In driver’s education classes, they teach you about a concept called “the point of no return.” This is when the traffic light turns yellow, signaling a red light is close behind, but the driver has already entered the intersection. The rule states that it would be more dangerous to slam on the brakes and stop than to simply go through holding one’s breath.

Many women begin having sexual experiences at the same time they learn to drive. Women intrinsically understand that this is a universal message; the “point of no return” exists far beyond the confines of the open road, it exists in the bedroom too. The point of no return is when things have already started going down, and speaking up, saying stop and shutting it down, much like braking at a yellow, seems more dangerous than holding one’s breath and counting down the seconds until it is done. This “gray zone,” where it is not-technically rape, but definitely not fully consensual sex, plagues women everywhere.

Our two-party political system creates a strict binary of traditional sexual reactionism and sexual (neo)liberalism. These are seen as our only options — and they are equally bad. Traditional sexual reactionism is a conservative ideology that reproduces harmful gender roles. It attests that women are innocent and thus must be protected by a strong patriarchal figure. As explained in “Feminism for the 99%: A Manifesto,” this perspective actively shames sex and encourages chastity. It organizes around outlawing all sexual deviancy that isn’t in line with traditional nuclear family values.

The other option, sexual neoliberalism, is quickly upheld by seemingly progressive types. It creates this illusion of choice; it seeks to put ownership “back” in the hands of women, while simultaneously pressuring them to “choose” to be and act “sexually liberated” in a way the patriarchal capitalism deems desirable. This mode of thinking assumes that doing exactly what patriarchal capitalism wants is a feminist act. Because sexual liberalism is the mainstream “feminist” approach, it becomes extremely difficult for women to speak up when this narrative doesn’t suit them. Not only are women pressured by men to sleep with them, but now they also have this tiny voice in their head whispering that they aren’t “owning their sexuality” if they don’t want to go through with the act. Sexual liberalism produces huge cases of the “gray zone” because it encourages women to say yes when they really mean no.

In recent years, we have seen a push for affirmative consent. Simply not hearing a “no” is no longer enough, there must be a clear and enthusiastic yes. But how can that yes be taken at face value when we live in an unequal society filled with pressures from all angles?

If someone is an undocumented immigrant, they might be coerced into consenting to avoid threats of deportation. A person may acquiesce to having sex to fend off potential domestic abuse against themselves or their children. A teenager may engage in sex out of worry they’ll become a social outcast if they say no. An employee may agree to perform oral sex to keep their job. A college student may participate in hook-up culture because they believed it would be empowering and liberating. While all these people “chose” to have sex and proclaimed yes, maybe even enthusiastically, these incidents are associated with trauma and abuse.

Having choices does not equal proper consent when both options are undesirable. These scenarios may be legally deemed “consensual,” yet they still constitute a huge array of physically and psychologically damaging experiences within the gray zone.

“Our idea of what we want — of our own desire — is linked to what we think we’re supposed to want, with what society tells us we should want,” Jessica Bennett of the New York Times wrote. Society tells us through porn, memes and liberal “activism” that you’re supposed to feel liberated when you play into the patriarchal desire of you, that it’s actually a feminist move to play

It is dangerous to drive drunk because one’s decision-making processes are impaired. So, wouldn’t it be true that if one is drunk on oppressive societal wine that blurs the lines of true internal desire and patriarchal cultural expectations, that too would create a dangerous situation? Just because something is legal doesn’t mean the practice isn’t morally bankrupt. Talk to your friends and partners about these undefinable gray zone situations and stop suffering in silence.

Abby Brooks can be reached at [email protected].