No Means Yes If You Know How To Spot It

[Togo]

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?

If not sure I understand the question. Desiring someone without knowing if they like you back is a fairly everyday occurrence. Two people liking each other, but not being sure if the other feels the same way, is also an every day occurrence.

Maybe there is confusion about the meaning of explicit? It not only means without doubt, but also that something is explained/demonstrated so as to be beyond doubt. What you're advocating, as I understand it, is that two people, both of whom want to have sex with each other, should nonetheless seek explicit consent from the other. Which means they actually need to actually ask or confirm in some way, rather than merely sharing an understanding.

 

[Togo]

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).

But "you like this baby?" isn't explicit consent. It's implied consent, of the kind that is being discussed as being counted as rape. Because it's ambiguous as to what it is they like. If you're already having sex, then you're too late to ask. If you're not already having sex, then there's no way that "do you like this baby?" could refer to sex, so it's not consent to sex.

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).

Try picturing someone who would never say such a thing, even if they were having sex with you at the time.

I consider that kind of communication to be hot, not awkward.

That's nice for you. But since we're discussing a rule for everyone, why would it matter how it makes you feel?

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!"

No, that's way too late for consent.

Consent is "are you up for some wild monkey sex tonight?"

Some people don't talk that way, particularly not to someone they don't know and aren't in a relationship with.

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."

No, it isn't. Saying that, and then taking that as consent to full sex, is still rape under the proposals we've been given. Because sex has not been explicitly agreed to.

"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!?

And that's the misunderstanding. What you're talking about is not explicit consent. What you're talking about is being sure in your own mind that they want sex without explicitly asking, exactly what is being described as rape under these proposals. Saying things that imply consent to sex without actually, explicitly, asking. That's the problem. Under the these proposals, what you are doing is raping people because you think they want sex with you. Which is exactly why the proposals are unpopular, because they involve condemning entirely normal sexual behaviour.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

I could see this featured in a sitcom. Constant and continuous verbal affirmative consent.

May I penetrate you? Yes. May I again? yes. May I again? yes. may I again? yes. May I again? yes.

And on and on it goes for every thrust of his hips.

 

[Rhea]

And that's the misunderstanding. What you're talking about is not explicit consent. What you're talking about is being sure in your own mind that they want sex without explicitly asking, exactly what is being described as rape under these proposals. Saying things that imply consent to sex without actually, explicitly, asking. That's the problem. Under the these proposals, what you are doing is raping people because you think they want sex with you. Which is exactly why the proposals are unpopular, because they involve condemning entirely normal sexual behaviour.

The examples you replied to are simply examples. There about about a gajillion more ways to ask/indicate/query (at every step if you want). The key that you think I am assuming is not assumed but an actual answer in action _or_ word.

When you say "Saying that, and then taking that as consent to full sex, is still rape under the proposals we've been given. " you're ignoring that in each case I'm saying, "and wait for the answer." And again, "explicit" does not require "verbal" So I'm not suggesting at all that anyone says that, "and then taking that as consent to full sex," I'm saying that someone says or does that and looks for the response! and the response is the answer. If s/he pulls you close, that's explicit. Or responds in any other of the myriad ways a person can show actual affirmative consent.

And again, I can imagine a gajillion different ways to say and do it. Getting a clear and unambiguous response to your attentions.

Waiting for "yes, more!" is not way too late (unless you're picturing that only happening after penetration, and then, yah) but if you're getting that kind of thing earlier on, it's perfectly useful.

And again, these are just thoughts to create a picture.


How do _YOU_ know for sure that your sexual partner wants sex with you? Do you care if you know for sure? How do _you_ let your partner know you are interested in sex? Do you care if they are sure that you want it? Are you okay with them going ahead when you don't want it?

I get that some people don't talk that way. I don't always / haven't always. I'm not going to try to list every different way I've made myself clear. I still don't get how it's awkward to be certain. How people can be so sure that there is no way to indicate a desire for feedback and get it. I do know that if someone claims they are certain their partners have always wanted them and one of the signals they've relied upon is, "she didn't say no" that they might very well have been wrong about it, and instead had sex with someone who did not want it at all and wished it had not happened.

 

[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????

What makes you think they are rare?

How many such reports are we seeing from the new rules?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

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.'

How many cases are there where she didn't say no but meant no??

 

[Loren Pechtel]

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).

Try picturing someone who would never say such a thing, even if they were having sex with you at the time.

Exactly. Plenty of people--mostly women--have problems with that level of explicitness.

 

[Emily Lake]

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'.

I think the major point involved in all your post here, is that there is some degree of prior discussion involved, and that the people involved have given full consent to the terms of the role-playing before-hand. It never involves participants who are unwilling.

 

[Emily Lake]

Maybe, although I know of no case where a female student was expelled for sexual assault.

Do you know of any cases where it was reported, and the female student was not expelled, or do you just not know of any cases where it was reported?

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?

 

[Underseer]

If I may be so bold as to quote an old sitcom: "If you say 'no' when you mean 'yes,' what do you say when you mean 'no'?"

Even if women do mean yes when they say no, any decent man will take the "no" at face value because the consequences of guessing wrong are pretty severe.

 

[Emily Lake]

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.

I like these suggestions. Sadly, I think it expresses far too much common sense for the common person to actually see the sense of.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

If I may be so bold as to quote an old sitcom: "If you say 'no' when you mean 'yes,' what do you say when you mean 'no'?"

Reminds me of an old joke:

I was riding in a car when the driver ran through a red light. When I protested he said "Don't worry, my brother does it all the time". We then went through another red light. "Somebody will hit us!" I protested. "Don't worry" he said "My brother been doin' it all the time for years and he's fine". Then we came to a green light and he slammed on the brakes. "What are you doing?!" I shouted. To this he screamed back "My brother may be coming!"

 

[Emily Lake]

How do _YOU_ know for sure that your sexual partner wants sex with you?

He usually comes down the stairs from the shower, and waggles his twig and giggle-berries in my general direction while asking "Is it sexy time now?"

To which I usually reply "Oh baby! Sexy, sexy!" And promptly follow him up to the boudoir.

This is after 20+ years together.

 

[Emily Lake]

Exactly. Plenty of people--mostly women--have problems with that level of explicitness.

ON what basis do you assume that it's mostly women? My experience has been that it is men who are more reticent about being talkative and open about sexual matters. They've always been flustered and uncertain about simply discussing what they like and want when it comes to intimacy, much more so than I.

 

[Togo]

And that's the misunderstanding. What you're talking about is not explicit consent. What you're talking about is being sure in your own mind that they want sex without explicitly asking, exactly what is being described as rape under these proposals. Saying things that imply consent to sex without actually, explicitly, asking. That's the problem. Under the these proposals, what you are doing is raping people because you think they want sex with you. Which is exactly why the proposals are unpopular, because they involve condemning entirely normal sexual behaviour.

The examples you replied to are simply examples. There about about a gajillion more ways to ask/indicate/query (at every step if you want).

So give me one that works for everyone.

The key that you think I am assuming is not assumed but an actual answer in action _or_ word.

When you say "Saying that, and then taking that as consent to full sex, is still rape under the proposals we've been given. " you're ignoring that in each case I'm saying, "and wait for the answer."

No, I'm aware that you're getting an actual answer, but it doesn't matter. What you're describing is still rape under the proposals we're talking about.

For example - Consent is "how about I thrill you until your knees are jelly." (oh, and seeing what their answer is).

Let's pretend they say - "oh, yes, yes! Thrill me!"

Have they consented to full sex, or just heavy flirtation and maybe a quick fumble in the back seat? There has been an explicit response, there has been explicit consent to something, but not explicit consent to sex. These proposals would make sex on that basis into rape.

And again, "explicit" does not require "verbal". So I'm not suggesting at all that anyone says that, "and then taking that as consent to full sex," I'm saying that someone says or does that and looks for the response! and the response is the answer. If s/he pulls you close, that's explicit.

It is explicit, it's not consent to sex.

And again, I can imagine a gajillion different ways to say and do it. Getting a clear and unambiguous response to your attentions.

Again, explicit, but not consent to sex, unless you've managed to communicate clearly and unambiguously what you're intending. A 'response to your attentions' isn't sufficient under these proposals, because consent to being kissed or stroked or fondled isn't consent to sex.

Waiting for "yes, more!" is not way too late (unless you're picturing that only happening after penetration, and then, yah) but if you're getting that kind of thing earlier on, it's perfectly useful.

Useful for what? It's not consent to sex, and you can't assume that consent to things preparatory to sex is consent to sex. Strictly speaking, under the proposals, it's not useful at all.

How do _YOU_ know for sure that your sexual partner wants sex with you?

Generally speaking I go slowly and in stages, and make sure they're happy with what I'm doing before going any further. Which is rape under these rules, because I'm trying things first and seeing if they're ok with it, rather than seeking explicit permission for each stage before trying it.

I get that some people don't talk that way. I don't always / haven't always. I'm not going to try to list every different way I've made myself clear. I still don't get how it's awkward to be certain. How people can be so sure that there is no way to indicate a desire for feedback and get it.

You don't see how it's awkward to seek explicit consent for every action before performing it? You don't see how it's difficult to see your lover, run towards them with your arms open, and then stop and ask permission before you consumate the hug? You don't see it as awkward that your love not touch your breast because you ripping your shirt off and pressing yourself to them doesn't explicitly give them nipple priviledges?

 

[Bronzeage]

Exactly. Plenty of people--mostly women--have problems with that level of explicitness.

ON what basis do you assume that it's mostly women? My experience has been that it is men who are more reticent about being talkative and open about sexual matters. They've always been flustered and uncertain about simply discussing what they like and want when it comes to intimacy, much more so than I.

This is always a problem in this kind of discussion. We are limited by our experience, and no matter how busy someone has been in their past, it's still a very tiny fraction of the overall population.

I have known women who couldn't say certain words out loud and others who scared the neighbor's dog. I have known women who liked the sound of my voice and there was one who wanted me to stay quiet because she was thinking of someone else and when I spoke, it was distracting. Of course, these are things one learns with experience. There is a catch. It has to be experience with the same person. This takes time and time makes you old, so don't expect young people to have the needed experience.

To say, "No means yes, if you know how to spot it," is ignorance and arrogance bordering on hubris. We are talking about teenagers and college students(Rush Limbaugh has the mentality of a 15 year old). When one is dealing with a new acquaintance, there is no way to "spot it." He doesn't have any idea what it is. Maybe the last woman he met was easy to read when she said no, but meant yes. But, since women who play that silly kind of game are so rare, what's the odds of running into two in a row?

Any man(or boy) who thinks there is such a thing as "No means yes, if you know how to spot it," would be better off learning to recognize "A polite smile means I don't want to hurt your feelings, but you don't have a shot at this."

 

[AthenaAwakened]

ON what basis do you assume that it's mostly women? My experience has been that it is men who are more reticent about being talkative and open about sexual matters. They've always been flustered and uncertain about simply discussing what they like and want when it comes to intimacy, much more so than I.

This is always a problem in this kind of discussion. We are limited by our experience, and no matter how busy someone has been in their past, it's still a very tiny fraction of the overall population.

I have known women who couldn't say certain words out loud and others who scared the neighbor's dog. I have known women who liked the sound of my voice and there was one who wanted me to stay quiet because she was thinking of someone else and when I spoke, it was distracting. Of course, these are things one learns with experience. There is a catch. It has to be experience with the same person. This takes time and time makes you old, so don't expect young people to have the needed experience.

To say, "No means yes, if you know how to spot it," is ignorance and arrogance bordering on hubris. We are talking about teenagers and college students(Rush Limbaugh has the mentality of a 15 year old). When one is dealing with a new acquaintance, there is no way to "spot it." He doesn't have any idea what it is. Maybe the last woman he met was easy to read when she said no, but meant yes. But, since women who play that silly kind of game are so rare, what's the odds of running into two in a row?

Any man(or boy) who thinks there is such a thing as "No means yes, if you know how to spot it," would be better off learning to recognize "A polite smile means I don't want to hurt your feelings, but you don't have a shot at this."

"Any man(or boy) who thinks there is such a thing as "No means yes, if you know how to spot it," would be better off learning to recognize "A polite smile means I don't want to hurt your feelings, but you don't have a shot at this.""

Facebook meme if I ever read one.

 

[arkirk]

Exactly. Plenty of people--mostly women--have problems with that level of explicitness.

ON what basis do you assume that it's mostly women? My experience has been that it is men who are more reticent about being talkative and open about sexual matters. They've always been flustered and uncertain about simply discussing what they like and want when it comes to intimacy, much more so than I.

That kinda puts a different spin on the idea of the "tall, silent type." More accurate than most would care to admit. We are a society that inculcates the notion that men are non verbal, when they are actually only verbally challenged and use this societal meme to justify their lack of communicativeness. The idea is that men, when they talk too much about sex are being womanish or are perhaps puerile. Women when in the company of these strong silent types can be intimidated by the wordless bluster and fail to communicate also. No communication....no consent. It is really about that simple, but of course some guys just push on silently into dangerous territory for themselves and women. There is a kind of mythical factor in play...The more you talk, the less sex you will get.

 

[Bronzeage]

Okay.

 

[RavenSky]

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!?

"Seems to me it can be so hot if a guy is showing a great deal of interest in your pleasure"

Maybe that's the message that needs to be shouted from the rooftops. Maybe if all the guys complaining that they really don't want to be burdened with having to get explicit consent really internalized the concept that the very best way to get explicitly consensual and hot enthusiastic sex is to actually show "a great deal of interest in [their partner's] pleasure" we would have a lot of much happier and sexually satisfied people all the way around.