No Means Yes If You Know How To Spot It

[Derec]

Ah, so it is the woman's fault. Because they're taught that way.

It's not about fault. It's about the difference between a firm no and "playing hard to get" which Ohio (and others) ignore in their desire to standardize sexual interactions on campus into a tidy, simplistic, sparse matrix.

But I answered (contrary to your expectation) all your points. Don't I deserve the same?

 

[RavenSky]

"If you want it, and you coyly say 'no, stop' and they DO, you only have yourself to blame."

This is very close to what I actually taught my step-sons. I was adamant with them (20 years ago) that "no ALWAYS means no" and that if the girl said "no" at any point he was to get up instantly, zip up his pants, and leave. I told them that if the girl was being coy, she'd learn really quick to be honest and unambiguous with them instead.

 

[Derec]

"If you want it, and you coyly say 'no, stop' and they DO, you only have yourself to blame."

This is very close to what I actually taught my step-sons. I was adamant with them (20 years ago) that "no ALWAYS means no" and that if the girl said "no" at any point he was to get up instantly, zip up his pants, and leave. I told them that if the girl was being coy, she'd learn really quick to be honest and unambiguous with them instead.

Might be a good pragmatic idea in today's climate (pendulum has swung way too far and unfortunately still swinging that way) but that doesn't mean that failing to do so would make him a rapist deserving of an expulsion.

 

[RavenSky]

I'm nodding but that doesn't mean that I agree with you.

Oh trust me, I certainly don't think that Derec's general view toward women holds much water. But that doesn't mean that he is always incapable of having a valid point. I try very hard not to reject ideas based on the source. And in this case, while I think his approach is overblown, I think that there is some reason to question such a policy.

A significant amount of human interaction is nonverbal. The counter to Derec's position here has been to essentially ask if he has ever proceeded when a girl said No. That is, Has he ever violated the first scenario of "No means No". But that's not really a relevant question, in my opinion. It would be more appropriate to ask everyone in this thread:

How many of you have proceeded to a sexual encounter without a positive verbal affirmation?

That is, how many of you (us) have proceeded to an encounter without obtaining "Yes means Yes and anything else means No"? Because I certainly know that I have! Which under Ohio State's rules makes me liable for charges of rape.

- - - Updated - - -

that may be what Derec means, but that is not the op topic.

Certainly... but Rush Limbaugh is an idiot, so I don't suppose there'd be much of a discussion without Derec to liven it up

I suspect the real problem here is that we are hearing one misogynist's interpretation of another misogynist's blathering about law/policies neither of them understand.

You are assuming Limbaugh's claim that a verbal "yes" is required, whereas every version I've read in the original says "explicit" or something similar.

 

[Derec]

I suspect the real problem here is that we are hearing one misogynist's interpretation of another misogynist's blathering about law/policies neither of them understand.

If you mean me I think that's against forum rules.

You are assuming Limbaugh's claim that a verbal "yes" is required, whereas every version I've read in the original says "explicit" or something similar.

I do not see how that makes it any better.

My point is that the current policies (post Obama's 2011 decree) are bad enough and result in plenty of dodgy expulsions (Vassar, UGA, UND etc.) that we definitely do not need to make policies even stricter and thus increase the probability of expelling the innocent even more.

 

[Ford]

I would say in general that "no means no", certainly a firm no would. However, since girls are taught to play coy, playful demurring can be an invitation to proceed.

Blaming the victim.

It really depends on the level of drunkenness

No, it depends on consent. If one person does not consent it doesn't matter how drunk they were. Lack of consent = sexual assault.

This carefully constructed scenario is not at all what is happening in some of the cases that made in into news and resulted in (in my view wrongful) expulsions.

Ah. So only the cases that made it into your "He Man Woman Hater's Club" news feed matter. Gotcha.

That, campers, is sexual assault. But not according to El Rushbo and apparently not according to Derec.

I would say it either is or is coming very close to one.

Holy crap was that a concession? Nope. Here comes the qualifications...

However, the reality is that guys are being expelled for cases that are much weaker than this hypothetical one, and colleges keep making their policies more strict, which will no doubt result in even more innocent guys being expelled and their futures ruined.

Here's a crazy idea...if the policy is strictly no tolerance and "no means no," then the people who break the policy are responsible for their expulsion. I know...personal responsibility is a new concept, but maybe someday it will become a thing?

Any legal action will be "he said she said" unless she has any real evidence.

And you'll defer to the "he said" every time.

If Tiffany is black, then she'd be a "ho" guilty of making a false rape charge. Right, Derec?

It has nothing with her race. Except that it will make her a darling of progressives (see Duke Lacrosse).

Yes, we know that you think all rape cases are false because Duke Lacrosse.

 

[RavenSky]

Quote Originally Posted by Derec View Post
However, since girls are taught to play coy, playful demurring can be an invitation to proceed.

No Derec, it is not. Even if you refuse to accept that a "yes" is required, you'd better be VERY FUCKING CLEAR that "no" ALWAYS means "no" - proceeding in spite of a "no" is a sexual assault. There is absolutely ZERO ambiguity on that point.

I sincerely hope you haven't or aren't raising any children.

 

[Ford]

Quote Originally Posted by Derec View Post
However, since girls are taught to play coy, playful demurring can be an invitation to proceed.

No Derec, it is not.

You say that like you don't really mean it.

 

[Derec]

Blaming the victim.

No, not blaming the victim because in that scenario there is no victim. If there was an actual firm "no" and he proceeded she'd be a victim and nobody would be blaming her.

No, it depends on consent. If one person does not consent it doesn't matter how drunk they were. Lack of consent = sexual assault.

True of course. But at a certain level there is inability of consent. Some people, as well as increasingly college policies, want to set that level at any alcohol whatsoever. I.e. if a girl had any alcohol she is assumed to be incapable of consenting.

Ah. So only the cases that made it into your "He Man Woman Hater's Club" news feed matter. Gotcha.

No need to get insulting. The point is that non-controversial cases usually don't make the news. But these cases that did show the flaws of the policies colleges have been adopted (or were forced to adopt). Policies that reduce burden of proof and slash defendant's due process rights.

Holy crap was that a concession?

I have never held an opinion inconsistent with the fact that sometimes guys do take unlawful advantage of a very drunk girl. What I have a problem with, as I said, is that some posters here as well as some colleges believe that any level of drunkenness on a female fits that.

Here's a crazy idea...if the policy is strictly no tolerance and "no means no," then the people who break the policy are responsible for their expulsion. I know...personal responsibility is a new concept, but maybe someday it will become a thing?

This policy goes well beyond "no means no" as we have discussed. What happened if neither party gives "explicit unambiguous consent repeatedly at every step of the way". Are they both rapists?

And you'll defer to the "he said" every time.

If she is accused of taking advantage of him I will defer to "she said". In dubio pro reo. When in doubt for the accused. But that's just something some dead white men said and is thus considered irrelevant and passe on today's college campuses.

Yes, we know that you think all rape cases are false because Duke Lacrosse.

I did not say that. However, when there is no evidence there is no evidence and there should be no punishment, either criminal or college, for the accused. Believing that the accused must be guilty because of gender, racial or class prejudice (the "privileged white men" simply must be guilty of raping a "poor black woman") is wrong. That's a lesson the feminist Left has still not learned.

The real reason why Duke Lacrosse is such a poignant example is not simply that it was a false accusation (there are others, like Hofstra or Brian Banks) but the certitude with which the media (foremost Nancy Disgrace), academia (Group of 88 at Duke for example) and others believed in the Duke players' guilt and how long this certitude persisted as the case was unraveling.

 

[Derec]

No Derec, it is not. Even if you refuse to accept that a "yes" is required, you'd better be VERY FUCKING CLEAR that "no" ALWAYS means "no" - proceeding in spite of a "no" is a sexual assault. There is absolutely ZERO ambiguity on that point.

I guess according to you any sort of BDSM rape play is no different than actual rape.

There are almost always exceptions to any rule. That's why inflexible policies like this one do far more harm than good.
My point is not that people should be proceeding with sex when given a "no" for an answer but that I can conceive of cases where "no" doesn't mean "no" and thus the policy that doesn't have any wiggle room is wrong.

 

[Ford]

No, not blaming the victim because in that scenario there is no victim.

You are absolutely blaming the victim. A firm "no" means no, but if it is anything less than firm, you chalk it up to a woman being "coy" because she's been taught to be that way.


Who taught her to be that way, and why does that make rape okay, Derec?

 

[Derec]

Who taught her to be that way, and why does that make rape okay, Derec?

It doesn't make rape ok, but her playing coy doesn't, in itself, prove that there was a rape in the first place.

 

[Arctish]

However, since girls are taught to play coy, playful demurring can be an invitation to proceed.

Ah, so it is the woman's fault. Because they're taught that way.

It's not about fault. It's about the difference between a firm no and "playing hard to get" which Ohio (and others) ignore in their desire to standardize sexual interactions on campus into a tidy, simplistic, sparse matrix.

I think I see the problem. It appears demurring is being interpreted as an invitation to proceed when in reality it is an expression of reluctance and lack of consent.

If you invite someone to have sex with you and they demur, you should take that as a "no". If you really like him/her and think he/she might feel the same, you might consider the possibility that sex could still happen in the future once the two of you have an established relationship, but that's not an excuse to try to force the issue right now. No means no, whether it's said coyly, politely, rudely, or bluntly.

 

[Derec]

I think I see the problem. It appears demurring is being interpreted as an invitation to proceed when in reality it is an expression of reluctance and lack of consent.
If you invite someone to have sex with you and they demur, you should take that as a "no". If you really like him/her and think he/she might feel the same, you might consider the possibility that sex could still happen in the future once the two of you have an established relationship, but that's not an excuse to try to force the issue right now. No means no, whether it's said coyly, politely, rudely, or bluntly.

I do not think you quite do.
I think in 95 out of 100 cases you are absolutely correct. But I am reluctant to have an inflexible policy that doesn't take possible exceptions into account.
The whole interaction needs to be looked at, rather than one isolated aspect of it. Let's say she said "no" at first but later changed her mind and taken initiative by deed without being asked again and thus given an opportunity to say "yes"? That's sort of scenario I imagined by "playful demurring" and that would be consensual, but not as far as OSU is concerned.

 

[Ford]

Who taught her to be that way, and why does that make rape okay, Derec?

It doesn't make rape ok, but her playing coy doesn't, in itself, prove that there was a rape in the first place.

So in other words, you're saying that if the "no" wasn't firm, then she may have been "asking for it."

 

[Derec]

So in other words, you're saying that if the "no" wasn't firm, then she may have been "asking for it."

No and at this point you are purposely misunderstanding me.

 

[Arctish]

I think I see the problem. It appears demurring is being interpreted as an invitation to proceed when in reality it is an expression of reluctance and lack of consent.
If you invite someone to have sex with you and they demur, you should take that as a "no". If you really like him/her and think he/she might feel the same, you might consider the possibility that sex could still happen in the future once the two of you have an established relationship, but that's not an excuse to try to force the issue right now. No means no, whether it's said coyly, politely, rudely, or bluntly.

I do not think you quite do.
I think in 95 out of 100 cases you are absolutely correct. But I am reluctant to have an inflexible policy that doesn't take possible exceptions into account.
The whole interaction needs to be looked at, rather than one isolated aspect of it. Let's say she said "no" at first but later changed her mind and taken initiative by deed without being asked again and thus given an opportunity to say "yes"? That's sort of scenario I imagined by "playful demurring" and that would be consensual, but not as far as OSU is concerned.

But you wouldn't know she changed her mind unless and until you asked her. All you would know is that it looks like she changed her mind if you are reading her right. She might think the signals she's sending are crystal clear that she doesn't want sex but does want to get to know you better. If you initiate sexual contact under those circumstances it's sexual assault, and it's your mistake.

 

[barbos]

Conservative radio host Rush Limbaugh mocked The Ohio State University's new policy telling students to get clear, verbal consent before having sex. Limbaugh went on to ask guys "how many of you guys, in your own experience with women, have learned that no means yes if you know how to spot it?"


"Let me tell you something in this modern world — that is simply, that's not tolerated," Limbaugh continued. "People aren't going to try to understand that one. I mean it used to be a cliche. It used to be part of the advice young boys were given. See that's got to change. We have got to change the way we raise men."

Limbaugh then pivoted back to the OSU instructions and specifically that permission should be given every step of the way.

"Why do you think permission every step of the way — aren't these just lawsuits just waiting to happen if one of these steps are not taken," Limbaugh said.

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/rush-limbaugh-ohio-state-university-policy

This from a man with enough ex wives to start a basketball team. Reading women's signals ain't his strongsuit.

Well, it kinda proves his point. All his wifes meant "No" when they said "Yes" to his "Will you marry me"

 

[bilby]

I understand Derec's concern here.

If she says 'No', and she means 'No', but the guy misunderstands and goes ahead, then that is rape, which is really bad.

On the other hand, if she says 'No', and she means 'Yes', but the guy misunderstands and doesn't go ahead, then that means the guy missed out on an opportunity to have sex!!!

Obviously we need to act to prevent rape, but if this is at the cost of some guy not having lawful and consenting sex, when a genuine opportunity to do so was present (albeit without his being aware), then I think we can all see that that would be a terrible, terrible thing.

It's all about consequences.

 

[Ford]

So in other words, you're saying that if the "no" wasn't firm, then she may have been "asking for it."

No and at this point you are purposely misunderstanding me.

I'm fairly certain I understand you perfectly.



You have consistently portrayed men as victims, have never once defended a woman who accused a man of a crime, and use terms such as "womyn," "feminazis" and "radical femdom." You've never met a rape case you wouldn't declare to be fake, repeatedly post cases where you make the case that a man has been "wronged" by a woman, and are now defending the fucking idiot Rush Limbaugh and his idiot notion that no does not mean no.