Can consent be withdrawn?

Headline: The purse on the park bench
Author: Ong Soh Chin
Source: The Straits Times, 14 April 2011

Quote1
In her 1991 essay, Rape and the Modern Sex War, controversial feminist writer Camille Paglia infamously blamed women for rape, citing the now well-known analogy of the purse on a park bench: One would not leave a purse unattended and expect it not to be stolen. Likewise, if a woman decides to get stonking drunk, wears a skimpy outfit or flirts excessively with a man, she should not be surprised if she gets assaulted.

Comment1
This is an argument by analogy, the weakest form of argument there is. It is based on similarity, and will break down once similarity no longer obtains. The relevant question of logic here is: Does the similarity hold up long enough to arrive at the desired conclusion?

Quote2
In 2008, actress Helen Mirren ... added that if a woman voluntarily ended up in a man's bedroom and engaged in sexual activity, she still had the right to say "no", but that if a man ignored that request it should not be considered rape. Mirren said: "I don't think she can take that man to court under those circumstances. I guess it is one of the subtle parts of the man/woman relationship that have to be negotiated and worked out between them."

Comment2
Mirren makes a hypothetical (if-then) statement: If ((a woman voluntarily enters a man's bedroom) & (she engages in sexual activity)), then (the man cannot be accused of rape). We are not told of any argument supporting this statement. However, we are told that Mirren also simultaneously says this is a negotiable understanding between the woman and the man. Thus, no moral rule is laid down.

Quote3
While women should definitely exercise plain common sense when dating -- like not getting so drunk that she goes home with a stranger -- a purse left on a park bench in a truly civilised society should be returned undisturbed to its rightful owner. I once left a shopping bag in a Tokyo department store for five hours. When I finally returned, it was still there, leaning against the pillar where I had left it. We should aspire to a moral universe benchmarked by Japan and not by some unruly cowboy town.

Comment3a
What makes a society "truly civilised"? If we answer "it is a society that leaves intact purses on park benches", then this becomes a circular argument -- one where the conclusion is contained in the premise. The argument would go: "In a society that leaves intact purses on park benches, purses left on park benches will not be touched". I do not see that the author offers any other definition of a "truly civilised society".

Comment3b
In a society that leaves intact purses on park benches, there should be no reason for a woman to worry about "getting so drunk that she goes home with a stranger". The purse will by definition not be touched.

Quote4
What has not changed, however, are deep-rooted prejudices, chief of which is the notion that the woman is ultimately to blame. ... This line of reasoning is dangerous because it tacitly absolves men of their responsibility to practise self-restraint, tarring them as brutes with no self-control. This does a disservice to the many men out there who do treat women with respect.

Comment4
Here is the argument, formally presented:

Premise1: If (we say the woman is ultimately to blame), then (we absolve men of responsibility for restraint, tarring them as brutes with no self-control).

Premise2: If (we absolve men of responsibility for restraint, tarring them as brutes with no self-control), then (we do a disservice to men who treat women with respect).

Premise3 (implicit): "Disservice to men who treat women with respect" is an overwhelmingly undesirable consequence.

Conclusion (implicit): Hence, (by utilitarian ethics) we must not "say the woman is ultimately to blame".

This argument is a valid utilitarian argument: we should not adopt any course of action (or attitude) which leads to overwhelmingly undesirable consequences. Hence, we should examine the premises for truth, or the lack of it.

Consider Premise1. More simply expressed, it says: "If (we blame women), then (we say men need not hold back, cannot hold back)". But just because a man need not hold back does not mean he cannot hold back. The consequent (then portion) is false, making Premise1 false.

A sound argument must have every premise true. Since Premise1 is false, the argument fails.

Quote5
Men should be treated as people with the ability and desire for respectful behaviour to women. Rape prevention should include educating men that "no" means No. One should not fixate only on how women behave or dress.

Comment5
We need to recall Paglia's analogy: One would not leave a purse unattended and expect it not to be stolen. It is not a purse still hidden in the woman's handbag. We need to also recall Mirren's statement: If a woman voluntarily ended up in a man's bedroom and engaged in sexual activity, ... it should not be considered rape. She is not a woman who is merely walking along the street. The context of their views is significant and important. The woman had given every indication of interest and consent. It is in this context that she is "blamed" for what happens. Given this context, the question becomes: Can consent be withdrawn? Mirren clearly suggests the answer is "no, consent cannot be withdrawn". The author says men should be taught that "no" means No -- presumably even after having said "yes". In which case, the real question becomes: How is a respectful man in a civilised society to know when a woman's "yes" means Yes?

END