When one does not want, and the other does, there are two options: that the wills of those who do not want, or those of those who want, be imposed. The limit between the two options is clear and is a violation of the second option. The fact that this is so, historically, is not proper. We're not all there yet. But I would say that mental schemas are slowly moving out there.

This scheme clashes with another reality: it cannot be proved whether there has been agreement or not, and if there has not been agreement, if both knew it. If we do not start fixing all of this by written contract. And I don't know if that's what we want. I don't. I would like them to understand and respect the negatives. But the truth is, when it doesn't, it gets pretty complicated. How to prove that you have said no, that it is also not clear, intelligible to others, what the other has understood. That's what we can start to demonstrate. If that's what we want to start talking about. Who can we talk to? Perhaps someone would rather say, “Nothing has happened here, all right.”

I've been recorded a story like the one I saw on the big screen. All right, the title says. But after a meeting of the students of the class – after the party, of alcohol, of laughter, of dancing, of the tortuous flirtis – the woman does not want, and the men do. The woman was initially approached jokingly by the woman, who was on the spot. Then he flatly said no. And when he realizes that he doesn't accept no, he can't believe it. “Really?” he asked. And it's given up in some way. But he knows. As the braget goes down, it gets into it and the seed is poured out, the other knows he doesn't want it. It's a scene of great humiliation. Shake it.

And then? The next day? In the next few days? Who to tell? What to tell? How do you tell it? It doesn't want to make it important. Bad sex for a couple of minutes (no more). To be stronger than insult, to leave it out of the playing field. It represses. He doesn't want to feel like a victim. He doesn't go to the police. He doesn't want to reveal it. He doesn't want pity. Do not reproach. The word rape is not mentioned. But that's what happened.

No one who has not seen what has happened can regard the man as a monster. That man wouldn't write whatsapp in the style of The Herd. He's not a civil guard. Not even an intangible man of great power who looks like bathrobes. She works in an editorial.

I thought at the end of the movie: many times things like this will happen. To be known, not to link the lived with the word rape. And not just those of another era, the weak women who don't want scandals. The same was said recently by the feminist controversy Germaine Greer: that unagreed sex is very common, that it is situated on a daily basis. At a conference prior to the publication of his book On Rape, he said that rape often, rather than being an act of terrible violence, is usually a gross, indifferent, insensitive act. Some accused him of distorting the violation. Perhaps he could not qualify, correct with words or with context. I find it interesting to focus also on the harm that is involved in a violation that may seem insignificant and leaves no physical marks.

The strike proposes reducing sentencing to violations in exchange for a lower level of evidence. It opens the debate. Far from demystifying the violation, it should be said that serious things also occur in daily life that do not appear anywhere. Let's talk about them as well.