No Means Yes If You Know How To Spot It

[Jokodo]

so your argument is that a woman bold enough to get naked and in a man's bed and a man who is attracted her, so much so he is miserable without her, neither of these people can simply say to the other, "I like you and I want to make with you."

That's something that actually happened. Neither of them did say that to the other. I had to pick the pieces. University relationships are often full of drama.

What I'm concerned about is that the course of their lives was changed because of an arbitrary rule that this guy was taught, and that they could have been happy together. <snip>

That maybe so in this particular instance, but that doesn't change the more general fact that, second to asking, leaving was the best possible course of action given that he was unsure of what she wanted. Proceeding without that knowledge intrinsically carries a risk of inadvertently assaulting the other person.

 

[Jokodo]

if you do not have their explicit permission, it is against their will.

How? Two people want to have sex with each other, so their will is to have sex. They do not give explicit permission. Will=/explicit permission.

I really need you to explain why it is that will can only exist if it is expressed explicitly, because that makes no sense to me. <snip>

Will can exist without being explicitly expressed - but as you're outside the other person's had, you don't know that it does. I guess that's why nobody requires explicit consent for masturbation.

 

[Perspicuo]

Something which was not brought up in this discussion is what could contribute to a male being confused as to whether "she wants it". IMO (mind you it is only an opinion), many males have a need for instant gratification which may very well impair their ability to apply an objective interpretation of their female partner's verbal and body language communications. The need for instant gratification triggering a subjectively induced interpretation, one leaning towards the fulfillment of his need.

Other influential factor being how different female sexuality is from male sexuality. Most males having a 100% guarantee that they will experience an orgasm during intercourse. Which is of course not the case for many females. Females who will need efforts on the part of their partner to insure she will experience pleasure. Of course in casual sexual encounters, there is a high potential for those efforts to not be part of the male's willingness to. Usually, long term partners are far more familiar with each other and mutual will to please each other is part of the entire package for a mutually satisfying romantic and functional relationship. There is usually no confusion as to whether they are both mutually consenting to sexual intimacy while they work together to make it pleasurable for both. Of course there are always exceptions, but generally both partners expect the mutual willingness to please each other rather than one partner focused on instant gratification and becoming dismissive of the verbal and body language of their partner.

IMO males who are not driven by instant gratification but are part of the delayed gratification group are going to be far more alert to a female partner's body and verbal language. She would not need to repeat "yes" at every step or give a "firm no" for him to pursue or disengage. He will also not assume that because she is willing to make out with him and engage in petting , it can only mean she wants to have intercourse. Delayed gratification males enjoy very much leaving it at making out and petting rather than engage in intercourse.

The problem is making workable criteria that will convince a jury.

I remember today or yesterday I read a comment on an article about this and they said, "Then we'll have to carry a pen and paper, how romantic!". Well, if necesary, yes. You already have to use a condom, and that doesn't delight the masses. Some people blame women for not covering their asses by drinking and partying like any other--men should start to cover their asses even if it takes a pen and paper. I know it sounds unworkable (it really does take the excitement out of any kinky situation) but if that's what it takes...

 

[Jokodo]

I am willing to agree that Emily's anecdote could be interpreted as either explicit or implicit, mainly because the dictionary definitions of "implicit" are ambiguous - most using the word "implied" to define "implicit"

But in every definition of implied consent, there is an assumption of consent. That assumption could be accurate or it could be inaccurate. If it is accurate, no harm-no foul. If it is inaccurate, someone was raped and someone is a rapist.

It is to avoid the inaccurate assumption of consent that universities are setting the bar at "explicit consent".

Why would anyone think that a mistaken assumption that results in rape be the better option to simply getting explicit consent?

People settle for implied consent because it is sufficient.

If you are conflating implicit consent with assumed consent then a further distinction in terms needs to be made. Implicit consent includes non-verbal communications which affirmatively communicate desire for sex without being explicit by any of the definitions of explicit found in this thread. <snip>

By the definition found just a few posts above yours, any communication, verbal or non-verbal, that "affirmatively communicates desire for sex" in such away as to exclude misinterpretations is explicit:

"ex·plic·it adjective \ik-ˈspli-sət\
: very clear and complete : leaving no doubt about the meaning
: openly shown
:* fully revealed or expressed without vagueness, implication, or ambiguity :* leaving no question as to meaning or intent"

 

[Togo]

Against their will? No? Without their explicit permission?

If you have sex with someone without their explicit permission, you don't know whether you're doing it against their will or not. This is all the more pertinent if we're talking about casual hook-ups with people you hardly know. (And, no, explicit doesn't have to mean verbal.)

If you have sex with someone with their explicit permission, you don't know whether you're doing it against their will or not. Particularly if they're drunk, confused, intimidated, easily influenced, or what have you. If the actual standard you want is being certain that it's not against their will, then use that as your standard. What's the point in promoting a standard when you don't believe that is what matters?

 

[Togo]

That's something that actually happened. Neither of them did say that to the other. I had to pick the pieces. University relationships are often full of drama.

What I'm concerned about is that the course of their lives was changed because of an arbitrary rule that this guy was taught, and that they could have been happy together. <snip>

That maybe so in this particular instance, but that doesn't change the more general fact that, second to asking, leaving was the best possible course of action given that he was unsure of what she wanted. Proceeding without that knowledge intrinsically carries a risk of inadvertently assaulting the other person.

Don't agree.

No one is suggesting that the only alternative to leaving was just starting to have sex with her and see if he got slapped. But there's a lot they could have done to sort things out, between them, in that room, if he hadn't been trying to avoid looking at the naked girl in his bed. Sitting next to her would have been a start. Holding her hand would have been a start. Yes, it's possible that she would have felt uncomfortable with him joining her sitting on his own bed, and it's possible that she wouldn't have wanted to hold his hand. According to the proposals, that would have been sexual assault, because he wouldn't have prior explicit permission to advance to that level of intimacy, he only had the clue that she was naked in his bed. But it think it would have better for both of them.

 

[Rhea]

Oh please! It's the nice guys who always get rejected by women and are ridiculed as "entitled" (by the more fortunate in the dating/hookup game) when they get upset by the repeated rejections. .

This right here. This is bullshit. "The nice guys" get plenty of acceptance by women.
This is just blaming and avoiding any effort to do something different to get acceptance. It's not your "niceness" that gets you or anyone rejected. Just - bullshit.

 

[Rhea]

so your argument is that a woman bold enough to get naked and in a man's bed and a man who is attracted her, so much so he is miserable without her, neither of these people can simply say to the other, "I like you and I want to make with you."

That's something that actually happened. Neither of them did say that to the other. I had to pick the pieces. University relationships are often full of drama.

What I'm concerned about is that the course of their lives was changed because of an arbitrary rule that this guy was taught, and that they could have been happy together.

Whereas no one ever has to pick up the pieces of a woman's life after she gets forced into sex by a guy who "reasonably (in his eyes) thought she meant yes". And that's not even up to the level of "drama". And the course of her life, and possibly his, is not changed forever?


I'm definitely in the camp that lives changed forever by NOT having sex is not as much of a social issue as lives changes by HAVING sex when one of the parties never wanted it in the first place.


I am surprised that drama-filled university lives are more important to you than preventing rapes by people who think it's okay to proceed without consent.

Surprised and more than a little saddened.

 

[Malintent]

Against their will? No? Without their explicit permission?

If you have sex with someone without their explicit permission, you don't know whether you're doing it against their will or not. This is all the more pertinent if we're talking about casual hook-ups with people you hardly know. (And, no, explicit doesn't have to mean verbal.)

when they pull their own clothes off, they have provided their explicit permission.. but this is not what the law is saying.. it is saying that a verbal que is needed... which is what is bullshit.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

Oh please! It's the nice guys who always get rejected by women and are ridiculed as "entitled" (by the more fortunate in the dating/hookup game) when they get upset by the repeated rejections. .

I think you have it backwards. It isnt nice guys that get rejected. It is rejected guys wjo act nice. Women are just as shallow as men and want the hot guys, who can then get away with being not nice. Same is true of hot women.

 

[Rhea]

If you have sex with someone without their explicit permission, you don't know whether you're doing it against their will or not. This is all the more pertinent if we're talking about casual hook-ups with people you hardly know. (And, no, explicit doesn't have to mean verbal.)

when they pull their own clothes off, they have provided their explicit permission.. but this is not what the law is saying.. it is saying that a verbal que is needed... which is what is bullshit.

Can you quote the part where it requires a verbal cue? Because I thought it had already been established that it does not say that.

 

[Derec]

Can you quote the part where it requires a verbal cue? Because I thought it had already been established that it does not say that.

Given the definition of "explicit" I do not see how you can have explicit consent without "verbal cues".

 

[Derec]

Boasting about your car is legal. Selling it under false pretenses is illegal. Revealing true but embarrassing facts about someone is legal. Blackmailing them by threatening to reveal those facts is illegal. Are you declaring those legal standards insane too?

Blackmail is illegal. Getting sex by means of blackmail is thus likewise illegal.
Threatening to break up if something doesn't change in a relationship is legal. Threatening to break up if she doesn't sleep with you is thus likewise legal.
Except in the eyes of feminists like the Ms. Magazine editors in their "study" that found that one in four college girls get raped. Not a surprise if they define much consensual sex as "rapes".

 

[Jarhyn]

Oh please! It's the nice guys who always get rejected by women and are ridiculed as "entitled" (by the more fortunate in the dating/hookup game) when they get upset by the repeated rejections. .

This right here. This is bullshit. "The nice guys" get plenty of acceptance by women.
This is just blaming and avoiding any effort to do something different to get acceptance. It's not your "niceness" that gets you or anyone rejected. Just - bullshit.

I've met a lot of 'nice guys'. Well over half turned out to be gay. The other half are generally bi, or just MSM, meaning they are straight, but have sex with men because their sexual goals are more in line with the person's own. <edited>

 

[Playball40]

If you have sex with someone without their explicit permission, you don't know whether you're doing it against their will or not. This is all the more pertinent if we're talking about casual hook-ups with people you hardly know. (And, no, explicit doesn't have to mean verbal.)

when they pull their own clothes off, they have provided their explicit permission.. but this is not what the law is saying.. it is saying that a verbal que is needed... which is what is bullshit.

Taking ones clothes off is providing "explicit permission"? So, if she changes her mind, it doesn't matter because she took her clothes off?

 

[Bronzeage]

Boasting about your car is legal. Selling it under false pretenses is illegal. Revealing true but embarrassing facts about someone is legal. Blackmailing them by threatening to reveal those facts is illegal. Are you declaring those legal standards insane too?

Blackmail is illegal. Getting sex by means of blackmail is thus likewise illegal.
Threatening to break up if something doesn't change in a relationship is legal. Threatening to break up if she doesn't sleep with you is thus likewise legal.
Except in the eyes of feminists like the Ms. Magazine editors in their "study" that found that one in four college girls get raped. Not a surprise if they define much consensual sex as "rapes".

Consider this: A woman claims she was coerced into having sex with a man, when she would have preferred to not. She did not report this to the police or cause any trouble for the man. She may not have said a word to anyone at the time.

Later, she is asked if such a thing has ever happened. What might her motive be to construe consensual sex as a type of rape? She does not intend to involve the man, so it can't be revenge. Why, then?

Is there a rational explanation for this behavior?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Clemson started a Title IX reeducation camp that asks student intrusive questions about their sex lives and drinking habits.
Clemson University Requires Students to Disclose Number of Sexual Partners or Face Disciplinary Action

This whole thing, kicked off by the Obama administration in 2011, is getting more and more out of control.

Was this anonymous?

That was a class, not a survey.

 

[Rhea]

This right here. This is bullshit. "The nice guys" get plenty of acceptance by women.
This is just blaming and avoiding any effort to do something different to get acceptance. It's not your "niceness" that gets you or anyone rejected. Just - bullshit.

I've met a lot of 'nice guys'. Well over half turned out to be gay. The other half are generally bi, or just MSM, meaning they are straight, but have sex with men because their sexual goals are more in line with the person's own.

I think you just said that not a single straight guy that you have met is "nice."

 

[Emily Lake]

If I may be so bold as to quote an old sitcom: "If you say 'no' when you mean 'yes,' what do you say when you mean 'no'?"

Even if women do mean yes when they say no, any decent man will take the "no" at face value because the consequences of guessing wrong are pretty severe.

Of course one should not take the "no" as "yes". The problem is that very often it means "not yet"--thus the proper reaction is to back off for now and see how things develop. If her answer were truly "no <period>" why doesn't she leave?

Or, as my best friend tells her child... "Use your words"

 

[Jarhyn]

I've met a lot of 'nice guys'. Well over half turned out to be gay. The other half are generally bi, or just MSM, meaning they are straight, but have sex with men because their sexual goals are more in line with the person's own.

I think you just said that not a single straight guy that you have met is "nice."

Notice I use 'nice guys'. As in men who become unfortunately dependent on validation from girls who don't feel attraction to dependent guys, and then crush on women that don't want to be with them that way. Romance and sex don't have to both come with the same person.

Also, notice that bit about MSM in there. They really aren't gay. But sometimes sex with a guy is better than not having sex.