ANOTHER VOICE

The problem of women who say 'yes' when they really mean 'no'

AUBERON WAUGH

Some weeks ago the Observer carried an excellent article by its Washington corre- spondent, Andrew Stephen, on the subject of date rape. This expression might origi- nally have been used to describe the rape of women who had consented only to be taken out to dinner, but by the time I first heard it — in America about four years ago — it was used sardonically to describe the convention among young Americans especially students, but also office workers — whereby any woman who had accepted dinner in a restaurant from a man was expected to deliver the goods after it.

The expression, as I say, was used sar- donically. Since then, it has shifted its meaning, to treat the dinner arrangement I have described as if it does, indeed, consti- tute a form of rape — something which should be reported to the police and pun- ished with all the severity of a recommend- ed minimum sentence (five years in Britain at present, but no doubt liable to increase whenever the Lord Chief Justice next makes an after-dinner speech).

Under the new doctrine, women who are cajoled into sex can justly complain of being raped, even if they eventually con- sent, because cajoling in itself is a form of harassment or coercion.But Stephen dealt with this phenomenon very well in the Observer, arguing that the rape industry's attempt to expand its empire to cover prac- tically every incidence of sexual intercourse in the history of the world threatened to trivialise the very serious matter and major problem, gulp, yes indeed, of rape.

In the course of exposing some American academic whose thesis it was that every female American student was raped every night, Stephen told the story of how a wo- man of his acquaintance had caused con- sternation at a Washington dinner party by announcing in a loud voice: 'But of course I have said "no" hundreds of times when I have really meant "yes".'

The consternation is understandable be- cause it is a feminist axiom that no woman ever said 'no' who meant anything except `no'. A rider to this is that many women say `yes' who actually mean 'no'. It is this sec- ond problem — which certainly exists that I propose to address in due course.

`Rape' has long been one of those trigger words by which pompous and humourless women can enforce total solemnity on any occasion and make all the males present cringe. The hysterical terror of rape which afflicts so many young women nowadays is a fairly new development, I feel. Perhaps it is the intensely introspective, not to say self-obsessed modern woman, forever brooding about her relationships or lack of them, who makes particularly heavy weath- er of rape, I do not know. The rape of the Sabine women is usually presented as quite a jolly affair, admittedly by male painters — but the women settled down happily enough to produce the Roman race.

However it was this deliberate confusion between real rape, in all its possible horror, and pseudo- or. date rape, that Stephen exposed. I thought he had pretty well set- tled its hash and routed once again the ter- rible regiment of sexual cripples and misan- thropes who strive night and day to stop people getting on with it. Then, just as the Guardian started promoting the new Amer- ican catch-phrase 'politically correct' about three months after everyone else had de- nounced it as illiberal and inhumane, so the Independent on Sunday this week suddenly woke up to the notion of a date rape as a serious threat to young people. A long arti- cle by two female reporters told us how it was done: 'The Murky Waters of Date Rape: Women are increasingly taking up the issue of sexual abuse by past or present partners.' This was followed by an even longer leading article teaching us all how to read our way through the minefield of post- women's liberation sexual etiquette: 'Draw- ing a line between rape and bad manners.'

First, the date-rape prospectus was set out by 'a 17-year-old called Maria':

There was no denying that he was a great lover. I was frequently well-contented and thoroughly pleasured. We had sex, made love, often. But it wasn't long into our rela- tionship when cajoling became coercion. . . . It was only when I was sure I no longer loved him that I could throw him out in the certain- ty it was over. I've spent six years trying to make sense of what happened. The lasting

'1 know where you live.'

thing is that I have real difficulty in trusting men. Rape is firmly on the list of possibilities and can't ever be erased in the male-female relationship.

One observes that Maria must have been 11 years old at the time, which may have been a complicating factor. The rubric is supplied by Ms Joanna Innes, a don at Somerville, who published a report on the subject last December: 'The fact that it is difficult to know whether a rape has taken place, is not a reason for ignoring it.'

The editor of the Independent on Sunday takes up the matter, with some more specif- ic guidelines, in his leader: Bad manners or simple clumsiness are differ- ent. For example, in the middle of a passion- ate kiss, a man should not keep putting his hand under a woman's skirt if she removes it. . . . It is wrong, too, for a boy to pester his girlfriend to go to bed with him when she is clearly reluctant. But these are private mat- ters, and it is preposterous to suggest that they amount to rape. . . .

In the 1990s, most women are perfectly capa- ble of making it clear if they want sex. Some, it is true, give conflicting signals, but if in any doubt, a man should stop.

I suppose we should be grateful for any editorial guidance on this tricky subject, but this seems to me bad advice. Most women do not know from one moment to the next whether they want sex or not. They have to be enticed, softened up, wooed. When a woman says 'no' she is as likely as not say- ing, 'Tempt me further. Try a little harder.' It is the women who say 'yes' from a cold start who sometimes need to be treated with caution. Their motives may be of the highest, but pleasure or joy in the act is sel- dom among them. They may be acquisitive, manipulative, or they may be inspired by neurotic loneliness or hatred of men and vindictiveness towards them. These are the ones who will cry 'rape' when they have destroyed every trace of their victim's libido. These are the new rapists. Editors of the world, sit down and warn the poor young men about them.

The last time I wrote about rape in The Spectator was over ten years ago; as a result the editor's office was invaded and occu- pied by a gang of enraged lesbians, who had to be removed by the police. The edi- tor in those days was Alexander Chancel- lor, and the offices were in Gower Street. I wonder if they are aware of the new address at 56 Doughty Street.