ABSTRACT
One possible explanation for the conjunction of the requirements 'without consent' and 'with force' is that there exists a strong reluctance to conceptualize nonviolent, albeit nonconsenual sex particularly with an acquaintance, as genuine rape. There is a fair amount of agreement about the historical picture that rape laws treated women unfairly, not protecting them from real injury to their sexual autonomy by requiring utmost resistance, corroboration, past sexual history, and so on. The no serious harm objection rests on the fairly widely held beliefs that so-called acquaintance type rapes, particularly without any obvious physical harm over and above the rape itself, are not seriously harmful. The conjunction of the rape law requirements of nonconsent and force means that the law is under-inclusive in picking out harms against women, and thereby is not adequately protecting them against harm. Criminal rape laws have not protected women's negative freedom to refuse unwanted bodily and sexual intrusions.
