No Means Yes If You Know How To Spot It

[Derec]

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

Or he. Unlike the feminists, I am all for rules applying to both genders equally.

 

[Nice Squirrel]

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.

^This. And yes, she can be half naked, but you back off.

 

[Bronzeage]

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.

What do you know about "rape culture"? You fear a woman's sexuality and the power you presume it gives over a man. The idea she might entice a man to have sex and then take revenge by claiming she was rape is sheer terror for you.

I understand your problems, but your fears are not grounded in reality. Your rationalizations are just that.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

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.

Can we all just agree with Derec once and for all that the Vassar case was a horrible miscarriage of justice and be done with it? I think he keeps bringing it up because every time he does he gets some flippant response dismissing it that gives the impression that people agree with it.

Derec is obsessed with his hobby horse to the point of me wondering about his sanity, but the flippant responses he gets to some valid concerns he raises are equally troubling.

 

[Keith&Co.]

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.

Well, if he doesn't ask for permission, then he's violating the rules.
It would NOT be a false-accusation.
He actually did violate the rules.

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.

No, they won't be expelled. But if they man DOES obey the rules and ask for permission a dozen times, she won't be able to get HIM expelled, either.

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".

I did give you 'protect the university' and i explained why.
It's not making the students 'rapists,' no. But it does take the burder of interpretation off of the university's shoulders.

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.

You use 'explicity' oddly. he did not explicitly state that.
That's your interpretation of what he did say.
And he explained why he didn't have a problem with it. You ignored that, put your own words in his mouth and called it explicit.
....as usual.

 

[Jarhyn]

All crap pertaining to Derek's failed sex life aside, I'm far more disturbed by this because it criminalizes various rape fantasies. Yes. People fantasize about being raped, and about raping, with people they love. It also criminalizes all kinds of drunken or chemically altered experiences.

Derec is right about one thing: verbal consent is not the only consent, and for the same reason 'I love you' is a thing that many relationships need to have said explicitly, 'yes' and 'may I' are things that often times need to be not-said explicitly. It has nothing to do with gender or who is drunk, or who has power over whoeverms sexuality, and everything to do with the fact that just like being gay used to be a criminal sexuality, now having perfectly consensual rape roleplay is a criminal activity, making the lives of a lot of people, a lot of my FRIENDS, an impossibly huge liability if ever any of us wish to visit California.

 

[bigfield]

The closest a "no" can be to a "yes" is "no, but maybe later", or "no; offer me something different". It's still a "no", even if the woman saying it is contient.

 

[Emily Lake]

Not much chance of any female being expelled under these rules as there is a huge double standard in how campus sex is handled by the college administrators.

I'm relatively certain that if a female perpetrated unwanted sexual advances on a male, and that male reported them as such, then it would be considered fairly. Just as I'm certain that if a female student raped a male student and that male reported it, it would be considered very seriously.

But you are conflating things. The fact is that rapes and unwanted sexual advances are perpetrated disproportionately by males against females... and you're assuming that because more of them are reported by females, that there is a double standard. It would only hold as a double standard if there were any degree of equivalence in the incidence rates, and the cases of female-on-male rapes were being ignored and discounted.

If this is your contention, then you need to provide some evidence of this claim.

 

[Emily Lake]

However, since girls are taught to play coy, playful demurring can be an invitation to proceed.

Seriously, what the hell century are you from? What kind of bullshit is this?

 

[Jarhyn]

However, since girls are taught to play coy, playful demurring can be an invitation to proceed.

Seriously, what the hell century are you from? What kind of bullshit is this?

It might not be true of girls, but I know for a fact that it's true of a lot of guys. There are entire communities of people for whom no EXPLICITLY means yes, even when screamed between tears and sobs, and where there are amputee midgets who like women to walk on them with heels, no 'yes' necessary or even wanted. It's hard to say 'yes' around a ball-gag too.

A guy I know doesn't even use safe words. It's all about HOW you say it (but respected as what it is when you do).

The world has more dimensions than 'no' and 'yes'. Sometimes no means no. Sometimes yes means no. Sometimes no means yes. Sometimes no means 'you aren't doing it hard enough, what the fuck man?'

And because we are human, drama happens, and then john whips jack, and Dave wants to be the only one john whips so he spires john and jack for it by accusing them of rape, when all along no meant 'oh god yes', and now two innocent guys are in jail.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

Rape role play is actually very intense and enjoyable so long as you both go in knowing what is up and you have a safe word. So saying "NO! STOP!" doesn't always mean you want the person to stop. There is more to consent than spoken words in the heat of the moment.

 

[Jarhyn]

Rape role play is actually very intense and enjoyable so long as you both go in knowing what is up and you have a safe word. So saying "NO! STOP!" doesn't always mean you want the person to stop. There is more to consent than spoken words in the heat of the moment.

My point exactly.

 

[PyramidHead]

All crap pertaining to Derek's failed sex life aside, I'm far more disturbed by this because it criminalizes various rape fantasies. Yes. People fantasize about being raped, and about raping, with people they love. It also criminalizes all kinds of drunken or chemically altered experiences.

Derec is right about one thing: verbal consent is not the only consent, and for the same reason 'I love you' is a thing that many relationships need to have said explicitly, 'yes' and 'may I' are things that often times need to be not-said explicitly. It has nothing to do with gender or who is drunk, or who has power over whoeverms sexuality, and everything to do with the fact that just like being gay used to be a criminal sexuality, now having perfectly consensual rape roleplay is a criminal activity, making the lives of a lot of people, a lot of my FRIENDS, an impossibly huge liability if ever any of us wish to visit California.

I don't see the analogy to being gay, because all other things being equal, gay sex doesn't have the potential to harm anybody.

Your right to pretend to rape someone is not as important as someone else's right to actually not be raped.

 

[Emily Lake]

This is very close to what I actually taught my step-sons. I was adamant with them (20 years ago) that "no ALWAYS means no" and that if the girl said "no" at any point he was to get up instantly, zip up his pants, and leave. I told them that if the girl was being coy, she'd learn really quick to be honest and unambiguous with them instead.

Might be a good pragmatic idea in today's climate (pendulum has swung way too far and unfortunately still swinging that way) but that doesn't mean that failing to do so would make him a rapist deserving of an expulsion.

Well, unless of course she WASN'T being coy, and he just ASSUMED she was being coy, because he had some outdated notion that girls are "taught" to play "coy" because that's what "nice" girls do and...

 

[Emily Lake]

You are assuming Limbaugh's claim that a verbal "yes" is required, whereas every version I've read in the original says "explicit" or something similar.

Admittedly, I was assuming that claim was correct. On the other hand, I don't think that non-verbal signals would qualify as "explicit". Non-verbal signals leave a lot open to interpretation. So a requirement for explicit consent to me implies written or verbal. I suppose an argument could be made otherwise.

 

[Emily Lake]

I guess according to you any sort of BDSM rape play is no different than actual rape.

Actually, in BDSM play, there are extremely clear boundaries that are discussed beforehand, and very explicit safe-words that very clearly mean "stop". That's a case where "no" might be part of the character - but only because there is some other literal word that has already been discussed explicitly to mean no ahead of time. To continue once that safe-word has been called would most definitely be actual rape.

At this point, you've gone down the road of inapplicable absurdity.

 

[Emily Lake]

So in other words, you're saying that if the "no" wasn't firm, then she may have been "asking for it."

No and at this point you are purposely misunderstanding me.

Derec, what you're doing is providing license to date rape. You're providing an easy-out to sexual assault. All they have to do is say "Well, gee, I know she said 'no', but I really thought she was being coy, officer! It was an honest mistake!" Then the assaulter or rapist has free license to do as they please, with no repercussions, because you've granted them carte blanche.

 

[Emily Lake]

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?

How are they being applied to males only? Is it explicit that the rules only apply to men? They don't appear to be that way. It appears to be the case that if a woman were to make advances on a man without explicit consent, and he were to report it, then the woman would also face consequences.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

Rape role play is actually very intense and enjoyable so long as you both go in knowing what is up and you have a safe word. So saying "NO! STOP!" doesn't always mean you want the person to stop. There is more to consent than spoken words in the heat of the moment.

only because the word no has been replaced with the safe word "BINGO" or some such.

Role playing isn't the issue at hand. Real life is.

 

[Rhea]

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.

Can we all just agree with Derec once and for all that the Vassar case was a horrible miscarriage of justice and be done with it? I think he keeps bringing it up because every time he does he gets some flippant response dismissing it that gives the impression that people agree with it.

Derec is obsessed with his hobby horse to the point of me wondering about his sanity, but the flippant responses he gets to some valid concerns he raises are equally troubling.

You make a good point. I am happy to explicitly concur. Caveat: I have never actually read up on this case, but _assuming_ the facts are as presented, it is indeed a horrible miscarriage of justice and should be condemned.

- - - Updated - - -

All crap pertaining to Derek's failed sex life aside, I'm far more disturbed by this because it criminalizes various rape fantasies. Yes. People fantasize about being raped, and about raping, with people they love. It also criminalizes all kinds of drunken or chemically altered experiences.

Derec is right about one thing: verbal consent is not the only consent, and for the same reason 'I love you' is a thing that many relationships need to have said explicitly, 'yes' and 'may I' are things that often times need to be not-said explicitly. It has nothing to do with gender or who is drunk, or who has power over whoeverms sexuality, and everything to do with the fact that just like being gay used to be a criminal sexuality, now having perfectly consensual rape roleplay is a criminal activity, making the lives of a lot of people, a lot of my FRIENDS, an impossibly huge liability if ever any of us wish to visit California.

Jarhyn, I think I get what you're talking about with this kind of preference, and I don't have any problem with it, I don't condemn or judge.

But what I do _not_ understand is how you can tell whether you are committing a rape or not. Given what you've described. Do you, or do you not, have some way of knowing FOR CERTAIN that you are not committing a rape against an unwilling person?

Because if you don't - you are at high risk of being an actual rapist, no different than the ones most of us revile and want to see removed from society.