Consent

Consent

Harvey Weinstien is a sexual predictor. He is a powerful bully who threatened or bought compliance even over powerful men (like the NY DA who dropped his case against Weinstein after a sizeable donation). Yet his favourite "prey" were young and powerless women. From models to receptionist, to actors and directors, as long as they were young, pretty and compared to him, powerless, he pursued them.
He (like a serial killer) had a favoured ruse to get these women alone with him. Though he was not rooted to this ritual exclusivity. First he would flatter, then he would bully and then he would strike.

"What about the women who had sex willingly to get the parts? Disgusting!"


If you are tricked, bullied or too frightened to say no, this is NOT consent.
If someone lies to you about the reason you are in a space with someone "just coffee" or "working on a project or script" to trap you in a room with them, this is not consent.
If someone threatens, bullies or bars the door, this is not consent.

The idea that women have the power to consent in these situations is just clearly not true. The threat of physical violence, social or career destruction if they continue to fight or reject these advances can be deadly and we need to remember that.
The very real fear that something worse could happen if they don't comply doesn't mean they consent.

They are not willingly, sexually interacting with this person. It's not a date. It's not respectful or fun. It's a terrifying choice.

"I trapped you here under false pretences and I will "destroy" you if you reject me ."

Someone in that situation can comply. They can take it, smile and get out, but they could not have consented. In a culture where saying no to men's unwanted advances can get you killed, doubly so powerful men, it is clear women under these conditions can not consent.

Women who complied with his "desires" long enough to safely leave are just as much his victims as those who fought and screamed and ran. They are too ashamed (they carry the predators shame) to come forward and who can blame them.
The real threat of violence (social or otherwise) now makes them subject to the full force of the public (and in particular men's) hate and ire. They may even have profited temporarily, or accepted his gifts. Compounding the blame and shame they already carried, making them feel compliance was consent.

It is of course easy to victim blame. It makes us more comfortable to place the blame with the weak, rather than the powerful. Challenging powerful authority figures is educated out of us from a young age.Yet it needs to stop.

We need to really understand how compliance is not consent. A robot can not consent. It can comply. If a victim loses the power to say no, to leave safely, to live as they did before, they can comply but they can not consent.

If you need to lie, bully, threaten or trick someone into having sex with you, you have robbed them of the power of consent.

My heart goes out to the many victims out there silenced still by the culture of blame-shifting and victim hating. My words are simply this. You complied but didn't consent and you are not to blame.