Consent: basic concepts for Julio Iglesias (and Ramón Arcusa)

The scandal surrounding the allegations made by two domestic workers against Julio Iglesias has erupted. The media is abuzz with the story, and I was stunned when, on Ana Rosa's program, Ramón Arcusa—a friend of the singer, musician, and member of the duo Dúo Dinámico—stated that if a woman is raped, she should immediately report the crime and leave the house or wherever the rapist is: if she doesn't leave, it means she did. He also commented that all the accusations being made against Julio Iglesias before the courts have even ruled are coming from within the industry. woke of society. Without a second thought, she has linked the sexual assault allegations to an ideology and, in turn, has quickly politicized it. Amazing!

One of the most common arguments used to deny sexual assault or psychological harassment within a relationship is the deliberate conflation of consent with continued relationship. It is argued that, when gender-based violence is perpetrated, whatever its form, if the act was not consensual, the woman should have reported it. Therefore, if she continues living with the alleged aggressor, this would retrospectively prove consent. However, consent is not a state to be taken for granted, but rather a specific, situated, and revocable condition that may be absent at any given moment. As Simone de Beauvoir already pointed out, women never act in a vacuum of abstract freedom, but rather within a historically limited field of possibilities. To confuse the decision to continue with the aggressor with the free capacity to decide is to ignore the fact that many women's decisions are embedded within structures that restrict agency without the need for explicit coercion.

This confusion, for some people, cancels de facto The possibility of rape within a relationship perpetuates the implicit idea of a sexual debt, something very different from a right that should translate into "no means no" and "yes means yes." Machismo and the abuse of power—and I'm not referring to all men or all relationships, of course not!—have taken for granted that in marriage, cohabiting couples, or hierarchical relationships, consent is given a priori.

Arcusa continued to support his friend Julio, arguing that a raped woman should flee, sever ties with her attacker, and report the crime. But things aren't that simple, because if they were, we would completely ignore how trauma works. Sexual or psychological violence can generate paralysis, dissociation, confusion, and an inability to act in the face of the aggression. Hannah Arendt pointed out that certain forms of violence not only damage the body but also destroy the capacity to act and to make sense of events; demanding an immediate response is to misunderstand that violence can prevent any action. To claim that only a victim who responds according to a preconceived, generalized, and universal script is credible is not only empirically false but also shifts the analysis of the violent act toward the woman's subsequent behavior, making her reaction seem suspicious instead of focusing on the attacker's actions.

Another key aspect of gender-based violence that is often misunderstood is the assumption that "if a woman stays with her abuser, it's because she wants to." This view ignores the material, emotional, and symbolic conditions that structure many relationships characterized by economic dependence, fear, control, isolation, guilt, or intense social pressure. Reducing the decision to stay with an abuser to a simple choice depoliticizes the abuse and obscures the structural patterns that make it possible and persistent.

This is often compounded by the protection of the alleged perpetrator by those around him, especially when he is a friend, as in Arcusa's case. The argument "I know him, and he wouldn't do this" operates as a mechanism of emotional loyalty that preserves the perpetrator's moral image and discredits the rape victim's account. In this context, the burden of proof is unduly shifted to the victim, who is required to be absolutely consistent and have irreproachable behavior, while the perpetrator is protected by his reputation and symbolic capital (we have all seen Ayuso's deplorable reaction to the case). Far from analyzing reality, this discourse distorts it and contributes to perpetuating silence, disbelief, and impunity. Sexual violence is not only an act, but also a regime of truth that decides which accounts are valid and which are condemned to doubt or silence.