No Means Yes If You Know How To Spot It

[RavenSky]

If they lie in the first instance they can just as well lie in the second instance. This rule will do nothing about real rapists but will catch many people who are not rapists into the dragnet just because the consent they were given wasn't "explicit" enough to satisfy some college apparatchik.

Moreover, drunk frat boys and their potential partners will also have a very clear guideline as to what constitutes "consent" as well.

Clear as mud more like.

I fully agree with you that anyone who is going to lie about a sexual encounter will still do so... they will simply have a more difficult time getting away with it.

No matter how much you insist otherwise, it is not at all difficult to obtain explicit consent - and frankly it is one hell of a lot sexier than some jackass pawing at you without a clue whether you even like what he is doing.

Making "explicit consent" the standard makes inexperienced non-rapist people more considerate lovers, and takes away the cover of of ambiguity from predators.

- - - Updated - - -

it is too much of a hoop to jump through to make sure you have consent? Seriously?

No, it's all the extra hoops added to basic consent that I am objecting to.

There are no "extra hoops" to clear, unambiguous consent

 

[Arctish]

It's not. The contention is "consent" being linked to an increasing number of hoops to jump through.

- - - Updated - - -

"Express consent" means it must be written or verbal.

"Explicit consent" means it must be clear and unambiguous.

And how do you get "unambiguous" without using words?

Vigorous nodding comes to mind.

 

[ZiprHead]

No, it's all the extra hoops added to basic consent that I am objecting to.

If these are now "extra hoops" to you then you were doing it wrong before.

 

[Arctish]

Because consent should be the only thing that matters as far as rules are concerned.

Genuine consent, yes.

Kinda, sorta, might have had too much to drink and/or been under the influence of drugs, s/he didn't say "no" consent, also yes, that's something that matters as far as rules are concerned.

Threatened to ruin his/her life, stalk him/her relentlessly, tell everyone s/he was a lying whore who takes tennis racquets up the exit ramp, definitely yes. The circumstances under which consent was gained always matter.

How enthusiastic must consent be in your view to not qualify as rape? How would you even measure that?
How sober must consent be in your view to not qualify as rape? Should all college girls be equipped with mandatory breathalyzer triggered chastity belts?

Well, all kidding aside, if anyone was going to be required to wear a chastity belt on campus it should be the ones most likely to rape their fellow students. Anything else would be stupid.

having sex on an airplane.

Is that the next thing the <snip> want to make into rape?

It's one of those rules that can get you expelled, but fortunately breaking it is entirely avoidable.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

That seems like a more reasonable way to go. Some form of positive consent is important, but permission at every stage is just unworkable. I don't think anyone disagrees with no being a deal-breaker, no matter at what stage it appears.

Derec has argued that "no" is not a deal-breaker, it's just a yellow flag that means keep on doing what you're doing to get your target potential partner into bed, just be patient and a bit more subtle. He has also argued that when a girl says "no" she's often being "playful" and "coy", so it should never be taken as a sign it's time for a guy to go home alone.

I'm certainly not arguing that he should keep on doing whatever caused the no and I don't think Derec is, either.

What we are saying is that the reality of the dating scene is that "no" in the context of a date means "not now" and that's how it should be interpreted. One should most certainly back off but that does not mean that it's a permanent state.

If we are talking a hook-up type situation it might mean try again in an hour. If we are talking fundies it might mean try again in a month.

- - - Updated - - -

I don't understand why you can't avoid breaking a rule about having affirmative, enthusiastic, sober consent to sex when the overwhelming majority of people find obeying that rule is easy.

I suppose if your modus operandi is to get drunk and screw other drunks, then it would definitely present an obstacle to having the kind of sex life you enjoy, but saying that breaking the rule is unavoidable is hyperbole. It's no more unavoidable than breaking the rule about having sex with 12 year olds or having sex on an airplane.

It's completely incompatible with the bar scene.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

If they lie in the first instance they can just as well lie in the second instance. This rule will do nothing about real rapists but will catch many people who are not rapists into the dragnet just because the consent they were given wasn't "explicit" enough to satisfy some college apparatchik.

I don't think this is going to be a big factor because generally there will be no record of the consent in the first place. All it does is make it easier for her to make a false accusation. The cases that make the news are the outliers, not the average cases, most of the time there will be no evidence to clear him.

 

[Arctish]

Derec has argued that "no" is not a deal-breaker, it's just a yellow flag that means keep on doing what you're doing to get your target potential partner into bed, just be patient and a bit more subtle. He has also argued that when a girl says "no" she's often being "playful" and "coy", so it should never be taken as a sign it's time for a guy to go home alone.

I'm certainly not arguing that he should keep on doing whatever caused the no and I don't think Derec is, either.

What we are saying is that the reality of the dating scene is that "no" in the context of a date means "not now" and that's how it should be interpreted. One should most certainly back off but that does not mean that it's a permanent state.

If we are talking a hook-up type situation it might mean try again in an hour. If we are talking fundies it might mean try again in a month.

No one has been arguing that a "no" is meant to mean now and forever. But some folks here have been arguing that it should not be taken seriously since the one saying it might have been playfully demurring or was merely being coy. And two posters in particular have been arguing in favor of maintaining ambiguity, or "wiggle room", despite the fact that uncertainty about matters of consent is exactly the sort of thing that enables sexual predators to go about their predatory ways and lands clueless students in front of disciplinary boards.

I don't understand why you can't avoid breaking a rule about having affirmative, enthusiastic, sober consent to sex when the overwhelming majority of people find obeying that rule is easy.

I suppose if your modus operandi is to get drunk and screw other drunks, then it would definitely present an obstacle to having the kind of sex life you enjoy, but saying that breaking the rule is unavoidable is hyperbole. It's no more unavoidable than breaking the rule about having sex with 12 year olds or having sex on an airplane.

It's completely incompatible with the bar scene.

We're talking about rules for the college scene.

 

[Jokodo]

If they lie in the first instance they can just as well lie in the second instance. This rule will do nothing about real rapists but will catch many people who are not rapists into the dragnet just because the consent they were given wasn't "explicit" enough to satisfy some college apparatchik. <snip>

It will catch people who have no intention to rape anybody but are careless enough to risk doing so inadvertently (or, ideally, it will teach them to be more careful). How's that a bad thing?

 

[Togo]

Well, maybe you should have tried to understand what I was saying? The point is not that one is more important than the other. The point is that a rule that interferes with people's lives in this way isn't going to be followed. If we spend time and effort pushing a rule that isn't going to be followed, you displace activity that could actually be having a positive effect. So an ineffectual rule actually increases the rape rate.

It comes down to whether you're trying to work out the theoretical best rule to follow, or to achieve something practical.

How on earth does it "interfere" with anyone's life to make certain they have clear unambiguous consent before they fuck someone?

That would indeed be a far better standard than the one that was proposed, which was gaining explicit permission before each stage of intimacy. If you want to shift your position to getting clearing unambiguous consent, then I'd be happy to support that.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

How many intimate encounters on a college campus are going to really be effected by these rules? Just food for thought.

 

[RavenSky]

How on earth does it "interfere" with anyone's life to make certain they have clear unambiguous consent before they fuck someone?

That would indeed be a far better standard than the one that was proposed, which was gaining explicit permission before each stage of intimacy. If you want to shift your position to getting clearing unambiguous consent, then I'd be happy to support that.

. It is the same damned thing.

Explicit:

: 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"

(In case anyone hasn't noticed, I am rapidly losing patience with people who advocate for allowing sex without clear unambiguous consent because they insist on ignoring the definition of "explicit" )

 

[Rhea]

No, it's all the extra hoops added to basic consent that I am objecting to.

If these are now "extra hoops" to you then you were doing it wrong before.

^^ The WHOLE POINT of the rule. They didn't know they were doing it wrong before. They are EXACTLY the ones that need the rule. Because a whole ton of people over the years already knew this was the right way to do it and are utterly unaffected by this rule change at colleges.

The _ONLY_ people affected by this rule-change are the people who thought it was okay to fuck someone without actually knowing for certain that they want it.

Inconveniencing their efforts is exactly what I'd want to do. Stop and think. Even carpenters know that; "measure twice, cut once, because you can't undo a cut."

 

[Loren Pechtel]

If these are now "extra hoops" to you then you were doing it wrong before.

^^ The WHOLE POINT of the rule. They didn't know they were doing it wrong before. They are EXACTLY the ones that need the rule. Because a whole ton of people over the years already knew this was the right way to do it and are utterly unaffected by this rule change at colleges.

The _ONLY_ people affected by this rule-change are the people who thought it was okay to fuck someone without actually knowing for certain that they want it.

Inconveniencing their efforts is exactly what I'd want to do. Stop and think. Even carpenters know that; "measure twice, cut once, because you can't undo a cut."

The whole point of this is to increase the number of men punished, not about justice. It's the same problem as with anti-discrimination measures that are based on "results" rather than the situation.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

^^ The WHOLE POINT of the rule. They didn't know they were doing it wrong before. They are EXACTLY the ones that need the rule. Because a whole ton of people over the years already knew this was the right way to do it and are utterly unaffected by this rule change at colleges.

The _ONLY_ people affected by this rule-change are the people who thought it was okay to fuck someone without actually knowing for certain that they want it.

Inconveniencing their efforts is exactly what I'd want to do. Stop and think. Even carpenters know that; "measure twice, cut once, because you can't undo a cut."

The whole point of this is to increase the number of men punished, not about justice.

What?!?!

It's the same problem as with anti-discrimination measures that are based on "results" rather than the situation.

Oh brother.

 

[RavenSky]

^^ The WHOLE POINT of the rule. They didn't know they were doing it wrong before. They are EXACTLY the ones that need the rule. Because a whole ton of people over the years already knew this was the right way to do it and are utterly unaffected by this rule change at colleges.

The _ONLY_ people affected by this rule-change are the people who thought it was okay to fuck someone without actually knowing for certain that they want it.

Inconveniencing their efforts is exactly what I'd want to do. Stop and think. Even carpenters know that; "measure twice, cut once, because you can't undo a cut."

The whole point of this is to increase the number of men punished, not about justice. It's the same problem as with anti-discrimination measures that are based on "results" rather than the situation.

Oh bullshit

 

[Bronzeage]

^^ The WHOLE POINT of the rule. They didn't know they were doing it wrong before. They are EXACTLY the ones that need the rule. Because a whole ton of people over the years already knew this was the right way to do it and are utterly unaffected by this rule change at colleges.

The _ONLY_ people affected by this rule-change are the people who thought it was okay to fuck someone without actually knowing for certain that they want it.

Inconveniencing their efforts is exactly what I'd want to do. Stop and think. Even carpenters know that; "measure twice, cut once, because you can't undo a cut."

The whole point of this is to increase the number of men punished, not about justice. It's the same problem as with anti-discrimination measures that are based on "results" rather than the situation.

This would be a rational thing to say, if you believed there are no unreported rapes. The point of laws which prescribe punishment for particular actions are intended to decrease the occurrence of the action, not simply increase the number of persons convicted of the crime.

Is it really that hard to understand?

 

[Rhea]

Inconveniencing their efforts is exactly what I'd want to do. Stop and think. Even carpenters know that; "measure twice, cut once, because you can't undo a cut."

The whole point of this is to increase the number of men punished, not about justice. It's the same problem as with anti-discrimination measures that are based on "results" rather than the situation.

Seriously? This is what you actually think they were planning? They went into a room and asked each other, "how can we increase the number of men being punished? We don't want justice - we want to punish men. How can we do that, people? Come on, ideas now!"


This is how your brain thinks?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

The whole point of this is to increase the number of men punished, not about justice. It's the same problem as with anti-discrimination measures that are based on "results" rather than the situation.

This would be a rational thing to say, if you believed there are no unreported rapes. The point of laws which prescribe punishment for particular actions are intended to decrease the occurrence of the action, not simply increase the number of persons convicted of the crime.

Is it really that hard to understand?

Sure there are unreported rapes. This has nothing to do with that. Making it easier to ruin his life doesn't make her more willing to report. All it does it encourage revenge "reports".

- - - Updated - - -

The whole point of this is to increase the number of men punished, not about justice. It's the same problem as with anti-discrimination measures that are based on "results" rather than the situation.

Seriously? This is what you actually think they were planning? They went into a room and asked each other, "how can we increase the number of men being punished? We don't want justice - we want to punish men. How can we do that, people? Come on, ideas now!"


This is how your brain thinks?

Because this is far more about injustice than justice. The only "benefit" is the political gain of doing something about rape.

 

[RavenSky]

Sure there are unreported rapes. This has nothing to do with that. Making it easier to ruin his life doesn't make her more willing to report. All it does it encourage revenge "reports".

The whole point of this is to increase the number of men punished, not about justice. It's the same problem as with anti-discrimination measures that are based on "results" rather than the situation.

Because this is far more about injustice than justice. The only "benefit" is the political gain of doing something about rape.

Loren, your comments above have to be the most irrational ridiculous set of statements I have ever read on this board... in any of its incarnations.

You seriously believe that an expectation of sex being mutually consensual is really a plot to punish men.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

The whole point of this is to increase the number of men punished, not about justice. It's the same problem as with anti-discrimination measures that are based on "results" rather than the situation.

Because this is far more about injustice than justice. The only "benefit" is the political gain of doing something about rape.

Loren, your comments above have to be the most irrational ridiculous set of statements I have ever read on this board... in any of its incarnations.

You seriously believe that an expectation of sex being mutually consensual is really a plot to punish men.

If sex isn't consensual it's already rape. This doesn't change that. All it does it mandate kangaroo courts.