The New York Times did a good job, I think, with an article titled, Is it Rape? It Depends on Who is asking. This was disconcerting to someone like me who was trained in the "No means no" mantra of the 1990s through Bard's BRAVE initiative. This was before Rohipnol became all too common, so expressed consent was possible.
Let's look at Bangladeshi law. In 2003, Bangladesh amended the Women and Children Repression Prevention Act of 2000 to define sexual assault for the first time. Under this definition,
Section 10 states that if any male, in order to satisfy his carnal desires, touches the sexual or any other organs of any woman or child with any organ of his body or with any other object, his action will amount to sexual abuse or abuses the modesty of any woman or makes any indecent gesture, his act shall be deemed to be sexual harassment and for this such male will be punished by rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend up to ten years but shall not be less than three years and shall additionally also be liable to fine.This definition is vague, but it does the job. I worked with someone back in 2003 who was thrown in jail in 2004 using this act. He refused to marry someone, so the girl's family allegedly accused him of harassment, which started the proceeding.
Another of my colleagues was fired for making drunken calls to another colleague's wife. I've lost touch, but that wife apparently then put her own husband in jail under the repression act.
Love works in mysterious ways.
