This story is unavailable.

If you’d bothered to click through to the link to their Facebook page, you’ll see that there are other self-identified feminists speaking out against this article. Feminists are not a monolithic entity, and to paint them as such is a faulty argument that misses the fucking point.

Lastly, no. We use implicit communication all the time, and in this case, the husband is implicitly communicating his lack of interest, lack of consent, and lack of desire, which despite being fully acknowledged by the original author, does not stop her from barreling forward with her assault.

Over at the Yes Means Yes blog, this was addressed extremely well in an article published a few years ago:

I’m no communications theorist, but communications are layered things. As we’ve seen, the literal meaning of a message is only one aspect of the message, and the way it’s delivered can signal something entirely different. Rapists are not missing the literal meaning, I think it’s clear. What they’re doing is ignoring the literal message (refusal) and paying very close attention to the meta-message. I tell my niece, “if a guy offers to buy you a drink and you say no, and he pesters you until you say okay, what he wants for his money is to find out if you can be talked out of no.” The rapist doesn’t listen to refusals, he probes for signs of resistance in the meta-message, the difference between a target who doesn’t want to but can be pushed, and a target who doesn’t want to and will stand by that even if she has to be blunt. It follows that the purpose of setting clear boundaries is not to be understood — that’s not a problem — but to be understood to be too hard a target.

Implicit communication is communication; to pretend it doesn’t count or doesn’t exist as an excuse for assault is a nice way for you to rationalize bad behavior. No. Take your rape apologia elsewhere.