No Means Yes If You Know How To Spot It

[Jolly_Penguin]

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

Bingo! I lack creativity. All we could come up with for a safe word when I did it was "safe word".

 

[Emily Lake]

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

Bingo! I lack creativity. All we could come up with for a safe word when I did it was "safe word".

Well, that's pretty unambiguous, so I think it would work just fine! Honestly, it's better than "banana" which was all we could come up with.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Okay, wait a minute. According to OSU:

Consent Is...

A voluntary, sober, imaginative, enthusiastic, creative, wanted, informed, mutual, honest, and verbal agreement
An active agreement. The absence of "no" does not mean "yes"
Not coerced
A process, which must be asked for every step of the way. If you want to move to the next level of sexual intimacy, just ask!
Never implied and cannot be assumed, even in the context of a relationship. Just because you are in a relationship does not mean that you have permission to have sex with your partner.

When they say 'to the next level of intimacy' i think they're talking more about a couple that's been intimate above the waist wanting to move to full frontal nudity and attempting to reach the place where eternity knows no bounds. But as one of those 'I think we're ready' conversations, not a bedtime game of stoplight.

Is there any indication that by 'every step of the way' is for each instance of intimacy? That the university is requiring that i obtain verbal permission to switch from licking to sucking? Or from left to right? Or at each piece of clothing removed?

 

[Jarhyn]

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.

Generally (and I can't say this for all people) the meaning you are putting behind 'rape' in your description doesn't even exist in this context. This use of rape implies a terrible life-destroying experience was had because someone forced a thing against someone they knew didn't want it. A lot can be forgiven and a lot ceases to matter, at least for adults, when it is known that no harm was intended, and that things just went sideways. I and anyone else I'd do this sort of thing with can more or less live with the reality of getting gang-banged tied up with a ball gag after it ceases to actually be fun. It's 'rape' in the most sterile and esoteric definitions, but it doesn't carry the gravitas that makes rape TERRIBLE, and lacking the terribleness, it isn't what any sane person would CALL rape. Generally in the circles I run in, we don't even invite those who refuse the consequences of putting ourselves tied up on a table naked with a ball gag in a room of horny guys.

In other words, you know that you aren't raping someone because the mental gymnastics that would make it be considered as 'rape' just don't exist in the context. Not all unwanted sex warrants the title of 'rape'.

 

[Bronzeage]

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.

This has no relevance in this discussion.

 

[PyramidHead]

Generally (and I can't say this for all people) the meaning you are putting behind 'rape' in your description doesn't even exist in this context. This use of rape implies a terrible life-destroying experience was had because someone forced a thing against someone they knew didn't want it. A lot can be forgiven and a lot ceases to matter, at least for adults, when it is known that no harm was intended, and that things just went sideways. I and anyone else I'd do this sort of thing with can more or less live with the reality of getting gang-banged tied up with a ball gag after it ceases to actually be fun. It's 'rape' in the most sterile and esoteric definitions, but it doesn't carry the gravitas that makes rape TERRIBLE, and lacking the terribleness, it isn't what any sane person would CALL rape. Generally in the circles I run in, we don't even invite those who refuse the consequences of putting ourselves tied up on a table naked with a ball gag in a room of horny guys.

In other words, you know that you aren't raping someone because the mental gymnastics that would make it be considered as 'rape' just don't exist in the context. Not all unwanted sex warrants the title of 'rape'.

Enjoyable as that experience may be for you and others involved, you're not entitled to it. In order to live in a society that doesn't tolerate rape, your ability to have sex with people against their will for fun, with the casual understanding that this sort of thing happens in these sort of circles and is no biggie, may need to be sacrificed.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

No and at this point you are purposely misunderstanding me.

I'm fairly certain I understand you perfectly.



You have consistently portrayed men as victims, have never once defended a woman who accused a man of a crime, and use terms such as "womyn," "feminazis" and "radical femdom." You've never met a rape case you wouldn't declare to be fake, repeatedly post cases where you make the case that a man has been "wronged" by a woman, and are now defending the fucking idiot Rush Limbaugh and his idiot notion that no does not mean no.

I think his problem is that "no" all too often actually means "not now, seduce me some more." Depending on the situation that might mean an hour from now or a month from now.

- - - Updated - - -

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?

The message is "don't give in too easily."

 

[Loren Pechtel]

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.

To back down even in the Vassar case would mean that women sometimes lie about being raped. That's a camel's nose they don't want.

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.

I don't question his sanity, I think he's just someone who has been badly hurt by a woman.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

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.

If she can lie about being raped she can also lie about whether he asked and got permission.

The only situations where it could help are misunderstandings where for some reason she's afraid to speak up. How common are those????

 

[Loren Pechtel]

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.

There certainly should be. Some people don't, however.

 

[Jarhyn]

Generally (and I can't say this for all people) the meaning you are putting behind 'rape' in your description doesn't even exist in this context. This use of rape implies a terrible life-destroying experience was had because someone forced a thing against someone they knew didn't want it. A lot can be forgiven and a lot ceases to matter, at least for adults, when it is known that no harm was intended, and that things just went sideways. I and anyone else I'd do this sort of thing with can more or less live with the reality of getting gang-banged tied up with a ball gag after it ceases to actually be fun. It's 'rape' in the most sterile and esoteric definitions, but it doesn't carry the gravitas that makes rape TERRIBLE, and lacking the terribleness, it isn't what any sane person would CALL rape. Generally in the circles I run in, we don't even invite those who refuse the consequences of putting ourselves tied up on a table naked with a ball gag in a room of horny guys.

In other words, you know that you aren't raping someone because the mental gymnastics that would make it be considered as 'rape' just don't exist in the context. Not all unwanted sex warrants the title of 'rape'.

Enjoyable as that experience may be for you and others involved, you're not entitled to it. In order to live in a society that doesn't tolerate rape, your ability to have sex with people against their will for fun, with the casual understanding that this sort of thing happens in these sort of circles and is no biggie, may need to be sacrificed.

Or perhaps we can just do away with the utterly foolish and asinine assumption that all communication absolutely has to conform to a very narrow and flawed model of 'yes' and 'no', and we instead recognize that the concepts behind 'yes' and 'no' are delivered in different ways by various people depending entirely on the context.

 

[Derec]

Is there any indication that by 'every step of the way' is for each instance of intimacy? That the university is requiring that i obtain verbal permission to switch from licking to sucking? Or from left to right? Or at each piece of clothing removed?

Who knows what exactly they were thinking. But there is at least one poster who thinks that even if they interpret it as "moving from left to right" etc. that the college is justified in enacting and (selectively) enforcing such a rule.

In any case my opinion is that it has become too easy to expel guys with very little evidence that they did anything wrong and as such we do not need stricter rules in order to make it even easier.

 

[PyramidHead]

Enjoyable as that experience may be for you and others involved, you're not entitled to it. In order to live in a society that doesn't tolerate rape, your ability to have sex with people against their will for fun, with the casual understanding that this sort of thing happens in these sort of circles and is no biggie, may need to be sacrificed.

Or perhaps we can just do away with the utterly foolish and asinine assumption that all communication absolutely has to conform to a very narrow and flawed model of 'yes' and 'no', and we instead recognize that the concepts behind 'yes' and 'no' are delivered in different ways by various people depending entirely on the context.

We could. But if more people get raped your way, it's gotta go.

 

[Derec]

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.

Take a following example. A female accuses a male of rape. College investigates and finds no evidence that a rape occurred. Normally that would be the end but they also find out that both partners have been drinking. At that point they expel the male but not the female even though they are guilty of exactly the same rule. Do you think that's right?

 

[Derec]

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.

If he was an actual rapist he could just as well lie and say that she said yes.
What I think we need to give protection to are cases where there was a genuine misunderstanding.

- - - Updated - - -

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.

Of course. But the rules and boundaries do not conform to OSU's asinine rules which means that those that engage in such play would be automatically in violation.

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

I do not think I did. It's not like there haven't been cases where BDSM play led to false rape accusations.

 

[Derec]

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.

I agree. Explict means "stated clearly and in detail, leaving no room for confusion or doubt" which means that verbal (i.e. using words, either spoken or written) communication is a necessary, but not sufficient condition for explicit communication. I.e. it's an even stricter standard than merely requiring verbal assent.

 

[Derec]

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

Your right to pretend to rape someone is as important as someone else's right to have someone pretend rape them. It takes two to role play rape and you'd be mistaken if you thought it's always or even usually initiated by pretend-rapist.

 

[Derec]

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.

Maybe, although I know of no case where a female student was expelled for sexual assault. Which is kind of weird given how little can get a male expelled for "sexual assault". Things like having sex with a drunk girl, even if both of them were drunk. If having sex with a drunk student is an expellable offense, shouldn't both be expelled if both were drunk and thus guilty of exactly the same thing?

 

[Jokodo]

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.

I agree. Explict means "stated clearly and in detail, leaving no room for confusion or doubt" which means that verbal (i.e. using words, either spoken or written) communication is a necessary, but not sufficient condition for explicit communication. I.e. it's an even stricter standard than merely requiring verbal assent.

Leaving aside whether or not that entails verbal: How is requiring explicit consent, under the definition you provided supposed to be a bad thing? If there's "room for confusion or doubt", going ahead without clarifying entails that you can't be sure you aren't actually raping her without knowing. Demanding that you clarify the situation before going ahead if there's remaining ambiguity seems a very reasonable proposition. Failing to do so would be knowingly accepting the possibility that you might be raping the other person even if you don't intend to and don't think you are likely to.

- - - Updated - - -

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.

If she can lie about being raped she can also lie about whether he asked and got permission.

The only situations where it could help are misunderstandings where for some reason she's afraid to speak up. How common are those????

What makes you think they are rare?

 

[Derec]

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.

Of an extremely intrusive and draconian rule that should not exist.
And if males get expelled for that, then equally females should get expelled for not asking explicit permission before moving from sucking left ball to sucking on the right ball. Fair is fair, right?

No, they won't be expelled.

That's the problem. They won't be expelled even if the violate the same asinine rules the males get expelled for. How is that gender equality?

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.

I assume you think such a rule is a-ok? Also you think applying such a rule only to men is ok?

It's not making the students 'rapists,' no. But it does take the burder of interpretation off of the university's shoulders.

The burden should always be on the accuser, not on the accused.

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.

He said that he didn't have a problem with universities applying these rules to men only and not to women. That is certainly explicit enough for me.

- - - Updated - - -

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.

I am not "obsessed" about this any more than some other posters. Hell, I did not even start this thread. Nor the one before it on a similar subject.