Absent Words, Absent Consent: Gisèle Pélicot and the Limits of French Rape Law

France's force-based definition of rape, which centers on violence, coercion, threat, or surprise, fails to adequately protect victims who are unconscious, incapacitated, or otherwise unable to resist. This deficiency was highlighted by the Mazan case, where structural gaps in French law made prosecuting mass sexual assaults involving an unconscious victim unusually complex. Under this framework, the legal requirements to establish rape distort the understanding of consent and perpetuate longstanding rape myths, including the presumption that silence implies agreement. Although convictions were ultimately secured in the Mazan case, they occurred despite the structure of the law. Without reform, France's current rape statute will continue to impose undue burdens of production on victims. Comparative models and the Istanbul Convention reflect a growing shift toward consent-based definitions that prioritize voluntary agreement over physical resistance and have proven to result in higher prosecution rates for rape cases. Replacing France's force-centric model with a consent-based approach would modernize its legal framework, close evidentiary gaps, and protect victims whose ability to communicate non-consent is impaired.