No Means Yes If You Know How To Spot It

[AthenaAwakened]

From your OP:

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

So me responding to this aspect of the policy is certainly on topic in this thread.

So the standard "Derec is wrong" still applies.

Wrong, but "Athena is wrong" does apply double!

seeing again

The op is about Rush and his assertion the no means yes if you know how to spot it. If this is unclear, refer to the quote and the title.

Still batting a thousand Derec...

Backwards.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

Btw

Who is teaching girls and women to be coy?

Growing up no grown person in my life said "say no, and then it's ok to fuck"

None of my friends from girlhood on ever said "say no, and then it's ok to fuck"

Who is doing this teaching?

 

[Ford]

Who is doing this teaching?

"The left."


Granted, they're also the ones teaching young women (or is it womyn?) to accuse any and all men of rape at the drop of a hat, so they're obviously playing both sides.


(I know...at the drop of a hat...say baby, you dropped that hat like you want it. Wanna come back to my place?)


Clearly the best course of action is to turn our young women folk over to old white talk show hosts who can teach them how to say "no."


Unless of course the women bought birth control in which case they're sluts.




Am I missing something?

 

[purple_kathryn]

I think some people would just be better off investing in one of those sex dolls. A willing and enthusiastic partner is clearly not on their list of things to look for when having sex.

 

[marc]

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."

Is this the kind of thinking that went into Deut 22:23-24, where if a betrothed woman is raped in a city, then both people will be put to death, because she obviously wanted it since she didn't scream loud enough... Oh wait, we are not calling for the man's punishment here...

 

[Derec]

Oh wait, we are not calling for the man's punishment here...

On the contrary, it is only men that are being punished with these draconian policies even if they do the same thing as women, like having sex with someone drunk or with someone who hasn't said an explicit "yes" to every new step of intimacy.

- - - Updated - - -

I think some people would just be better off investing in one of those sex dolls. A willing and enthusiastic partner is clearly not on their list of things to look for when having sex.

Why? Just because some of us are weary of making college sexual assault policies, which have resulted in innocent students being expelled, being made even stricter and more susceptible to false positives?

 

[Derec]

The op is about Rush and his assertion the no means yes if you know how to spot it. If this is unclear, refer to the quote and the title.

The OP is more than the title. I was specifically addressing details of OSU policy that were quoted in your OP. What's off topic about that?

Still batting a thousand Derec...
Backwards.

Speak for yourself. You don't seem to even know what's contained in your own OP.

 

[Keith&Co.]

On the contrary, it is only men that are being punished with these draconian policies even if they do the same thing as women, like having sex with someone drunk or with someone who hasn't said an explicit "yes" to every new step of intimacy.

So....men who don't follow the rules will get punished. I don't see the outrage.

Seems that demanding clear evidence of consent at the time will protect men from false accusations later.
And if you feel that you are unable to wait for clear, verbally explicit permission, then don't have sex with Ohio state girls. Or if you feel that, as a man, you should be free to interpret just about anything as positive consent...don't have sex with Ohio state girls. Cruise chicks from some other college.

 

[Derec]

So....men who don't follow the rules will get punished. I don't see the outrage.

You do not see a problem when a college adopts strict, draconian rules (like assuming that any alcohol is "too drunk to consent" or requiring not one but many "yes" statements) and selectively applies them against male students only?

 

[Rhea]

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.

Is that why you bring up the Vassar case so often?
Oh, wait...

 

[Rhea]

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.

Here's the "wiggle room" derec.

No means no.
The pursuer BACKS THE FUCK OFF. Because No means NO.
And if she was just being coy, she's gonna have to call him back. With a YES.
It really is that stupidly simple how not to be a rapist.

I realize that some people are AGHAST at the possibility of missing a possible chance to wet their wick and find that to be the greater crime. But it's actually NOT the greater crime. Rape is. No means no. There's no "coy" that you can claim gives permission to interpret it any other way. Walk away. If she really wants it, she'll call you back.

 

[Derec]

Is that why you bring up the Vassar case so often?
Oh, wait...

I bring up the Vassar case so often because it is a particularly blatant case of a miscarriage of justice as there was no evidence against him but plenty in his favor (like her message that she "had a great time").
Such cases of miscarriage where innocent men get expelled will be only more frequent if colleges keep adopting increasingly draconian, and selectively applied, rules.

 

[Rhea]

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.

I mean, MY GODS! Don't you people realize that there's a 5% chance I could still get SEX!? Don't you see the obvious!? That a 95% chance of being a rapist is WORTH a shot at that 5% chance of getting laid!? I mean, it's my RIGHT to go for that 5% chance! Don't you dare take that away from me! I going in, boys! Damn the torpedoes and full speed ahead! THEY OWE ME!

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.

And as we said, the way to see if there is a yes is to BACK OFF at the no. Then see if she calls you back. With a yes.
You don't have some entitlement to try to wring or extract a yes.

 

[Bronzeage]

So....men who don't follow the rules will get punished. I don't see the outrage.

You do not see a problem when a college adopts strict, draconian rules (like assuming that any alcohol is "too drunk to consent" or requiring not one but many "yes" statements) and selectively applies them against male students only?

Actually, no. I wouldn't have a problem if colleges made a rule against flushing tampons down toilets and targeted enforcement toward female students, either.

When level of coerced sex which male students find themselves subject to rises to the level we see among female students, I'm sure measures will be taken to rein in female sexual predators. The real problem there is men have a real problem recognizing a female sexual predator, or realizing they have become prey to one.

But there is a bright side to all of this male oppression. If a male student found himself in the situation of many female students, in a confined space with a larger and stronger man who thinks "no means yes, if you know how to spot it," he would have all the resources of the university to make it right the next morning.

See? It all works out.

 

[Derec]

You don't have some entitlement to try to wring or extract a yes.

You can always try to change somebody's mind. And if she does change her mind without you going home and waiting for her phone call it doesn't make it a "rape" somehow.

 

[Keith&Co.]

So....men who don't follow the rules will get punished. I don't see the outrage.

You do not see a problem when a college adopts strict, draconian rules (like assuming that any alcohol is "too drunk to consent" or requiring not one but many "yes" statements) and selectively applies them against male students only?

No, not really.
According to you, it's only been male college students getting fucked over by things as they stood.
The new rules protect men, forcing them to make sure that the woman won't have a leg to stand on the next day by saying she didn't fully consent.
I really would have expected you to welcome the new rules, hoping this would finally get false date-rape and other made-up, next-day-regret charges out of the way so men could enjoy college for what it is supposed to be. Four years without adult supervision.

Ultimately, I think it's meant to protect the university. So they don't have to make a subjective judgement about maybe, sorta, could be interpreted, or 'no way to know for sure' cases. Now you dot the t and cross the i or you broke the rule. No wiggle room for either gender.

 

[Derec]

Actually, no.

Well at least you admit to your sexism.

So to clarify. You think it's ok for colleges to expel men for having consensual sex with women who have been drinking while they are not expelling female students for having sex with men who have been drinking.
Likewise you think it's ok to expel male students for failing to get an explicit "yes" every step of the way while not expelling female students for failing to get an explicit "yes" every step of the way.
That's blatant sexist double standard and should not exist in any just society.

And all that because you have drunk the feminazi Koolaid of "rape culture" on college campuses.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Actually, no.

Well at least you admit to your sexism.

Context is like compassion for you, isn't it Derec? Something that just happens to other people....

 

[Derec]

According to you, it's only been male college students getting fucked over by things as they stood.
The new rules protect men, forcing them to make sure that the woman won't have a leg to stand on the next day by saying she didn't fully consent.

I do not see how it protects men from females making false accusations.
It only gives false accusers more ammunition because if he doesn't ask for permission to move from sucking the left nipple to the right nipple he is in violation of college rules.

I really would have expected you to welcome the new rules, hoping this would finally get false date-rape and other made-up, next-day-regret charges out of the way so men could enjoy college for what it is supposed to be. Four years without adult supervision.

Given how nonsensical college rules have become there isn't much adult supervision to begin with.

Ultimately, I think it's meant to protect the university. So they don't have to make a subjective judgement about maybe, sorta, could be interpreted, or 'no way to know for sure' cases. Now you dot the t and cross the i or you broke the rule. No wiggle room for either gender.

No, the only gender attacked here are the men. Females are not going to be expelled for having sex with drunk men or for failing to get a dozen explicit consents per sex act.
And don't give me "protect the university". They only subject themselves to lawsuits by expelling innocent male students. Not crossing i's on their stupid and draconian policies doesn't make male students "rapists".

- - - Updated - - -

Well at least you admit to your sexism.

Context is like compassion for you, isn't it Derec? Something that just happens to other people....

What context? Bronzeage just explicitly admitted that he favors colleges applying their draconian rules to male student only and not making female students subject to them.
But that's the essence of radical feminism - special rights and protections for women and men are treated as second class citizens.
Technically Title IX is supposed to prevent universities from discriminating on the basis of gender but in a perverse abuse of the law that's precisely what Title IX, under direction of the Obama administration, is being used to do. Male students are being discriminated against when it comes to sex.

 

[Rhea]

You don't have some entitlement to try to wring or extract a yes.

You can always try to change somebody's mind. And if she does change her mind without you going home and waiting for her phone call it doesn't make it a "rape" somehow.

Aaahhh, the creeper defense. But if she says no, it's perfectly all right for me to keep pressing her to change her mind.