I decided to start this blog after reading an article about non-consensual sex, written by a female college student. Not only did I find this article offensive, I found it downright scary.

http://www.irishtimes.com/student-hub/i-lay-there-like-a-doll-unmoving-and-let-him-work-away-1.2845342

Before I continue, let me say this, just to make it clear. No, means no. Period. Regardless of what the situation is, if a woman tells a man no at any point, everything should immediately stop. It doesn't matter if she consented to lying in the man's bed. It doesn't matter if she consented to him undressing her. If she changes her mind at any point and says no, anything that happens beyond that point is rape. This applies to wives and girlfriends too.

But let's get something else straight too. Women have just as much responsibility when it comes to sex as men do. When it comes to sex, women are now and have always been in control of when sex happens and when it doesn't (assuming the male in question stops when she says no).

One alarming comment that the author of this column made was when she said, 'The idea that ‘fair is fair’ seems to have rooted itself in the minds of the Irish and when it comes to sexual relations this should not be the case.'

What in the hell does she mean by that?

She went on to say in the next paragraph, 'Girls don’t owe boys anything and vice versa, no matter what the situation might be.'

No? They don't owe us anything? Really?

I'm not trying to suggest that women owe men sex. I don't believe they owe us that. But they are obligated to be fair, aren't they? Or does this author believe women are entitled to be selfish?

Then she says, 'When it first happened to me, I found myself naturally defending the boy in question, after all I had gone home with him - so what exactly did I expect?'

But there's more. She later admits that she 'shifted' the guy several times prior to going home and willingly lying in his bed, before telling him she 'didn't really want to', but giving in after he said that wasn't fair for her to pull back now. She makes the exaggerated claim that a 'low top says you’re asking for it, and a bit of fake tan basically puts you on a street corner there and then.'

Let's get this straight. Men do not expect women who wear low tops to have sex with them. Not reasonable ones, anyway. And we don't look at a woman with a fake tan and assume she's a prostitute. To suggest either is ridiculous.

But let's be honest here. Women wear low tops because they want men to look at their cleavage. Don't they? What other reason could there be (unless she's a lesbian, but the motivation is still the same, just for the same sex, instead of the opposite). For whatever reason (God help me, I don't know why), women seem to resent the implication that they dress provocatively to get the attention of men, but seriously? What other reason could there be?

Let's be honest here. Women dress the way they dress in an attempt to lure a man's attention for the purpose of finding a mate. It's human instinct and the beginning of our cultural mating dance. Again, a woman dressing that way isn't a guarantee of sex, but it is (or should be) done to signal that she is open to the possibility should the right guy come along and should definitely (at a minimum) be an invitation for men to look at her. Any man. Regardless of his age, type, body shape or anything else. If a woman is not comfortable having men looking at her chest, she has no business wearing anything that prominently displays her chest. If a woman doesn't want older, less attractive men staring at her ass when she walks by them, she should not wear skimpy shorts with something written on them. I mean, think about it. It's fashionable for women to wear shorts with words written across her bum, but how can someone read the words if they don't look at her ass? To say that women don't want men to look there is asinine.

The article this woman wrote was about consent, but as I suggested before, consent starts before the bedroom, not in it. Women have the right to say no at any point, but they should be obligated to pre-think their consent and they should be responsible for being clear about what they want early on. I think a woman should be selective about who she sleeps with and who she doesn't. I think it's great and intelligent for a woman to want to be courted before taking that step with a man. But I also think she should say that too and do it before it leads into the bedroom, giving him parameters, letting him know that if he wants to 'score' with her, he has to wine and dine her first if that's what's on her mind. Not lead him on by dressing sexy. Not give him false hopes by letting him take her home and letting him get her into his bed, only to then say something like, 'I don't really want to.' This is even more misleading and more unfair if the girl in question dressed provocatively and behaved that way as well.

The truth is that rape (whenever it happens) is about power and control, but the truth is also that men are not the only ones seeking power and control. Women want it too. The difference is that they seek it in different ways. If a woman wears a skimpy skirt and low cut top, but commonly chastises men for looking at her, that is about power and control. She does it knowing it isn't fair to men, but enjoys that feeling of power that she gets from it.

Ultimately, the article this woman wrote was about teaching consent to college students, but it came off as an attack on men in general. Most men do not deserve to be attacked. Most of us understand how things should work and most of us have no desire to sleep with any woman who doesn't want to be slept with by us. We want a woman who wants us. We want her consent. Teaching consent starts before it gets that far, however. To suggest that women should be allowed to wear whatever they want and that any man who looks is a pig is not the right way to go about things. Teaching women to know what they want before they get into a situation and teaching them to match their manner of dress and behavior to what they are ready for and willing to give, makes more sense. Men want to have sex with women. We all know that. Men go to parties with the intention of trying to get laid. We know that too. Women know it too. Isn't that one of the things that makes going to parties fun? Isn't that why we refer to it as scoring? Because it's not easy. It doesn't always happen. It's not guaranteed. It's a challenge and the woman's right to say no is what makes it challenging. Getting a girl to consent. That's what the 'game', if that's how you want to refer to it, is all about.

We don't need courses on consent. Consent is easy to teach. No, means no. That's really all you have to say. What we need to teach our college students is how to play the game fairly.