same way, if we are to have sexual freedom and sexual equality between the sexes, then people have to take responsibility for communicating their wishes and expectations either verbally or non verbally.
Those who can't, will have triggering experiences, which is horrid, but not the fault of the other party. That's the price.
Making the defition of assault entirely subjective is a sinister attack on the freedoms people have fought for.
(Sorry. I really have to stop here. I only dropped back in because I'd obviously said something triggering.)
In the same way, if we are to have sexual freedom and sexual equality between the sexes, then people have to take responsibility for communicating their wishes and expectations either verbally or non verbally.
Er, isn't that what I was just saying too? Though with emphasis on the verbally part, because it's harder to misinterpret than non-verbal signals. (still possible though, of course!) Anyway, with this statement I *completely* agree. It needs to work both ways though, o'course.
Statement: I don't disagree with everything you've said/agree with everything everyone else has said, I'm just pointing out small things which I feel I can discuss; I haven't been making statements about assault and definitions thereof because I've never been assaulted, by *anyone*'s definition {including of course my own}, which is why I've only commented on things relating to communication and whether or not my body can be constituted my private space. I don't have enough experience of assault to feel my opinion on it is worthy; that, or I'm too chicken-shit to dare express one. *wry grin*
You've suggested ways that the problem could have been avoided, and zornhau has said that being that careful could itself be patronising and may mean the hypothetical man finds it difficult to establish relationships, as women largely still expect men to make the first move (after giving some signals that they're welcome). Seeing as forming relationships or taking part in non-patronising casual sex are good things, it seems there's a balance to be struck between risks and rewards.
Maybe there's an assumption here that if the hypothetical woman is upset about what happened, someone must be to blame, and if it's not her, it's the hypothetical man. But in the situation described, I think the man acted reasonably: he could have done other things, but I don't see any reason to suggest that he should have (this example is different from the Doctor/Amy case because we're not told he persists in the face of opposition). So I'd say neither of them are to blame.
I don't think I said it was the hypothetical man's fault. I did say in a later comment: No, I'm saying that he has to accept the even explicit consent does not mean she's okay with it, and that he should understand there are dozens of reasons why his actions might be considered intimidating and pressuring even if he doesn't intend them to.
Expecting understanding is a perfectly reasonable thing to do, and I will continue to do so. I'm not here trying to point out who's to blame, I'm trying to point out that until we realize there are many different meanings of assault for many different people, it's going to be nigh-on impossible to make it stop occurring at all.
This hypothetical young woman does not need to be told that nothing bad happened.
This is true, but in the situation described above, she's the one doing the "bad" things. She wasn't straightforward or remotely honest about what was going on; the leap to making that this young man's fault is a terrifying one.
She felt uncomfortable, frightened, intimidated and pressured into performing a sexual act she did not want to.
And all of those feelings, and all of that pressure, was self-induced, which makes it emphatically not his fault. You seem to be equating "she felt pressured" to both "she was pressured" and "he pressured her", neither of which are accurate descriptions of the situation.
Again, I don't think I ever attributed the 'blame' to the hypothetical man. Someone made her feel that way - be it the quoted male relative, someone in her past, even society as a whole. So while there may be blame to place, maybe it's on a much wider stage. I tried to make that clear in my explanation; I think this is a much more widespread, insidious problem than 'one man/one woman'.
Do I think that the man in the hypothetical statement made unwanted sexual advances on the woman? Yes. Were they unwanted because of something he specifically did? Maybe not. But they were still unwanted, and that is important to recognize.
I believe you said that you'd call him an assailant, that you had no problem with his being identified as such, even if that did seem "harsh". Am I wrong about what you said?
But [his advances] were still unwanted, and that is important to recognize.
No, it's impossible to recognize, literally impossible for anyone who's not inside that girl's head.
When two people are guilty of miscommunication--which is the base of the problem here, and quite often in Real Life, I believe--that's always a two-way street, and I can't see any justice or usefulness in pointing a finger at just one of them.
If she didn't say no, either at all or in any way that she recognized, then how can what he did possibly be considered assault by any reasonable person? Whether or not she "felt pressured" can't have any bearing on the situation unless someone (other than herself) was actually putting pressure on her.
I'm not trying to point a finger at just one person. I do believe that the less powerful person should endeavor to do things that will help them increase their confidence in situations like these, and that they should be given opportunities to learn how to express themselves and their opinions, because it is by doing so that bad situations can be (hopefully) avoided.
However, I think it is a fine line to expect people who cannot do these things (for one reason or another) to take all the responsibility for their personal safety and well-being. If she were to stand up a year later and say "I was assaulted" then her story should be listened to and given weight. I'm not saying that the hypothetical man should be jailed, or exposed to ridicule, or fined, or any other such punishment, but I do think he should realize that he was a participant in a sexual encounter that may have not been entirely wanted.
You realize that, after she'd sent out all the right signals and spoken all the right words, for her to announce later that she didn't really mean it, the lesson that he would most likely take home from this scenario is that "that chick is totally batshit crazy and you can't trust her", right?
I pretty explicitly don't want him to know that she'd retroactively rescinded the permission she gave. The fact that this hypothetical* chick is, in this arena at least, a completely non-functional person shouldn't have to hurt the people that she interacts with.
(* I'm continuing to use the hypothetical because it seems like an excellent one to me, that I've seen in day-to-day encounters frequently. I know a woman who divorced her husband and then three years after the divorce announced to the world at large that she now "realized" that he'd raped her ten years ago. Since it was the first he'd heard of it too I--unlike you, I imagine--am not inclined to give much weight to the declaration. I can specifically name other situations that largely map onto this hypothetical. )
By announcing that "he could have not kissed her" even though she was clearly sending signals that she was open to being kissed, you are setting up a paternalistic world which I, for one, would be unable to tolerate.
This is not hyperbole: I would rather be raped than have everyone I ever came onto second guessing my motives, honesty, integrity, and ability to say what I mean. And yes, I've been raped, so I do know exactly what I'm talking about. I am willing to do people the courtesy of assuming they mean what they say, and I would prefer they do the same for me, and the people who routinely lie, even if it's only about certain subjects, should be distrusted, not catered to.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
andrewducker) wrote2010-05-25 01:04 pm
Re: Flesh and Stone
This is not strictly a problem of individuals. As I said, ideally we would be able to live in a culture where there is no fear, no discomfort based on past experiences, no imbalance of power between two people. But we don't, and that's part of the problem.
I understand that calling the young man in your example an assailant sounds harsh - he didn't rape her, he didn't actively physically intimidate her, he responded to the signs he was able to perceive. Do I think he should locked up, branded a sex offender, screamed at not to be a male chauvinist pig? No. But I think calling it 'assault' puts a serious name on something that is serious. This hypothetical young woman does not need to be told that nothing bad happened. She felt uncomfortable, frightened, intimidated and pressured into performing a sexual act she did not want to. Until we start recognizing and labeling things in a serious light it's not going to change. And I think most people would agree that we want things to change for the better.
So is calling it assault harsh? Yes. But if doing so means this hypothetical young man starts to realize what sort of world we live in and how he is responsible for the safety and well-being of so many people and maybe he starts to adjust his attitudes and reactions, then things might start changing for the beter.
Re: Flesh and Stone
What you're saying is that he has to second guess the explicit consent of an adult woman.
*Suppose he did ask. "Hey, you seem nervous. You OK with this"?
And she thinks, Ohgodohgodohgod one of uncle's trick questions and she forces a smile and says, "Of course I am."
Re: Flesh and Stone
It sucks. It really, really sucks. It's unfair, and wrong, and I'm no happier about it than you are. But I wholeheartedly believe that without recognizing and protecting victims, giving them acknowledgment that bad things happening to them isn't their fault, there will never be a change away from this sucky, unfair, wrong way of being. It is not meaningless to recognize someone's pain and acknowledge it by using a harsh word to describe it.
Re: Flesh and Stone
And yes, I acknowledge the hypothetical lady's pain. Her previous traumas have led her to put herself in a traumatic situation. But, calling it assault implies that he could have done something different.
Re: Flesh and Stone
And I hope you don't assume I think men should be in charge of every woman's sexual agency - I do believe firmly that women should have charge over their own agency and take full responsibility for that. But I don't think that necessarily means it's okay to accept that sometimes people will have bad experiences, just because men aren't in charge anymore.
Re: Flesh and Stone
And again, if she's explicitly up for it, isn't it really very patronising indeed to pat her on the head and say, "let's get to know each other better"? What if *she* just wants a disposable one-night stand?
Back to the scenario: In the middle of sex, she's goes crazy, screams, hits and goes into spasm.
As he frantically fails extricates himself, the flatmates kick the door in and come to her rescue.
Now he's pretty well traumatised - did I mention this was his first time? - and his only sin is not being telepathic, but in your language he's still an assailant.
Yes, both sexes do have bad experiences. That generally is the price of freedom. Lose use of language simply makes it worse.
Re: Flesh and Stone
At this point in the thread I started to think that perhaps you were just trolling a little.
There are many the things that you could say about that statement which erindubitably already has much more eloquently than I could ever could but it also something that can be equally applied to young men too (she won't put out so you move onto the next girl that will). When I was growing up there was a huge peer pressure on /everyone/ to react positively to sexual situations and even if they were to a certain extent uncomfortable or unwelcome there was always an understanding that this was to be expected.
But it shouldn't be expected. It shouldn't be the norm for anyone. Sexual actions should be comfortable for everyone all the time and if they are not then they shouldn't happen. By not defining things with the words they deserve we are perpetuating this notion and normalising it.
I have been the victim of the worse kind of sexual assault and when it was over my very best friend who I relied on for advice and guidance treated it like it was something that due to the circumstances was okay and could be brushed off. 15 years later and I am still traumatised in many many ways by the encounter. The fact that it was not treated by my peer group with the language it should have (rape) meant that for years I endured many other very unwelcome sexual advances and allowed myself to get into situations that I really did not want to be in because I felt that this was how the rest of the world functioned. I have been the victim of repeated sexual assault many times over since then - because I was lead to believe that if I didn't acquiesce to male advances they would loose interest in me and therefore I have never learnt to say no.
But I have still be assaulted and the more we continue to take away from that definition of that term then the this will continue.
I didn't want to jump in here with all my own personal crap but statements like the ones you made (even you are trolling) are just maddening to hear.
Sorry for the long ramble.
Re: Flesh and Stone
Really, I'm not trolling. I am actually bewildered and horrified having fallen into a looking glass world where all relations between the sexes are fraught with peril, and where it's possible to commit "assault" without realising your doing it, regardless of your actions or what precautions you take. Think about that from the male point of view for a moment.
Obviously, a "yes" obtained through bullying and implied threat is not consent. What you describe is rape, assault and abuse compounded by friend-fail. It is high time - and quite horrifying that this is even an issue in the C21st West - that we called such things what they are.
All that said, we're left with the question of how the sexes should interact sexually in the real world.
The statement you disliked was in response to the proposal of a protracted and delicate mating dance, perhaps lasting weeks, in which the male assures himself through friendship and so on that "yes" real does mean "yes".
My problems with this are practical and ethical.
Practically, people tend to lose interest if a relationship doesn't move forward. If we're looking for a new etiquette, then this isn't it.
Ethically, this asks the male to take responsibility for the sexuality of an adult female. It also dictates that only one sort of sexual encounter is permitted. To me this denies her agency and is downright sexist.
As you describe it, your experiences have damaged your agency. However, is that really *on its own* enough to turn every sexual encounter into an assault?
Re: Flesh and Stone
Er, what's wrong with talking? Doesn't that keep the relationship moving forward and help ensure that the speed with which things move is acceptable to both parties concerned?
"In case you hadn't noticed, most young women tend to lose interest very quickly if a young man fails to respond to positive encouragement. "
Repeat: Talking. Asking if things are okay, asking what people want (it's amazing how many people don't do this or are afraid to talk about what they want), and then working from that. It's all about communication and the importance of learning how to communicate, rather than trying to go on unspoken signals which can be so very easily misinterpreted.
Re: Flesh and Stone
I think each person has to set their own pace and be responsible for that, and not expect the other person to second guess them.
Re: Flesh and Stone
I think each person has to set their own pace and be responsible for that, and not expect the other person to second guess them.
Again, completely agree, but inherent in that is the responsibility for ensuring other people know what your desired pace is.
Re: Flesh and Stone
Re: Flesh and Stone
Re: Flesh and Stone
http://www.thedrum.co.uk/news/2009/08/13/11123-the-leith-agency-creates-scottish-government-sex-health-ad/?corder=DESC
Re: Flesh and Stone
Re: Flesh and Stone
http://www.thedrum.co.uk/news/2009/08/13/11123-the-leith-agency-creates-scottish-government-sex-health-ad/?corder=DESC
Re: Flesh and Stone
Look, a good few years ago I was mugged by teenage chavs. It was in its own way traumatic - a black eye is also a violation of self etc etc.
For a long time, I had difficulty coping with crowds of teenage boys going about their own teenage business; couldn't walk through them, felt an adrenaline surge if they asked the time, couldn't assert myself easily if they were out of line.
So, in a thankfully limited way, I have some empathy with the way a trauma can damage a person's ability to function normally in certain contexts.
However, then and now, I wouldn't expect society to change in order to cushion me from the effects of my trauma. (Well, OK, I fleetingly wanted to hire Serbian mercenaries to clean out a certain city-centre estate with fire and steel.)
Nor would it be fair for me to point at a crowd of oblivious and loud lads on a street corner and say, "They are victimising me by being boisterous."
It was the half-dozen chavs who mugged me that victimised me. Other groups of lads might unknowingly trigger uncomfortable feelings, but that would not be their problem or moral responsibility.
The alternative would be to return to a Conservative wet dream where young people live in fear of violence from their seniors, backed up by rule-bending police.
The price of not living in a deferential society is the suffering of people whose experiences have kicked them outside the psychological norm. I think it's worth it.
In the same way, if we are to have sexual freedom and sexual equality between the sexes, then people have to take responsibility for communicating their wishes and expectations either verbally or non verbally.
Those who can't, will have triggering experiences, which is horrid, but not the fault of the other party. That's the price.
Making the defition of assault entirely subjective is a sinister attack on the freedoms people have fought for.
(Sorry. I really have to stop here. I only dropped back in because I'd obviously said something triggering.)
Re: Flesh and Stone
Er, isn't that what I was just saying too? Though with emphasis on the verbally part, because it's harder to misinterpret than non-verbal signals. (still possible though, of course!) Anyway, with this statement I *completely* agree. It needs to work both ways though, o'course.
Statement: I don't disagree with everything you've said/agree with everything everyone else has said, I'm just pointing out small things which I feel I can discuss; I haven't been making statements about assault and definitions thereof because I've never been assaulted, by *anyone*'s definition {including of course my own}, which is why I've only commented on things relating to communication and whether or not my body can be constituted my private space. I don't have enough experience of assault to feel my opinion on it is worthy; that, or I'm too chicken-shit to dare express one. *wry grin*
Re: Flesh and Stone
Re: Flesh and Stone
Maybe there's an assumption here that if the hypothetical woman is upset about what happened, someone must be to blame, and if it's not her, it's the hypothetical man. But in the situation described, I think the man acted reasonably: he could have done other things, but I don't see any reason to suggest that he should have (this example is different from the Doctor/Amy case because we're not told he persists in the face of opposition). So I'd say neither of them are to blame.
Re: Flesh and Stone
Expecting understanding is a perfectly reasonable thing to do, and I will continue to do so. I'm not here trying to point out who's to blame, I'm trying to point out that until we realize there are many different meanings of assault for many different people, it's going to be nigh-on impossible to make it stop occurring at all.
Re: Flesh and Stone
This is true, but in the situation described above, she's the one doing the "bad" things. She wasn't straightforward or remotely honest about what was going on; the leap to making that this young man's fault is a terrifying one.
And all of those feelings, and all of that pressure, was self-induced, which makes it emphatically not his fault. You seem to be equating "she felt pressured" to both "she was pressured" and "he pressured her", neither of which are accurate descriptions of the situation.
Re: Flesh and Stone
Do I think that the man in the hypothetical statement made unwanted sexual advances on the woman? Yes. Were they unwanted because of something he specifically did? Maybe not. But they were still unwanted, and that is important to recognize.
Re: Flesh and Stone
No, it's impossible to recognize, literally impossible for anyone who's not inside that girl's head.
When two people are guilty of miscommunication--which is the base of the problem here, and quite often in Real Life, I believe--that's always a two-way street, and I can't see any justice or usefulness in pointing a finger at just one of them.
If she didn't say no, either at all or in any way that she recognized, then how can what he did possibly be considered assault by any reasonable person? Whether or not she "felt pressured" can't have any bearing on the situation unless someone (other than herself) was actually putting pressure on her.
Re: Flesh and Stone
I'm not trying to point a finger at just one person. I do believe that the less powerful person should endeavor to do things that will help them increase their confidence in situations like these, and that they should be given opportunities to learn how to express themselves and their opinions, because it is by doing so that bad situations can be (hopefully) avoided.
However, I think it is a fine line to expect people who cannot do these things (for one reason or another) to take all the responsibility for their personal safety and well-being. If she were to stand up a year later and say "I was assaulted" then her story should be listened to and given weight. I'm not saying that the hypothetical man should be jailed, or exposed to ridicule, or fined, or any other such punishment, but I do think he should realize that he was a participant in a sexual encounter that may have not been entirely wanted.
Re: Flesh and Stone
I pretty explicitly don't want him to know that she'd retroactively rescinded the permission she gave. The fact that this hypothetical* chick is, in this arena at least, a completely non-functional person shouldn't have to hurt the people that she interacts with.
(* I'm continuing to use the hypothetical because it seems like an excellent one to me, that I've seen in day-to-day encounters frequently. I know a woman who divorced her husband and then three years after the divorce announced to the world at large that she now "realized" that he'd raped her ten years ago. Since it was the first he'd heard of it too I--unlike you, I imagine--am not inclined to give much weight to the declaration. I can specifically name other situations that largely map onto this hypothetical. )
By announcing that "he could have not kissed her" even though she was clearly sending signals that she was open to being kissed, you are setting up a paternalistic world which I, for one, would be unable to tolerate.
This is not hyperbole: I would rather be raped than have everyone I ever came onto second guessing my motives, honesty, integrity, and ability to say what I mean. And yes, I've been raped, so I do know exactly what I'm talking about. I am willing to do people the courtesy of assuming they mean what they say, and I would prefer they do the same for me, and the people who routinely lie, even if it's only about certain subjects, should be distrusted, not catered to.