Abstract

What consequences do poststructuralist theories of language have for feminist strategies addressing rape? In particular, what might be the fate of attempts to secure the meanings of certain words uttered by women in this context, such as ‘no’? Can we bracket off such statements from the agon of the juridico-linguistic domain in a manner that short-circuits all contest? In contrast, if we agree that such contest is an irrevocable component of the field in which feminist struggles take place, does this mean we no longer need to attend to the destiny of women’s refusal before the law? This article will consider these questions in relation to the framing of refusal in a recent Australian sexual assault trial. I will suggest that a poststructuralist feminist strategy might turn to the political process of recontextualization that attends such utterances, in order to contest the institutional rewriting of rape as romance.