No Means Yes If You Know How To Spot It

[Emily Lake]

It is quite possible - not to mention normal - for people to communicate their consent to sex implicitly, even subtly. To declare such consent not to be consent is absurd.

Based on your comment on Emily Lake's anecdote, I doubt that everyone in this conversation is using the same definition of explicit:

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/explicit
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/explicit
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/explicit

Depending on which of the various valid definitions one uses, Emily Lake's anecdote could be interpreted as either explicit or implicit consent.

I am willing to agree that Emily's anecdote could be interpreted as either explicit or implicit, mainly because the dictionary definitions of "implicit" are ambiguous - most using the word "implied" to define "implicit"

This is one of those situations that highlights how clumsy and difficult human communication can be - even when we think we're perfectly clear. I actually find it kind of amusing how many posts have been generated from my attempt at a humorous interjection!

So I'll join in and add my own perspective on this. To me, the consent is explicit... but only because my spouse and I have been together for over 20 years, and I know what he means by "sexy time" and he know what I mean by "sexy! sexy!". And if he grabs for the three-pronged attachment when I'm not in the mood, I'll tell him "Not tonight, let's stick with just two prongs". The point I was trying to get across is that we do a LOT of really explicit talking and communicating when it comes to sex. Mostly, because it makes sex much better, and much more fun. We laugh, we smile, sometimes we even applaud. "Hey I saw this thing on the internet that I want to try..." is not an uncommon phrase in our bedroom. I recommend that degree of talkativeness to anyone who wants to enjoy sex.

Now that you all know far more about my sex life than you ought... It's also clear that what I thought was explicit to me isn't necessarily explicit to someone else.

And there's the rub. Nonverbal signals aren't always clear, especially when you mix in some wishful thinking or inebriation - or both! Even verbal signals can be misleading if they rely on implication and innuendo.

On the other hand, however, asking for an explicit and incontrovertible "Yes" at every stage is certainly going to be awkward and will likely ruin the mood. Especially if you're not already well-familiar with your partner. I think if it were my preference, I would rather see a requirement for an explicit "yes" prior to sexual contact including penetration or oral sex of any sort... but with a caveat that "no" at any point breaks of continuing advances and triggers more detailed discussion.

 

[Togo]

That's something that actually happened. Neither of them did say that to the other. I had to pick the pieces. University relationships are often full of drama.

What I'm concerned about is that the course of their lives was changed because of an arbitrary rule that this guy was taught, and that they could have been happy together.

Whereas no one ever has to pick up the pieces of a woman's life after she gets forced into sex by a guy who "reasonably (in his eyes) thought she meant yes". And that's not even up to the level of "drama". And the course of her life, and possibly his, is not changed forever?


I'm definitely in the camp that lives changed forever by NOT having sex is not as much of a social issue as lives changes by HAVING sex when one of the parties never wanted it in the first place.


I am surprised that drama-filled university lives are more important to you than preventing rapes by people who think it's okay to proceed without consent.

Surprised and more than a little saddened.

Well, maybe you should have tried to understand what I was saying? The point is not that one is more important than the other. The point is that a rule that interferes with people's lives in this way isn't going to be followed. If we spend time and effort pushing a rule that isn't going to be followed, you displace activity that could actually be having a positive effect. So an ineffectual rule actually increases the rape rate.

It comes down to whether you're trying to work out the theoretical best rule to follow, or to achieve something practical.

 

[Togo]

On the other hand, however, asking for an explicit and incontrovertible "Yes" at every stage is certainly going to be awkward and will likely ruin the mood. Especially if you're not already well-familiar with your partner. I think if it were my preference, I would rather see a requirement for an explicit "yes" prior to sexual contact including penetration or oral sex of any sort... but with a caveat that "no" at any point breaks of continuing advances and triggers more detailed discussion.

That seems like a more reasonable way to go. Some form of positive consent is important, but permission at every stage is just unworkable. I don't think anyone disagrees with no being a deal-breaker, no matter at what stage it appears.

In the spirit of Emily's openess, I'd take some issue with Sabine's idea that men have a more or less 100% orgasm rate. I certainly faked orgasms on a regular basis, and I know I'm not the only man to have done so. If you're wearing a condem, it's really pretty easy.

 

[ZiprHead]

I think you just said that not a single straight guy that you have met is "nice."

Notice I use 'nice guys'. As in men who become unfortunately dependent on validation from girls who don't feel attraction to dependent guys, and then crush on women that don't want to be with them that way. Romance and sex don't have to both come with the same person.

Also, notice that bit about MSM in there. They really aren't gay. But sometimes sex with a guy is better than not having sex.

I have a friend that says there are only three words that would make him have sex with a guy. Life without parole.

 

[Arctish]

On the other hand, however, asking for an explicit and incontrovertible "Yes" at every stage is certainly going to be awkward and will likely ruin the mood. Especially if you're not already well-familiar with your partner. I think if it were my preference, I would rather see a requirement for an explicit "yes" prior to sexual contact including penetration or oral sex of any sort... but with a caveat that "no" at any point breaks of continuing advances and triggers more detailed discussion.

That seems like a more reasonable way to go. Some form of positive consent is important, but permission at every stage is just unworkable. I don't think anyone disagrees with no being a deal-breaker, no matter at what stage it appears.

Derec has argued that "no" is not a deal-breaker, it's just a yellow flag that means keep on doing what you're doing to get your target potential partner into bed, just be patient and a bit more subtle. He has also argued that when a girl says "no" she's often being "playful" and "coy", so it should never be taken as a sign it's time for a guy to go home alone.

 

[Jokodo]

How do you define "under pressure"?

spikepipsqueak thinks that if your behaviour and conversation don't make somebody of the opinion that sex with you is something they want to do, then arguing them into it is boorish and self involved. These are 2 attributes that are not illegal, but any consent to sex obtained by these methods is.

No it isn't. Not by any sane legal standard. Consent is consent, it doesn't matter if you think the guy was "boorish" or "self-involved". If the action used to get consent is itself legal then the consent thus obtained is legal as well. If a man threatens a woman with violence that would be invalid consent as it was done under duress. If a man threatens a woman with stopping seeing her if she doesn't sleep with him (one of the examples classified as "rape" by the infamous and deeply flawed Ms. Magazine "study") then that consent is perfectly ok as he is in complete right to stop seeing her for whatever reason and she has the valid option to let him not see her again.

High pressure tactics aren't acceptable in real estate or car sales (but a 3 day cooling off period isn't much use to someone who had sex with you under coercion, hence the attitude of the universities, and the general effort to improve the communication of people looking to have sex with each other.)

What are you defining as "high pressure" tactics here?

It's sufficient for the nice ones.

Oh please! It's the nice guys who always get rejected by women and are ridiculed as "entitled" (by the more fortunate in the dating/hookup game) when they get upset by the repeated rejections.

I'm a nice guy. I have a very sexy girlfriend. A happen to know that a very sexy colleague is feeling guilty just for the way she looks at me. I'm pretty sure that a few other very sexy people would have made advances if I hadn't brought my girlfriend and kid to dinner, or constantly talked about her.

Enthusiastic consent is the ideal for all parties.

Again, I agree. But neither the law nor the university should concern itself with what's ideal.

Uncoerced consent is the minimum standard.

Again, depends on what you mean by "coerced".

You say that you want to keep away from your own life experiences but I find it deeply troubling that you consider it acceptable to screw someone who didn't want to bed you but you were able to argue her into it.

If a man is able to "argue her into it" then that means that she agreed to have sex with him in the end. Hence there was consent. Hence it is acceptable. Is it ideal? No, but that's not the standard universities should operate under.

It means that she stopped, at some point, to fend off his advances. Whether he agreed to it in any meaningful and legally binding sense is not implied. If she says the next day that she was taken advantage of, chances are that she was - even if that wasn't his intention.

 

[RavenSky]

and rape does?

Fallacy of excluded middle:
http://changingminds.org/disciplines/argument/fallacies/excluded_middle.htm

There is no fallacy because there is no middle here. Either it is rape or it isn't. If there is not consent, there is rape. No middle ground in that.

The only discussion here is how various universities want to clarify "consent" in order to cut down on the number of rapes on the campuses.

ex·plic·it adjective \ik-ˈspli-sət\
: very clear and complete : leaving no doubt about the meaning
: openly shown
:* fully revealed or expressed without vagueness, implication, or ambiguity :* leaving no question as to meaning or intent

At the specific point in time described by Emily, there was an EXPLICIT invitation to "sexy time" and an EXPLICIT consent in both word and action.

And vagueness as to what 'sexy time' means. They assume based on their past relationship, but it's not explicit.

Let's ask Emily how vague it was. I don't even know her husband, and it wasn't vague to me.

there was an EXPLICIT invitation (in every sense of the word ) and her EXPLICIT consent.

To what? Something sexy sure,

yes to "something sexy". Why are you continuing to ignore the "ongoing consent" part?

Once upstairs, there would have been further invitation and consent communications that would have determined whether this particular "sexy time" was oral sex or mutual masterbation or hot doggy sex or swinging from the rafters.

None of which would be necessary if the initial invitation and acceptance were unambiguous.

wrong because even if Emily and her husband first met with their respective lawyers and hashed out a written notarized contract expressly setting forth every specific act each of them would perform on the other... You are still ignoring the "ongoing consent" part. And you are the one engaging in the fallacy of the middle.

Nowhere in any of the policies presented is there a requirement to have an explicit agreement of the entirety of the act before beginning, only that there be explicit and ongoing consent every step of the way.

But I will again point out, since it seems to be getting ignored, Emily was discussing how she and her long-time husband communicate. Even if there is some implicit communication going on, no third party is going to be in their bedroom to leap out from under the bed and arrest them for rape because her wink implicitly but accurately communicates "I like that"

So what? Either we have a rule people can be expected to follow, or we don't. If the rule clearly and obviously covers non-rape as well as rape, it will not be adopted, It will be ridiculed and abandoned, and we'll get more rapes as a result. What possible utility is a rule that you can't avoid breaking?

Frankly, you can't get anymore clear than "get clear unambiguous and ongoing consent before you fuck someone" and if anyone abandons that, they are a rapist anyway.

 

[RavenSky]

Given the college campus rape statistics, obviously it is not "sufficient".

Of course it is sufficient.

The problem is that the "she didn't say no" date rapists are not even getting implicit consent; they are just assuming they have consent because the other person is non-communicative.

No, date rapists only CLAIM they had "implied consent" because they get away with it.

If the rule is "explicit consent" then they can't get away with claiming "implied consent" anymore.

Moreover, drunk frat boys and their potential partners will also have a very clear guideline as to what constitutes "consent" as well.

 

[RavenSky]

If you have sex with someone without their explicit permission, you don't know whether you're doing it against their will or not. This is all the more pertinent if we're talking about casual hook-ups with people you hardly know. (And, no, explicit doesn't have to mean verbal.)

If you have sex with someone with their explicit permission, you don't know whether you're doing it against their will or not. Particularly if they're drunk, confused, intimidated, easily influenced, or what have you. If the actual standard you want is being certain that it's not against their will, then use that as your standard. What's the point in promoting a standard when you don't believe that is what matters?

Do you just throw random words at the screen? By definition you CAN NOT have "explicit consent" if the person is drunk, confused, intimidated, or coerced - so your word salad above is utterly meaningless.

 

[Arctish]

I don't understand why you can't avoid breaking a rule about having affirmative, enthusiastic, sober consent to sex when the overwhelming majority of people find obeying that rule is easy.

I suppose if your modus operandi is to get drunk and screw other drunks, then it would definitely present an obstacle to having the kind of sex life you enjoy, but saying that breaking the rule is unavoidable is hyperbole. It's no more unavoidable than breaking the rule about having sex with 12 year olds or having sex on an airplane.

 

[RavenSky]

Can you quote the part where it requires a verbal cue? Because I thought it had already been established that it does not say that.

Given the definition of "explicit" I do not see how you can have explicit consent without "verbal cues".

As I have already posted multiple times, "explicit" does not mean "express"

"Express consent" means it must be written or verbal.

"Explicit consent" means it must be clear and unambiguous.

 

[Arctish]

Given the definition of "explicit" I do not see how you can have explicit consent without "verbal cues".

As I have already posted multiple times, "explicit" does not mean "express"

"Express consent" means it must be written or verbal.

"Explicit consent" means it must be clear and unambiguous.

IMO, anyone who is confused on this point should always seek clear, unambiguous verbal consent. It will suck if your potential partner had a stroke and has been rendered unable to speak, but it's the only way for you to be sure.

 

[RavenSky]

As I have already posted multiple times, "explicit" does not mean "express"

"Express consent" means it must be written or verbal.

"Explicit consent" means it must be clear and unambiguous.

IMO, anyone who is confused on this point should always seek clear, unambiguous verbal consent. It will suck if your potential partner had a stroke and has been rendered unable to speak, but it's the only way for you to be sure.

I agree, but I am tired of the objection being based on a false premise.

Frankly, I'm tired of so many people objecting to consensual sex in the first place. I cannot fathom that this is even a point of contention among rational people

 

[Derec]

Frankly, I'm tired of so many people objecting to consensual sex in the first place. I cannot fathom that this is even a point of contention among rational people

It's not. The contention is "consent" being linked to an increasing number of hoops to jump through.

- - - Updated - - -

"Express consent" means it must be written or verbal.

"Explicit consent" means it must be clear and unambiguous.

And how do you get "unambiguous" without using words?

 

[Derec]

I don't understand why you can't avoid breaking a rule about having affirmative, enthusiastic, sober consent to sex when the overwhelming majority of people find obeying that rule is easy.

Because consent should be the only thing that matters as far as rules are concerned.
How enthusiastic must consent be in your view to not qualify as rape? How would you even measure that?
How sober must consent be in your view to not qualify as rape? Should all college girls be equipped with mandatory breathalyzer triggered chastity belts?

having sex on an airplane.

Is that the next thing the <snip> want to make into rape?

 

[RavenSky]

Whereas no one ever has to pick up the pieces of a woman's life after she gets forced into sex by a guy who "reasonably (in his eyes) thought she meant yes". And that's not even up to the level of "drama". And the course of her life, and possibly his, is not changed forever?


I'm definitely in the camp that lives changed forever by NOT having sex is not as much of a social issue as lives changes by HAVING sex when one of the parties never wanted it in the first place.


I am surprised that drama-filled university lives are more important to you than preventing rapes by people who think it's okay to proceed without consent.

Surprised and more than a little saddened.

Well, maybe you should have tried to understand what I was saying? The point is not that one is more important than the other. The point is that a rule that interferes with people's lives in this way isn't going to be followed. If we spend time and effort pushing a rule that isn't going to be followed, you displace activity that could actually be having a positive effect. So an ineffectual rule actually increases the rape rate.

It comes down to whether you're trying to work out the theoretical best rule to follow, or to achieve something practical.

How on earth does it "interfere" with anyone's life to make certain they have clear unambiguous consent before they fuck someone?

The only people who will be inconvenienced will be the rapists, and that is rather what we do want, right?

 

[Derec]

No, date rapists only CLAIM they had "implied consent" because they get away with it.

If the rule is "explicit consent" then they can't get away with claiming "implied consent" anymore.

If they lie in the first instance they can just as well lie in the second instance. This rule will do nothing about real rapists but will catch many people who are not rapists into the dragnet just because the consent they were given wasn't "explicit" enough to satisfy some college apparatchik.

Moreover, drunk frat boys and their potential partners will also have a very clear guideline as to what constitutes "consent" as well.

Clear as mud more like.

 

[Derec]

I'm a nice guy. I have a very sexy girlfriend. A happen to know that a very sexy colleague is feeling guilty just for the way she looks at me. I'm pretty sure that a few other very sexy people would have made advances if I hadn't brought my girlfriend and kid to dinner, or constantly talked about her.

Well bully for you. But most people are not like that.

It means that she stopped, at some point, to fend off his advances.

No that's not what it means.

Whether he agreed to it in any meaningful and legally binding sense is not implied.

Being argued into doing something implies that you eventually agreed to it. Which means consent.

If she says the next day that she was taken advantage of, chances are that she was - even if that wasn't his intention.

Nonsense. Just because she might regret agreeing to sex the following day (or year, see Vassar) doesn't mean she didn't agree to it in the first place!

- - - Updated - - -

Derec has argued that "no" is not a deal-breaker, it's just a yellow flag that means keep on doing what you're doing to get your target potential partner into bed, just be patient and a bit more subtle.

I said that it can be a yellow flag. I do not see what's so controversial about that. Except to radical feminists that is.

 

[RavenSky]

It's not. The contention is "consent" being linked to an increasing number of hoops to jump through.

it is too much of a hoop to jump through to make sure you have consent? Seriously?

 

[Derec]

It's not. The contention is "consent" being linked to an increasing number of hoops to jump through.

it is too much of a hoop to jump through to make sure you have consent? Seriously?

No, it's all the extra hoops added to basic consent that I am objecting to.