If a victim does not say “no” or does not “fight back,” it is not sexual assault. True False
The correct answer and explanation is:
Correct Answer: False
Sexual assault is not determined solely by whether a victim says “no” or physically fights back. Consent must be freely given, informed, and enthusiastic. A lack of resistance does not mean consent. There are many reasons a person might not verbally refuse or physically resist, including fear, shock, incapacitation, or a sense of helplessness. Therefore, assuming that silence or passivity equals consent is both legally and ethically wrong.
Modern laws and consent education emphasize the importance of affirmative consent. This means both parties must clearly agree to engage in any sexual activity. If one person is unconscious, under the influence of drugs or alcohol, threatened, or feels coerced, then they are incapable of giving valid consent, even if they do not actively resist.
Victims often respond to trauma in different ways. Some may experience what is known as the “freeze” response, a psychological and physiological reaction to fear or danger. In this state, a victim might be unable to move or speak, which does not indicate agreement but rather a survival mechanism. Understanding this helps correct the harmful myth that resistance is always necessary to prove an assault occurred.
Courts, health professionals, and advocacy organizations recognize that focusing only on whether a victim said “no” or physically resisted is not only outdated but harmful. It discourages victims from reporting and blames them for how they responded under extreme stress. Sexual assault must be understood in terms of the presence of clear, willing consent and not the absence of resistance.
In conclusion, sexual assault can and does occur even when the victim does not say “no” or physically fight back. The only true indicator of consent is an affirmative, voluntary “yes” — anything less does not constitute consent.