ABSTRACT
Co-constructing an ideological `frame' that characterized the complainants and their witness as autonomous, self-determining subjects, unconstrained by the socially-structured inequities that can shape women's responses to male sexual aggression, I have argued that the cross-examining questioners, including the `neutral' tribunal members, (re)presented the events in question as consensual sex. This is not to say, however, that the complainants and their witness subscribed to this same interpretation of events. In example 30 from the previous chapter (and repeated below), we see the complainant, Connie, asserting that Matt's utterances were demands, not requests; that is, from the complainant's perspective, there were no `options' to choose from.
