No Means Yes If You Know How To Spot It

[Keith&Co.]

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.

Well, Rush, apparently.

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.

Well, yes, if they state that that IS the rule, then enforcing the rule would be the logical consequence of having the rule. Except i suspect that you are, once again, inserting your own '(selectively)' into the other poster's stance.

But i think it only really means that if you have permission for a good night kiss, that's not permission to unhook her bra.
If you have consented to a handy, that's not permission to force your head down into oral.

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.

I don't think it's stricter. I think it's more explicit. And that's to everyone's benefit. So they can say 'She really did say yes' rather than 'she said no, but she said it, you know, playfully.' or 'she said no but she smiled so i took it to mean....'

 

[Derec]

What do you know about "rape culture"?

I know it's largely overblown.

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.

It is beyond argument that false accusations do happen. As such it is foolish to give accusers more power and further restrict the rights of those accused.

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

Fake accusations are real. Double standards, which you said you had no problem with, are real. It is you who is not grounded in reality.

 

[Bronzeage]

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.

This is because the problem of men being raped by women exists only in your mind. Is that explicit enough for you?

 

[Jarhyn]

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.

Or, we could instead adjust our laws to a more sane version of 'justice' where instead of punishing people, we take what measures are necessary to prevent further harm, and no more. In some cases, that involves trekking the 'victim' to get over it, because it was an honest accident. In other cases, it involves putting someone either in a locked cell or the ground because they are legitimately fucked in the head to the point where they either intentionally harm others, or lack the ability to even learn how to discern that what they are doing is unacceptably likely to cause harm. In still others it involves putting someone under observation or on a leash until they both realize they did something bad, why it was bad, and how to not do it again.

There's nothing that magically makes unwanted sex be intensely traumatic. It isn't for everyone. I feel deeply sorry for anyone for whom all unwanted sex is necessarily deeply traumatic, because everyone has unwanted sex at some point in their lives. I think the problem Of regrettable college sex, and drunken sex would be a lot less bad if we did other things he would certainly not like: quit treating women like second class citizens, quit slut shaming, quit forcing women to be 'feminine' allowing full transgender equality, and abandoning the gender binary. It certainly would help if we just started recognizing sex as something much less 'special' and 'magical' than our society makes it out to be. Sometimes a night can be 'magical', true, but it isn't the sex that Makes or breaks it; it's just an element and a tool for the romance to be expressed. An assault is an assault, regardless of whether they force your legs open or cut your skin, or throw baseballs at you. Hurting people with the intent that they feel hurt, or not caring if they feel hurt, or not being able to understand that hurting is likely, that's the thing we need to stop. Certainly the people who have these drunken frat parties don't care about the girls they hurt, and so they need to be stopped and expelled because they are raping. But the standard that is being used to convict them will pull many people into the cracks who are neither incapable of empathy nor unwilling to make every effort to communicate effectively, and who are merely the victims of someone who spites them for honest mistakes because of their own immaturity.

 

[Rhea]

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

In some cases, that involves trekking the 'victim' to get over it, because it was an honest accident.

I think the main point of this rule/legislation is that there are a lot of cases that the aggressor is calling "an honest accident" and everyone else is saying, that is neither honest nor an accident.

And the rule attempts to define this clearly enough so that they finally get it.

But it seems like a sense of entitlement to other people's pink parts is making this a long row to hoe.

Many of these are neither honest nor an accident. And knowing FOR CERTAIN that the person you are having sex with actually wants it is what separates the crime from the pleasure.

 

[Frikki]

Wow Derec really thinks alot about rape.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

This is because the problem of men being raped by women exists only in your mind. Is that explicit enough for you?

I cannot tell if this is sarcasm. Poe?

 

[Jarhyn]

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.

This is because the problem of men being raped by women exists only in your mind. Is that explicit enough for you?

People can, in point of fact, hurt and even traumatize someone I'm ways that don't involve sex but are just as terrible as blackmailing someone into sex. Mostly it is taking advantage of some kind of ignorance about relationships, the availability of friendship, or the tendency of a person to accept at 'feels' value that the person in front of them is the only person among the 7 billion around them worth having under them. Hell, even I'm guilty of that last one even right now; I'm holding out because I really like him, and he really likes me, but logistics make it unlikely to the Nth degree that it would ever work out.

And instead of the relationship that the guy desperately wants, instead of the romance and wonder that he dreams of, he ends up as a sounding board about other failed relationships with no recognition that 'your goals and mine will never align and this relationship can only be toxic for at least one of us'. A lot of people fail to recognize that, regardless of gender, and in doing so deeply hurt someone who can't suppress their personal animal long enough to break it's fixation. It is cruel, and insensitive, and just as painful to a adult shaped child as it is to a child shaped child when an ignorant and destructive asshole manipulates them Into doing sexual things. The feels are just as painful and the damage is just as real. Instead if ending up with a troubled teen, you end up with an MRA, which is arguably worse because it contributes to rape culture.

That said, if someone is a MRA, at some point they still need to grow up and learn that sometimes they need to tell their animal to shut up about wanting romance with what's-her-name, go to the bar, and find someone else who may meet their needs and goals, and to treat them with respect and care (or spankings and ball gags, depending on the bar). If they can't do that, then they need a padded room and some strong medication. I suspect I know which of those Derec may need.

 

[RavenSky]

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.

No Derec is not correct on any point of this topic. Please produce any actual university or state policy that says only "verbal" consent is allowed. I'm not asking for media articles about said policies. I want links and quotes from the actual policies themselves stating that only "verbal" consent is acceptable. The word I see most used is "explicit" which is not the same as "verbal".

And I will continue to disagree with your position that any sort of "yes means yes" policy thereby criminalizes consensual rape roleplay. There is no such thing as "otherwise consensual" - either it is or it isn't; and if it is consensual... even when it is consensual rape roleplay, then it is not criminal rape.

Yes, I know that you are concerned with being able to prove consent in a situation that - to outsiders - would look like a criminal rape; but as I've said before, if it was consensual then *you* are not going to have to prove anything to outsiders.

 

[RavenSky]

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.

And the policies under discussion in these threads do not affect that at all.

 

[RavenSky]

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.

Yes, Derec, actually it would.

Any person who fails to get explicit consent has sexually assaulted / raped the other person. There simply is no grey area and no special cases. Having sex with someone without first having explicit consent IS rape; and claiming you thought s/he was just being "coy" is not a valid excuse.

Your attitude on this topic is EXACTLY why so many women are sexually assaulted at least once in their lifetimes. Your attitude on this topic is WRONG.

 

[RavenSky]

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?'

I note that you very clearly present the fact that you are talking about consensual sex. You even use the all important word "explicit" and you even wrote it in all caps for emphasis.

The policies don't say "Thou shalt use only the English word "yes" to make thou horniness apparent, and thou doth make it verbal, else it shalt be rape." The policies say "you must have explicit consent". No one cares if your sex games include using the word "no" as that explicit and verbal "yes". No one even cares if you and your partner have no verbal cues, as long have you and your partner have explicit consent.

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.

And now you have joined Derec in the paranoid world that says "better to rape thousands of innocents than to risk even one vindictive crazy." But here's the fallacy - the lack of a "yes means yes" policy does not protect you or Derec from the vindictive crazies.

 

[RavenSky]

No Derec, it is not. Even if you refuse to accept that a "yes" is required, you'd better be VERY FUCKING CLEAR that "no" ALWAYS means "no" - proceeding in spite of a "no" is a sexual assault. There is absolutely ZERO ambiguity on that point.

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

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.

Oh my dear dear Derec, you truly do not know nor understand me at all - and you are once again so very very wrong.

I am the very last person on this earth who would ever suggest that "any sort of BDSM rape play is no different than actual rape" for the very simple reason that I was very much a part of that scene when I was married. And it is because I was very involved, and know a lot of people involved, and continue to be very good friends with people who are involved, and was mentored by a very well known Mistress - that I know for a FACT that the people who are involved ALWAYS have EXPLICIT consent.

As Jahryn has pointed out, sometimes that explicit consent is actually the word "no", but the parties involved know that - they know they have explicit consent.

If they don't, it is rape. It's as simple as that.

 

[RavenSky]

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'.

Please note your words I've bolded. You have clearly stated that you and your partners fully consent to whatever happens, and you are very careful to not allow anyone in who does not fully consent to those terms.

Side note: "consent" doesn't necessarily imply "enjoyment" as many a virgin female can attest

 

[Keith&Co.]

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????

Yes, this won't stop anyone with actual evil intent, but it will protect the idiots who swear the next day 'I thought she was encouraging me' or 'egging me on' or 'consenting.'

 

[RavenSky]

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????

Yes, this won't stop anyone with actual evil intent, but it will protect the idiots who swear the next day 'I thought she was encouraging me' or 'egging me on' or 'consenting.'

or "she was being coy"

 

[Togo]

Well.. this is interesting. Maybe a different perspective would help.

I'm in the UK. Personally, I've met very few people who would explicitly ask for, or explicitly consent to, sex. That's just not how people talk. A rule that says that consent must be explicit is totally unworkable. Instead the focus was on 'no means no, which seems like a better approach. By raising that as the issue, it highlights the problem while at the same time specifically attacking the idea that 'no means maybe' for both men and women.

More generally, we need a solution that people will actually use. The problem with requiring explicit consent for every step is that people having consensual sex are unlikely to do this, particularly if they don't know each other that well. It makes an awkward situation even more awkward, and if it reduces their chances of actually having sex, they're going to ignore it. Trying to introduce an artificial barrier into people's private and intimate lives isn't going to work, except for those who have already internalised the values that would make the barrier unnecessary.

I don't see that BDSM is really on topic here - that's a situation where explicit consent is both practical and necessary. And I also don't see the kinds of double-standards that Derec talks about.

 

[RavenSky]

Explicit: very clear and complete : leaving no doubt about the meaning.

fully revealed or expressed without vagueness, implication, or ambiguity : leaving no question as to meaning or intent <explicit instructions>

unambiguous in expression <was very explicit on how we are to behave>

Why would anyone want to have sex with another person if there is any doubt as to whether the other person even wants to have sex with you?

I truly do not understand how or why this is even an issue to question.

 

[bilby]

Explicit: very clear and complete : leaving no doubt about the meaning.

fully revealed or expressed without vagueness, implication, or ambiguity : leaving no question as to meaning or intent <explicit instructions>

unambiguous in expression <was very explicit on how we are to behave>

Why would anyone want to have sex with another person if there is any doubt as to whether the other person even wants to have sex with you?

I truly do not understand how or why this is even an issue to question.

Ah, but implicit in your position is that you care about the opinion of your sex partner(s).

A convenient receptacle need not have an opinion.

 

[Rhea]

Well.. this is interesting. Maybe a different perspective would help.

I'm in the UK. Personally, I've met very few people who would explicitly ask for, or explicitly consent to, sex. That's just not how people talk. A rule that says that consent must be explicit is totally unworkable. Instead the focus was on 'no means no, which seems like a better approach. By raising that as the issue, it highlights the problem while at the same time specifically attacking the idea that 'no means maybe' for both men and women.

More generally, we need a solution that people will actually use. The problem with requiring explicit consent for every step is that people having consensual sex are unlikely to do this, particularly if they don't know each other that well. It makes an awkward situation even more awkward, and if it reduces their chances of actually having sex, they're going to ignore it. Trying to introduce an artificial barrier into people's private and intimate lives isn't going to work, except for those who have already internalised the values that would make the barrier unnecessary.

I am surprised and confused by this. people keep bringing it up. I'm trying to picture it and I can't. In all the times I've had sex (and I'm over 50, so it's a lot of years and a lot of cultural change) I simply cannot think of a time when I wanted the sex and was not EXPLICITLY CLEAR that I did as the encounter progressed.

I just can't picture - I really can't - this idea that y'all are happy to have sex with someone who is not clearly wanting it. Or that you think it's awkward to communicate sexual desire. To the point that you'd rather have sex with someone who you're not actually sure wants it rather than say in a throaty growl, "you like this, baby?" (oh, and care about the answer).

I really just, wow. Too awkward to get consent? Isn't rape kinda awkward? Don't you feel like shit the next day when you find out your partner wishes they had never ever gone somewhere with you? THAT'S awkward.

I'm having trouble picturing the resentment and reluctance to be the lover who looks in her/his eyes and says, "I want to be inside you" (oh, and waits to see how s/he reacts). I consider that kind of communication to be hot, not awkward. So I am having a terrible time even picturing a situation where a person says they just can't see it being sexy to communicate consent. Consent is "Yes! More!" Consent is "don't go!" Consent is "Oh, yes, there!" Consent is holding back an inch until she opens her eyes and sees you waiting, and grabs you and pulls you closer. Consent is "are you up for some wild monkey sex tonight?" Consent is "how about I thrill you until your knees are jelly." (oh, and seeing what their answer is). Consent is even, "are you with me? I don't want to go too fast for you, but you make me so hot."

And all you people arguing that sexy-talk is somehow a burden that is beneath you instead of both a safety gate against your discovering the next day that you partner thought you were gross the whole time and also an aphrodisiac for the lover who actually wants you. I'm plumb flummoxed by this idea that getting consent is "awkward." Seems to me it can be so hot if a guy is showing a great deal of interest in your pleasure. And the ones that don't? Yah. thanks, whatever, there won't be a second time with you, you were a dud.

"It's so awkward to find out if she wants to have sex beforehand, therefore I should just have sex and find out later" Is, like - what!?