The underlying principle here is that someone who does not will the forbidden act committed upon him must hate it completely and accompany that hatred with whatever resistance is within his power. If this is absent, he has neglected the hatred and resistance required of him. But does that make him willing? If someone is subjected to unlawful intercourse without acting or willing it, yet without complete hatred and resistance, is he considered willing and himself committing unlawful intercourse? And is it said] of someone killed without any action or willingness on his part, yet without complete hatred and resistance,
[that he wills his own killing and is himself a killer]?
Or [is it said instead that he neither hates nor resists it? Does the absence of hatred and resistance necessarily entail willingness and action?

The source of the confusion is that a person may neither will nor dislike something, neither love nor hate it, just as he may neither affirm nor deny something. And how many things he loves in one respect and hates in another!

There are thus four categories: something willed, something disliked, something both willed and disliked, and something neither willed nor disliked. However, when the cause that prompts a person to will something within his power is present, it necessarily brings about his willing and doing it, unless an impediment intervenes. Likewise, when the cause that prompts him to hate the forbidden act committed upon him and to resist it is present