IT'S not a sophisticated message and yet it appears to need repeating: sex without consent is rape.
Sir Stephen House, the chief constable, reiterated this statement on Wednesday at the launch of the latest phase of Police Scotland's rape prevention campaign, We Can Stop It.
Aimed at 16- to 27-year-old men, who are responsible for more than one third of reported rapes in Scotland, We Can Stop It is a perpetrator-focused approach that, in this phase, aims to make clear the definition of rape and also looks to train bar staff in intervention methods.
There is a dual message to be understood here: that everyone in a community is responsible for helping to prevent sexual assaults and that the definition of rape is unequivocal.
The bystander approach is becoming more common as a tool to tackle sexual violence, particularly in the night-time economy where alcohol can be used as a weapon to make women vulnerable.
The Green Dot programme in the US is used to promote the idea that green dots represent bystanders to violent sexual behaviour who should be motivated to something - anything - to divert disaster. The scheme works on the premise that everyone in the community has a responsibility to take action if they see something happening.
Similarly, last year President Barack Obama launched part of a university sexual assault reform campaign: a project aimed at men on campus called It's On Us, encouraging them to intervene. It challenges students on university campuses to see sexual violence as their individual responsibility to prevent.
Prevention, however, doesn't have to start at the point of crisis; it's possible to be active in attempting to prevent sexual violence by challenging the insidious attitudes that allow attacks to happen.
There is a need for men to talk among themselves. To have conversations about what's ok and what is emphatically not.
When their friends make rape jokes, or sexist comments or catcall at women in the street - to simply and politely shut that stuff down. When inappropriate comments are made on Facebook, to challenge them. To not be that guy.
When their friend is preying on the tipsy girl in the nightclub because she's an obvious, easy target to secure Sunday morning's bragging rights, have a word.
To understand that any failure to challenge negative attitudes is to help normalise the view that there are blurred lines or grey areas where predatory behaviours are alright.
Let's remember, the majority of men know all this already, they're clear on right and wrong. They don't need the President of the United States to point it out to them, they don't need Scotland's most senior police officer. Some, a rank few, need everyone to point it out.
Just as valuable as telling men not to rape is telling young men - and young women - about the notion of enthusiastic consent. That it's not just important to not hear a no but is vital to hear a clear and repeated yes, that coerced consent is not consent. To shift the emphasis from "no means no" to "yes means yes".
How simple it seems to make the point that men should only have sex with conscious and enthusiastic partners; how simple to any right-thinking person does it seem that men should only want to have sex with conscious and enthusiastic partners.
Affirmative consent is already written into law in California but it seems a rarely heard of concept in the UK. For rape prevention tactics to be successful in Scotland, it should be part of the conversation with young people who are making their first explorations into the complicated, convoluted world of romantic relationships.
It takes a degree of bravery to step up and step forward when a woman, a stranger, is at risk. It also takes a degree of bravery to have these conversations.
But to prevent sexual assault by telling young men to gain consent, we need to start having frank conversations about the nature of consent and what that means.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article