When we hear the phrase, "No means no," we usually couch this in the context of sexual interactions. We nod in agreement with the idea that someone's body is sexually inviolate. We choose who has access to it and who doesn't. If we don't want to give ourselves to someone, that person has no right to our body. We also tend to nod in agreement with one's right to defend (even violently) against bad actors who would try to violate our bodies in a sexual manner. The NO must be respected.
While this certainly makes sense in this scenario, how far do we allow ourselves and others to expand this concept beyond the sexual realm? Not very far, I think.
As we go through our daily lives as "free" people, how often is our NO disregarded with just a dash of violent threats?
If you take the risk of driving without a seatbelt, can you say no to the guy with the gun when he orders you to give his bosses $200? Will you be met with threats or actual violence if you do not consent? If you do not like people taking money from you to spend in ways you do not want or agree with, will these people leave you alone if you say, "No thanks. I'd rather give my money to these other people whom I think do a better job?" If your actions neither harm nor interfere with the rights others, does any particular group of people have the right to use threats or violence against you, regardless of your opposition to THEIR interference? In any of these scenarios, will your "NO" be respected?
While rape is a traumatizing experience that scars the victim regardless of their compliance with their perpertrators, it is easy to see the differences between sexual assault and having to pay for a ticket. What is sometimes obscured, however, are the similar mechanisms of coercion that are used to perpetrate both behaviors. Both use threats or violence to achieve the end result. Both can lead to further violence or even death for noncompliance. Both are a violation of another's property. In both cases, the "No" is disregarded with violent intent, while the victim's property is violated at the mercy of their violators.
While many will agree that perpetrators of violent sexual assault are deserving of violent retribution, what of the perpetrators that violently violate the consent of others through permission from third parties? What makes the violation of rights evil in one set of circumstances, yet approved as good with the same dynamics of violence to violate someone's rights in the other scenarios listed?
How can it be bad to disrespect a person's "No" in one case, but perfectly ok to disrespect that same person's "No" in another?