No Means Yes If You Know How To Spot It

[RavenSky]

Hopefully, too, with the slut-walk and similar discussions added to this, gender roles will move.
I'd like my daugther, when she reaches appropriate age, to be able to tell a boy she likes him without being seen as a slut (and possibly raped by his idiot friend), instead of having to stay put and hope he gets the hint (and him, not his idiot friend).
And if my boys turn as shy as I was (which they seem to be on the path to, sadly), I'd like them to have clear signals instead of memories of wasted opportunities (or worse, turn into bitter misogynists).

Basically, by challenging consent and rape "culture" before we challenge our social norms on sexuality, I feel like we're going in the wrong order. The kind of discussion we're having in this thread would be so easier with a healthy view of sexuality. But maybe that's how we can start attacking the problem: because rape prevention is a nearly consensual project, it could be a good "foot in the door" for a more comprehensive change of standards (in addition to the good rape prevention in itself does, of course, not trying to dismiss the subject here).

What I found interesting about the actual policies quoted in this thread (particularly California's) is that it is just as much about encouraging exactly the type of gender sexual equality you (& I) want to see. The gender neutral language encourages the girls to speak up just as much as it encourages the boys to make sure they have consent.

 

[Mumbles]

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, good geez, I'm not sitting through this entire thread.

But, um, how does one "spot it"? Because my understanding...is that short of a pre-existing agreement, combined with a safe word, there's absolutely no certain way to "spot it" , and that a women who says "no" when she means "yes" is not worth time sexually, and you're much safer just using your hand, and leaving said woman out of it entirely.

Did Limbaugh clarify his remarks?

Ah, who am I kidding, of course he didn't, the guy's a pro troller.

 

[Jokodo]

If I accepted all that, it still doesn't tell me what's wrong with a college deciding not being "a place beer goggles can be dangerous" improves the quality of campus life.

More, it's not at the colleges this happens. It's at private venues, generally explicitly full of horny, predatory assholes. The college isn't deciding that it's going to be a safe place to drink. It's insisting every place and organization where students attend to also be such a place and it's unreasonable.

How so?

The "Vassar case" Derec loves to hold up as his textbook example of all that can go wrong when rape prevention policies are used as an excuse to expell male students involves:
- her getting drunk at a team party of the college's rowing team
- the two of them going back to his dorm room on campus
- intercourse in his dorm room.

So, independently of whether the decision was justified, it was not an example of applying college rules outside of campus.

There may be cases of colleges "insisting every place and organization where students attend" be a safe place to drink, but they aren't being discussed here.

 

[Alludium Fozdex]

Lacking the time, energy, or interest to slog through almost fifty thread pages, I'd like to know if it was ever established how, exactly, to spot when no means yes.

 

[Bronzeage]

Lacking the time, energy, or interest to slog through almost fifty thread pages, I'd like to know if it was ever established how, exactly, to spot when no means yes.

No one has admitted to ever being told "No," when the woman actually meant, "Yes." The closest we have come is a few who spotted a "No," which meant, "Not yet."

 

[Derec]

What I found interesting about the actual policies quoted in this thread (particularly California's) is that it is just as much about encouraging exactly the type of gender sexual equality you (& I) want to see. The gender neutral language encourages the girls to speak up just as much as it encourages the boys to make sure they have consent.

The problem is the rules are not applied gender neutrally:
drunk female: unable to consent, automatic victim
drunk male: assumed to be fully responsibly for any sex he engages in

 

[RavenSky]

What I found interesting about the actual policies quoted in this thread (particularly California's) is that it is just as much about encouraging exactly the type of gender sexual equality you (& I) want to see. The gender neutral language encourages the girls to speak up just as much as it encourages the boys to make sure they have consent.

The problem is the rules are not applied gender neutrally:
drunk female: unable to consent, automatic victim
drunk male: assumed to be fully responsibly for any sex he engages in

So you claim.

 

[Bronzeage]

What I found interesting about the actual policies quoted in this thread (particularly California's) is that it is just as much about encouraging exactly the type of gender sexual equality you (& I) want to see. The gender neutral language encourages the girls to speak up just as much as it encourages the boys to make sure they have consent.

The problem is the rules are not applied gender neutrally:
drunk female: unable to consent, automatic victim
drunk male: assumed to be fully responsibly for any sex he engages in

Life sucks, and then you die.

What other crimes are excused because the perpetrator was drunk? Can a drunk driver plead he is not responsible for getting behind the wheel of the car, because at the time he didn't know it was the wrong thing to do?

When he says, "I didn't think I was impaired," is this any different than "I thought she really wanted it"?

Is there anything in any of the new college regulations which prohibit a man from filing a complaint against a woman who had sex with him while he was impaired? Is there anything which prohibits a man from filing a complaint against another man?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Lacking the time, energy, or interest to slog through almost fifty thread pages, I'd like to know if it was ever established how, exactly, to spot when no means yes.

Just be a good enough man, she'll want do to the deed.

 

[Derec]

Is there anything in any of the new college regulations which prohibit a man from filing a complaint against a woman who had sex with him while he was impaired? Is there anything which prohibits a man from filing a complaint against another man?

If two people are guilty of exactly the same thing (fucking each other while drunk) it should not matter which one filed a complaint (first) or which one has a vagina. Either having consensual sex with a drunk person is a violation of school rules or it isn't. Personally I think it should not be, but if it is, both need to be punished equally for the same transgression!
But by all means, do continue to defend blatant double standards.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

I've often wondered about how this iconic photo from the end of WWII is viewed in today's context about sexual assault. If this happened today, would the guy be arrested? How can it be that mainstream magazines and newspapers continue to publish (and celebrate) a picture of a known "sexual assault"?

TRIGGER WARNING! Picture of Sexual Assault!

View attachment 1135

For those who don't know the history of this picture, the guy was drunk and had never met the woman before:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2187071/Times-Square-Sailor-nurse-kissing-iconic-WWII-photograph-reunited.html

In future rememberances of WWI, should we ban this photo?

Tell you what

The next sexual, pseudo sexual, or really friendly encounter that happens on VJ day...

No one will say a word about it.

 

[spikepipsqueak]

Is there anything in any of the new college regulations which prohibit a man from filing a complaint against a woman who had sex with him while he was impaired? Is there anything which prohibits a man from filing a complaint against another man?

If two people are guilty of exactly the same thing (fucking each other while drunk) it should not matter which one filed a complaint (first) or which one has a vagina. Either having consensual sex with a drunk person is a violation of school rules or it isn't. Personally I think it should not be, but if it is, both need to be punished equally for the same transgression!
But by all means, do continue to defend blatant double standards.

If it's consensual sex, Derec, nobody is going to wind up in front of a board. These regulations are designed to give the entitled and the pushy of both sexes some idea of how to recognise that the other person isn't "up for it" regardless of how much their own gonads want sex.

Most people, in both hookups and long term relationships don't need this sort of thing, being able to process other peoples' words and body language.

These regulations are targeted specifically at those people who consider that drunk people are viable targets, that it is ok to try to convince someone who isn't keen, and who think that any hesitation or any civil behaviour is a come-on.

That isn't a majority of even the young population, and it describes even fewer adults.

 

[Bronzeage]

Is there anything in any of the new college regulations which prohibit a man from filing a complaint against a woman who had sex with him while he was impaired? Is there anything which prohibits a man from filing a complaint against another man?

If two people are guilty of exactly the same thing (fucking each other while drunk) it should not matter which one filed a complaint (first) or which one has a vagina. Either having consensual sex with a drunk person is a violation of school rules or it isn't. Personally I think it should not be, but if it is, both need to be punished equally for the same transgression!
But by all means, do continue to defend blatant double standards.

You could answer the question, or you could continue with a misogynistic rant. Can a man file a complaint, or not?

 

[Togo]

If two people are guilty of exactly the same thing (fucking each other while drunk) it should not matter which one filed a complaint (first) or which one has a vagina. Either having consensual sex with a drunk person is a violation of school rules or it isn't. Personally I think it should not be, but if it is, both need to be punished equally for the same transgression!
But by all means, do continue to defend blatant double standards.

If it's consensual sex, Derec, nobody is going to wind up in front of a board.

That's not really a useful point. If it's consensual sex, there should be no power to put either party in front of a board. That's what people mean by 'criminalising ordinary behaviour'. As it stands, either can end up in trouble if there is a motive for one to accuse the other, and gender politics being what it is, that makes men more vulnerable than woman. Saying that the rules allow the university to bring people up in front of a board for consensual sex but that the university will not choose to, it hardly likely to reassure the guy who believes that a sizeable number of feminists are out to 'get' men.

Moreover, criminalising ordinary behaviour is a problem because it reduces the perceived legitimacy of the rules. The rules must not only be fair, but be seen to be fair, or else who will enforce them?

These regulations are designed to give the entitled and the pushy of both sexes some idea of how to recognise that the other person isn't "up for it" regardless of how much their own gonads want sex.

If it's an education thing, then treat it as an education thing. That's not a good reason for a rule.

These regulations are targeted specifically at those people who consider that drunk people are viable targets,

It's not particularly, it's more general than that.

that it is ok to try to convince someone who isn't keen, and who think that any hesitation or any civil behaviour is a come-on.

That isn't a majority of even the young population, and it describes even fewer adults.

I don't agree. Think about what you're saying, that there is never any reason to convince someone to sleep with you? There are plenty of people out there who wouldn't go with any who just asked, but would want the person pursuing them to put some effort into convincing them. People who are asked for sex and just say yes are often derided or insulted (slut, easy, etc.) It is far more normal to only agree to sex after some considerable efforts on the part of either or both parties, that they've found someone worthy of getting into bed with them.

Older people tend to be far more direct, and have far less patience.

 

[Togo]

If two people are guilty of exactly the same thing (fucking each other while drunk) it should not matter which one filed a complaint (first) or which one has a vagina. Either having consensual sex with a drunk person is a violation of school rules or it isn't. Personally I think it should not be, but if it is, both need to be punished equally for the same transgression!
But by all means, do continue to defend blatant double standards.

You could answer the question, or you could continue with a misogynistic rant. Can a man file a complaint, or not?

We had a case where a man filed a complaint for sexual assault and harassment against a female student. It was upheld. She was suspended. Not for very long though.

 

[RavenSky]

If it's consensual sex, Derec, nobody is going to wind up in front of a board.

That's not really a useful point. If it's consensual sex, there should be no power to put either party in front of a board. That's what people mean by 'criminalising ordinary behaviour'. As it stands, either can end up in trouble if there is a motive for one to accuse the other, and gender politics being what it is, that makes men more vulnerable than woman. Saying that the rules allow the university to bring people up in front of a board for consensual sex but that the university will not choose to, it hardly likely to reassure the guy who believes that a sizeable number of feminists are out to 'get' men.

First of all, no one is "criminalizing ordinary behavior". Assuming that "no means yes" and that "she's just being coy" is not "ordinary behavior". All the policies under discussion do is to clarify what IS "ordinary behavior".

Second, the point of the policies is to reduce rape for the benefit of all students (male and female), not to reassure the guy who holds irrational beliefs.

 

[Togo]

That's not really a useful point. If it's consensual sex, there should be no power to put either party in front of a board. That's what people mean by 'criminalising ordinary behaviour'. As it stands, either can end up in trouble if there is a motive for one to accuse the other, and gender politics being what it is, that makes men more vulnerable than woman. Saying that the rules allow the university to bring people up in front of a board for consensual sex but that the university will not choose to, it hardly likely to reassure the guy who believes that a sizeable number of feminists are out to 'get' men.

First of all, no one is "criminalizing ordinary behavior". Assuming that "no means yes" and that "she's just being coy" is not "ordinary behavior". All the policies under discussion do is to clarify what IS "ordinary behavior".

Well you must be criminalising someone's idea of ordinary behaviour, or else why would it need to be clarified? The example that was given was too people getting drunk and sleeping with each other, which is certainly quite common. And saying that there is never any need to covince someone to sleep with you suggests that the behaviour that is being criminalised is very normal indeed.

Second, the point of the policies is to reduce rape for the benefit of all students (male and female), not to reassure the guy who holds irrational beliefs.

Which it won't do unless the rules are seen to be fair. Specifically, unless the rules are seen to be fair by the people who's behaviour you're trying to change. Claiming that the rules are ok because they'll only be enforced against people who deserve it, is kinda the opposite of that.

 

[Derec]

You could answer the question, or you could continue with a misogynistic rant.

It's not a misogynistic rant, it's just replying to your misandrism.

Can a man file a complaint, or not?

In principle yes, but nobody would take it seriously if they were both drunk. On the other hand, if both are drunk, have sex, and the female regrets the consensual sex the following day (or year) the male, and only the male, gets expelled even though they both did the same thing.
If they both did the same thing, they should both face the same consequences, or none at all. What's misogynistic about that?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

These regulations are targeted specifically at those people who consider that drunk people are viable targets, that it is ok to try to convince someone who isn't keen, and who think that any hesitation or any civil behaviour is a come-on.

While that might be the intent it doesn't mean that's what's happening.

 

[Togo]

It's not a misogynistic rant, it's just replying to your misandrism.

Can a man file a complaint, or not?

In principle yes, but nobody would take it seriously if they were both drunk. On the other hand, if both are drunk, have sex, and the female regrets the consensual sex the following day (or year) the male, and only the male, gets expelled even though they both did the same thing.
If they both did the same thing, they should both face the same consequences, or none at all. What's misogynistic about that?

I think the only possible answers are that it isn't misogynistic, and that noone here would support such a thing. Of course I'm not the one you're asking.