No Means Yes If You Know How To Spot It

[Loren Pechtel]

Even if they did follow it it wouldn't help much--a rapist isn't going to follow it and the number of cases we see where he thought she meant yes but she actually meant no but didn't resist is quite low. It's a big effort on a tiny sliver of the problem which will detract from attempting to solve the real problem.

getting consent is too much of a problem to prevent even a few rapes? So do tell, Loren... what is "the real problem"?

1) Forceful rape.

2) Drunken/drugged rape.

Both are far bigger issues than this--but doing something about them would mean actually doing something, not merely passing bullshit rules.

This is a way to pretend to be doing something useful to deflect the blame from not doing something about the real issues.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Which is lovely, but largely beside the point. There are three parts to the standard:
1) explicit permission
2) Gained in advance
3) At each stage

Emily's examples covers 2, maybe, but not the rest. The fact that it is explicit does not make it explicit permission for a particular stage.

. It was explicit. Emily herself said so, and she was the person involved. It was gained in advance. It was the FIRST stage. Emily didn't discuss what happened after that. I don't know Emily or her husband, but I'm willing to make a bet that neither of them did anything to the other without having consent first. Even long married couples, if they have a healthy relationship, are constantly verifying that the other person is enjoying every stage of "sexy time" because that is exactly what makes it sexy. Even long married couples do not spring something new on their partner without some sort of explicit communication to be sure it is consented to.

While I do agree with the don't-spring-something-new part of this it depends on the dynamic of the couple whether there's any need to check whether their partner is enjoying it. I can normally sense how she's reacting and if I'm off target she will tell me, to keep asking would be a negative, not a positive.

- - - Updated - - -

Of course they do, which makes it a far better standard that the one you're defending, which isn't on-going consent.

Emily standard:
1) On-going consent

Proposed Standard:
1) explicit permission
2) Gained in advance
3) At each stage

See how the two are, in fact, not the same at all?

No, I don't see any difference at all

So you fully acknowledge that consent needs to be "on-going". How does that differ from "at each stage"? In, fact, since you and Loren like to pretend the "at each stage" part is too onerous, changing the word to "on-going" should make it even worse in your opinions.

At each stage: Emily's husband says "sexy time" to which Emily replies "sexy" and follows him up the stairs. Once upstairs, he says "hey, I'd love to try XYZ, what do you think?"...

On-going: Emily's husband says "sexy time" to which Emily replies "sexy" and takes one step up the stairs. She then verifies, "still sexy time?" and he says "sexy". They each take one more step up the stairs, then he verifies "still sexy time?" & she replies in the affirmative....

No, I am not the one suggesting that "on-going consent" is really that absurd. I am just doing to this phrase what you and Loren have attempted to do to the phrase "at each stage" to show you how utterly ridiculous your objection really is.

"Gained in advance" - what do you suggest as an alternative? He fuck her up the ass, THEN ask permission? Of course mutual consent has to be in advance because afterwards isn't "consent".

The problem is that your "absurd" is what this is calling for.

 

[Arctish]

getting consent is too much of a problem to prevent even a few rapes? So do tell, Loren... what is "the real problem"?

1) Forceful rape.

2) Drunken/drugged rape.

Both are far bigger issues than this--but doing something about them would mean actually doing something, not merely passing bullshit rules.

This is a way to pretend to be doing something useful to deflect the blame from not doing something about the real issues.

All of the policies cited in this thread deal with drunken/drugged rape. They draw a line between consent and non-consent that even stupid, self-absorbed, ignorant, clueless, drunken, hormone-driven teenagers can remember. They help student avoid becoming rapists by letting them know
1) there's a line and
2) which side of it they want to be on if they don't want to become rapists.

This is not an attack against men, or an attempt to punish innocents. These policies are in place to protect the entire student body and to help students avoid committing acts of sexual misconduct.

 

[RavenSky]

getting consent is too much of a problem to prevent even a few rapes? So do tell, Loren... what is "the real problem"?

1) Forceful rape.

2) Drunken/drugged rape.

Both are far bigger issues than this--but doing something about them would mean actually doing something, not merely passing bullshit rules.

This is a way to pretend to be doing something useful to deflect the blame from not doing something about the real issues.

Do you understand that this policy will help reduce both of those, too? Especially the drunken/drugged type, but even the typical date rape forceful type.

Most predators know exactly what they are doing, in my opinion, but when they don't get to hide behind claims of "implied consent" or (worse) "she was acting coy but really meant yes" and "well she didn't say no" - then maybe those predators will think twice. And if they don't, punishment will be easier because the standards will be more clear-cut.

- - - Updated - - -

. It was explicit. Emily herself said so, and she was the person involved. It was gained in advance. It was the FIRST stage. Emily didn't discuss what happened after that. I don't know Emily or her husband, but I'm willing to make a bet that neither of them did anything to the other without having consent first. Even long married couples, if they have a healthy relationship, are constantly verifying that the other person is enjoying every stage of "sexy time" because that is exactly what makes it sexy. Even long married couples do not spring something new on their partner without some sort of explicit communication to be sure it is consented to.

While I do agree with the don't-spring-something-new part of this it depends on the dynamic of the couple whether there's any need to check whether their partner is enjoying it. I can normally sense how she's reacting and if I'm off target she will tell me, to keep asking would be a negative, not a positive.

I'm assuming you've known her for more than a week?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

1) Forceful rape.

2) Drunken/drugged rape.

Both are far bigger issues than this--but doing something about them would mean actually doing something, not merely passing bullshit rules.

This is a way to pretend to be doing something useful to deflect the blame from not doing something about the real issues.

Do you understand that this policy will help reduce both of those, too? Especially the drunken/drugged type, but even the typical date rape forceful type.

Most predators know exactly what they are doing, in my opinion, but when they don't get to hide behind claims of "implied consent" or (worse) "she was acting coy but really meant yes" and "well she didn't say no" - then maybe those predators will think twice. And if they don't, punishment will be easier because the standards will be more clear-cut.

As you say, the predators know what they are doing. It's not misunderstandings, thus rules aimed at avoiding misunderstandings won't do a thing about them.

. It was explicit. Emily herself said so, and she was the person involved. It was gained in advance. It was the FIRST stage. Emily didn't discuss what happened after that. I don't know Emily or her husband, but I'm willing to make a bet that neither of them did anything to the other without having consent first. Even long married couples, if they have a healthy relationship, are constantly verifying that the other person is enjoying every stage of "sexy time" because that is exactly what makes it sexy. Even long married couples do not spring something new on their partner without some sort of explicit communication to be sure it is consented to.

While I do agree with the don't-spring-something-new part of this it depends on the dynamic of the couple whether there's any need to check whether their partner is enjoying it. I can normally sense how she's reacting and if I'm off target she will tell me, to keep asking would be a negative, not a positive.

I'm assuming you've known her for more than a week?

We've been married over a quarter century.

 

[spikepipsqueak]

Do you understand that this policy will help reduce both of those, too? Especially the drunken/drugged type, but even the typical date rape forceful type.

Most predators know exactly what they are doing, in my opinion, but when they don't get to hide behind claims of "implied consent" or (worse) "she was acting coy but really meant yes" and "well she didn't say no" - then maybe those predators will think twice. And if they don't, punishment will be easier because the standards will be more clear-cut.

As you say, the predators know what they are doing. It's not misunderstandings, thus rules aimed at avoiding misunderstandings won't do a thing about them.

No. But it will stop the predators who know what they are doing from claiming it was a misunderstanding. Which is RavenSky's point.

 

[RavenSky]

Do you understand that this policy will help reduce both of those, too? Especially the drunken/drugged type, but even the typical date rape forceful type.

Most predators know exactly what they are doing, in my opinion, but when they don't get to hide behind claims of "implied consent" or (worse) "she was acting coy but really meant yes" and "well she didn't say no" - then maybe those predators will think twice. And if they don't, punishment will be easier because the standards will be more clear-cut.

As you say, the predators know what they are doing. It's not misunderstandings, thus rules aimed at avoiding misunderstandings won't do a thing about them.

Did you read what I actually wrote in full? The policies will eliminate the ability of predators to hide behind the excuse of "misunderstanding".

 

[purple_kathryn]

It still comes across as quite a few on this board would rather risk raping someone than risk not having sex.

Which is rather disturbing.

It's too much effort to have a conversation with a potential sexual partner?

 

[AthenaAwakened]

It still comes across as quite a few on this board would rather risk raping someone than risk not having sex.

Which is rather disturbing.

It's too much effort to have a conversation with a potential sexual partner?

That does seem to be trend. And yes it is disturbing.

 

[Rhea]

It still comes across as quite a few on this board would rather risk raping someone than risk not having sex.

Which is rather disturbing.

It's too much effort to have a conversation with a potential sexual partner?

And it is that attitude right there for which these careful rules were written. To take away the perceived permission they feel they are entitled to by making it crystal clear in writing that no one buys their premise.

 

[bigfield]

Do you understand that this policy will help reduce both of those, too? Especially the drunken/drugged type, but even the typical date rape forceful type.

Most predators know exactly what they are doing, in my opinion, but when they don't get to hide behind claims of "implied consent" or (worse) "she was acting coy but really meant yes" and "well she didn't say no" - then maybe those predators will think twice. And if they don't, punishment will be easier because the standards will be more clear-cut.

As you say, the predators know what they are doing. It's not misunderstandings, thus rules aimed at avoiding misunderstandings won't do a thing about them.

The predators will need to fabricate details in order to defend themselves, as the "she didn't say no" defence will no longer work.

For example, they will have to change their defence to "she was really into it" and pray that there is no evidence contradicting their lie.

 

[Jarhyn]

Let's look at this from a different perspective... There are a few different things (and I will not accept that they are all 'rape' insofar as the connotations of 'RAPE' don't actually apply in all situations).

Person A gets sexually assaulted at gunpoint. As a result, sex has been associated with a traumatic experience. They have sexually-triggered PTSD as a result of this. This is pretty much one of the worst things you can do, robbing someone of their ability to enjoy something awesome. It's evil as fuck and the REASON that rape laws exist to proscribe such behavior.

Person B gets drunk at a frat party and because they are drunk, say YES. They regret this the next day. They have no trauma. They have lost nothing except some self esteem for doing something they choose to accept as 'foolish' after choosing to be a fool.

Person C goes to the same party, and gets black-out drunk. They wake up the next morning surrounded by half the people that went there, naked, and sore in the tender bits. The next day video surfaces which shows that they were pressured into it by drunken arguments, and there was even a 'no' involved. The guys did something bad, but again the shame is the result, not of the sex, but of the 'slut shaming' and the laws that say 'this was rape' and the culture that says 'feel traumatized because you were raped'. Sex was neither necessary nor sufficient in and of itself to invoke the trauma of situation A.

So what appears to be the case is that making rape it's own crime, special and apart from, and even in the absence of 'willfully or ignorantly induced trauma' laws (the general case which rape laws are intended to address and prevent/punish/correct) we turn more things into 'RAPE!'. The result is that we tell people they were 'RAPE'ed until they feel 'RAPE'ed. Our society rapes some of them far more than any penis ever did.

It further means we are more focused on spending money 'catching that dirty RAPIST!' Than treating the PTSD. Don't get me wrong, giving people PTSD is nearly as destructive and antisocial as murder, and we should seek to treat, exile, or bury such people as is necessary to protect society. But we need at least as much funding toward helping the victims to stop feeling victimized, and making the laws not explicitly be about the PTSD and making fiddly technical rules lawyer laws about what yesses are real yesses doesn't address the idea of rape itself. It makes it harder to prosecute nonsexual induced trauma. It induces trauma in the otherwise non-victimized. And it lets people who engage in behaviors which will likely induce trauma walk because every more specific definition to a general act introduces loopholes. It will also produce false positives when the coach's daughter gets drunk and he goes half-cocked on his daughter's 'rapist' because he wants revenge on the dirty sunnuvabitch that deflowered his precious girl. Never mind she didn't even feel shame (nor should she!), coach halfcock has a rule and he's going to exploit it to defend his indignation, and she's not about to stand up to her dad, and she was ambivalent about the guy in the first place.

The questions should be 'do you feel traumatized?' And of the other person 'is trauma likely to happen because of how you "do business"?' And if the answer to the first is yes, treatment for trauma, and if the answer to the second is 'no', then they walk away without consequence*. And if the answer to the first is 'no, and the answer to the second is 'yes' then he gets treatment, exile, or execution, and no further social consequences. No expulsions, no additional stigma. No societally enforced shame.

*but he gets watched closely, depending on how he acquits himself, and if it happens again at a higher frequency than the baseline frequency in the population, evaluate with additional scrutiny.

 

[Toni]

Can I just say that going to a party and getting black out drunk, either on purpose or because someone spiked your drinks or actually drugged you and then waking up to find that some person or persons had had sex with you when you were unable to fend for yourself: effectively say no, leave, protest in any meaningful way: the trauma--and it is indeed trauma--is not due to slut shaming. The trauma is that you were violated--that a person or persons had intimate and sexual contact with your body without your willing participation--will being defined as the ability to actively choose or refuse.

Whether this incident is 'shared' by word or mouth, via uploaded video, instagram, vine, facebook, email or any other media sharing or whether it remains a deeply guarded secret between you and the person or persons who raped you does not change the fact that there was a rape, that there was trauma, that you feel and were violated in a deeply personal way, that you were unable to stop contact that you did not wish, that happened when you were unable to evaluate whether or not you wished that contact.

If you are raped in the middle of the night in your own home, the rapist leaves your house and is killed by a hit and run driver immediately after leaving your home---you still feel the trauma, the anger, the violation, the harm to your body and to your mind, your psyche. However satisfying it might be to know that your rapist is dead and can never hurt you or anyone else again and that no one will ever know if you choose not to share that information.

The slut shaming is simply added trauma.

Your fantasy that people at parties who get black out drunk and are gang raped only care because of slut shaming is fantasy. And a pretty ill informed, sick fantasy at that.

 

[Jarhyn]

Can I just say that going to a party and getting black out drunk, either on purpose or because someone spiked your drinks or actually drugged you and then waking up to find that some person or persons had had sex with you when you were unable to fend for yourself: effectively say no, leave, protest in any meaningful way: the trauma--and it is indeed trauma--is not due to slut shaming. The trauma is that you were violated--that a person or persons had intimate and sexual contact with your body without your willing participation--will being defined as the ability to actively choose or refuse.

Whether this incident is 'shared' by word or mouth, via uploaded video, instagram, vine, facebook, email or any other media sharing or whether it remains a deeply guarded secret between you and the person or persons who raped you does not change the fact that there was a rape, that there was trauma, that you feel and were violated in a deeply personal way, that you were unable to stop contact that you did not wish, that happened when you were unable to evaluate whether or not you wished that contact.

If you are raped in the middle of the night in your own home, the rapist leaves your house and is killed by a hit and run driver immediately after leaving your home---you still feel the trauma, the anger, the violation, the harm to your body and to your mind, your psyche. However satisfying it might be to know that your rapist is dead and can never hurt you or anyone else again and that no one will ever know if you choose not to share that information.

The slut shaming is simply added trauma.

Your fantasy that people at parties who get black out drunk and are gang raped only care because of slut shaming is fantasy. And a pretty ill informed, sick fantasy at that.

The feeling of violation and trauma after an incident at a party is real for some people, though certainly not all of them. Read the whole post. There's a really important take home: if there's trauma, the person who was traumatized should get treatment, at no expense or stigma to themselves. Regardless of where the trauma comes from. But you seem to be ignoring the FACT that this trauma does not justify crucifying people on an altar of public opinion. It may make me seem 'soft on rapiers' but if someone has been corrected such that they won't traumatize people any more than, say, you would through your own actions, then nothing more needs to be done to them. The rest of the work exists in helping the victim get past it. And it is very possible to get over PTSD, particularly with MDMA assisted therapy. We just need to start doing it.

You can't ever stop imposed trauma. Even if you stop every rape on every campus, The measures you would have to impose to make that happen are themselves likely to induce trauma. The solution is to teach people at a young age that shit happens, to drink responsibly, that there is no shame in sex, and that you should be clear when you don't want something, and to actually pass laws funding victim treatment and recovery, instead of just 'punishing' and saying 'revenge is good enough'.

 

[Toni]

I am opposed to crucifixion and other forms of capitol punishment.

I absolutely do not agree that it is wrong to punish people who violate other people's bodies, minds, persons, (or property, privacy, etc.) In fact, I believe that it is extremely wrong to take advantage of the fact that someone has been over served and/or drugged and isn't able to form consent. The fact is that this is not something that 'just happens' but in fact, 'happens' because some people actively orchestrate matters such that the victim is overserved or drugged. It's not an accident. It's deliberate and it's rape. It deserves to be stigmatized, prosecuted and punished, as does any other crime.

 

[Jarhyn]

I am opposed to crucifixion and other forms of capitol punishment.

I absolutely do not agree that it is wrong to punish people who violate other people's bodies, minds, persons, (or property, privacy, etc.) In fact, I believe that it is extremely wrong to take advantage of the fact that someone has been over served and/or drugged and isn't able to form consent. The fact is that this is not something that 'just happens' but in fact, 'happens' because some people actively orchestrate matters such that the victim is overserved or drugged. It's not an accident. It's deliberate and it's rape. It deserves to be stigmatized, prosecuted and punished, as does any other crime.

Revenge fetishism is sick and wrong as much as willfully traumatizing someone. In fact it IS willfully traumatizing someone, and people who wish such revenge are no better than the 'criminals' they wish to punish. The thing that just happens to anyone who frequents bars is there will at some point be someone who attempts to get you overserved, or drug you, and take advantage of that. The rule of large numbers says eventually they succeed somewhere with someone. You can reduce their success rate by learning to drink responsibly, nearly to zero.

If they are an animal and nothing can be done, put them in the ground. If there is question, then put them away until the question can be answered. But if they can be repaired into a functional person, not doing that is evil. And deriving pleasure from not doing that is beyond evil.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

As you say, the predators know what they are doing. It's not misunderstandings, thus rules aimed at avoiding misunderstandings won't do a thing about them.

Did you read what I actually wrote in full? The policies will eliminate the ability of predators to hide behind the excuse of "misunderstanding".

Drunk rapes aren't a misunderstanding and they can't pretend they are. They're hard to prosecute due to her lack of recollection of details, not due to pretending they were misunderstandings.

- - - Updated - - -

It still comes across as quite a few on this board would rather risk raping someone than risk not having sex.

Which is rather disturbing.

It's too much effort to have a conversation with a potential sexual partner?

I don't see anyone saying that. What some of us are saying is that the proposed rules are incompatible with how sex actually works.

 

[Bronzeage]

This thread has taken some bizarre turns.

I have never once in my life seriously thought I might have consensual sex with a woman and she might later accuse me of rape. It strains my imagination to think of how I might be put in that situation. There are men who appear to see this as a clear and present danger, but not to themselves, of course. The danger is to mankind, in general. They play the part of hero savior, out to warn and rescue vulnerable men. It's sort of like ringing a fire alarm, before the fire actually starts.

The only way the distress this problem creates can be rationally explained is to see new standards to define sexual consent, not as a threat to life and liberty of men, but a threat to their power. If a man sees sex with a woman as his way to exercise power, to subjugate her, or whatever words might apply, any increase in her power to resist him, or in someway subjugate him, is a very real threat.

As the great philosopher Mendacious said, "How a person perceives and reacts to a threat reveals something fundamental about their mind."

 

[Jokodo]

<snip>And of the other person 'is trauma likely to happen because of how you "do business"?' <snip>

You seem to be objecting to those colleges' definitions of assault and consent, but I really can't see why. They perfectly fit with (part of) the criteria you've outlined right here. Surely you agree that having sex with someone you hardly know, you've only met days or hours before, without explicit unambiguous consent is a behaviour that is likely to make trauma happen? Than what's the problem?

 

[Jarhyn]

<snip>And of the other person 'is trauma likely to happen because of how you "do business"?' <snip>

You seem to be objecting to those colleges' definitions of assault and consent, but I really can't see why. They perfectly fit with (part of) the criteria you've outlined right here. Surely you agree that having sex with someone you hardly know, you've only met days or hours before, without explicit unambiguous consent is a behaviour that is likely to make trauma happen? Than what's the problem?

Because they define normal, expected human behavior as rape. I disagree that it is impossible to tell via body language and context when someone means 'yes'. Sometimes 'no' does mean yes. Sometimes 'yes' is really 'no'. Sometimes there's no communication at all other than the occasional grunt or push or bite. Sometimes it's done with someone you met three hours ago while absolutely plastered, and usually that's ok. Sometimes it's because you're the one buying drinks. Sex is all kinds of fucked up, and that's in the best cases.

Putting in rules which do not exclusively hinge on the actual problem is itself problematic. Further, it still doesn't address the problem of calling it 'rape' and singling out people as 'rapists' and ruining their lives for something that is acceptably accidental.

People here are practically chomping on the bit to bring their own little slice of hell into reality for 'criminals', and assuming motive to hurt or damage people rather than helping the educate the ignorant or treat the mentally ill people that need it. It is not as simple as producing a cookie cutter rule and putting everyone on one side or the other. It takes careful evaluation and discernment to tell if someone is unacceptably dangerous, and trendy little quips like 'yes means yes' or 'not-no means yes' or 'it's not rape if you say surprise' or whatever the SJWs or MRAs dream up this week doesn't solve the problem that it is far more complicated than that, and that those who disagree that the intent behind the rule is faulty will figure out a way to skirt it. It's beating around the bush and it makes problems and solves nothing.

The problem is compounded by the fact that the real discussion needs to be about 'how do we prevent it?' Being answered by comprehensive and honest sex ed and supervised chaperoned drinking, in social situations, starting shortly after puberty so that people learn how to drink responsibly and who they are when they are drunk. And 'how to deal with it when it happens anyway', namely evaluation and treatment to help anyone involved be normal and productive members of society.