Is ‘Yes Means Yes’ Unstoppable?

[May90]

It seems like you should know whether or not your date / partner wants to have sex with you, and if they don't you probably shouldn't try to force yourself on them. Common sense that is apparently too hard for some "people" to grasp.

I hate, absolutely hate to refer to Trump on that, but he once answered a question on some topic amazingly well. Roughly:

"For centuries it was like this, and everything was fine. Now, suddenly, people have a problem with it."

For centuries people used common sense to understand whether their partner wants sex with them or not. Now, all of a sudden, people are confused. ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)

[Belize]

I personally carry consent forms for partners to fill out. Every 10 minutes the encounter lasts they sign another form for consent.

[Theodarzna]

I've always wondered what goes in the heads of people who seriously care about laws of consent with regards to their personal lives. What the hell do you do to others that makes it relevant for you? Some kind of extreme BDSM or something?

The great irony of Liberals, they are against slut shaming, until they aren't. Even if I engaged in the most hardcore bondage slave master play ever, does that have any relationship to my point?

That is what is ultimately the hilariousness and absurdity of liberals, you are tolerant until you are not, you are against slut shaming until you are not, you are pro-woman until you are not, ect ect.

A serious of contradictions and hypocrisies. It seems your only defining trait is over arching and all consuming guilt.

- - - Updated - - -

I hate, absolutely hate to refer to Trump on that, but he once answered a question on some topic amazingly well. Roughly:

"For centuries it was like this, and everything was fine. Now, suddenly, people have a problem with it."

For centuries people used common sense to understand whether their partner wants sex with them or not. Now, all of a sudden, people are confused. ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)

Of all the ridiculous bullshit, if everything was fine then why are we changing the laws? If people have understood consent since the dawn of time why then do we need to put people through consent classes AND more over change the laws on sexual consent to a standard that has never existed ANYWHERE.

[Self Inflicted Wounds]

It seems like you should know whether or not your date / partner wants to have sex with you, and if they don't you probably shouldn't try to force yourself on them. Common sense that is apparently too hard for some "people" to grasp.

Lol yeah, THATS the issue here.

[Mehrunes]

I hate, absolutely hate to refer to Trump on that, but he once answered a question on some topic amazingly well. Roughly:

"For centuries it was like this, and everything was fine. Now, suddenly, people have a problem with it."

For centuries people used common sense to understand whether their partner wants sex with them or not. Now, all of a sudden, people are confused. ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)

People wouldn't be nearly as confused if certain geniuses didn't try to push things like affirmative consent, which is the legalese equivalent of pretty much everything else Trump has said, into law.

[Endus]

I really don't see why the issue of consent is even debated. "Affirmative consent" basically exists as a concept because of how much people have tried to tread the line, requiring a firm legislative position.

When really, it's this simple;



Asking "would you like a cup of tea?" is looking for affirmative consent. It's hardly an extreme request. The definition of "consent" isn't changing. Requiring affirmative consent just removes the idiotic argument of "well, I thought she wanted it, even though she was kinda fighting me, she was just playing hard to get" rapist bullshit.

[Mehrunes]

Anyway, what I don't understand is why is this limited to colleges and the like only when it's state law. If it was an initiative of a college or a group of them, I could understand that. After all, US colleges are places of feels and not places of learning. But it's the state telling them to do it. While keeping the criminal law in the old (and sane) way. Sounds rather inconsistent. Unless they are using places of feels as testing ground for insanity to make a point about how insane it actually is.

[Dextroden]

I really don't see why the issue of consent is even debated. "Affirmative consent" basically exists as a concept because of how much people have tried to tread the line, requiring a firm legislative position.

When really, it's this simple;



Asking "would you like a cup of tea?" is looking for affirmative consent. It's hardly an extreme request. The definition of "consent" isn't changing. Requiring affirmative consent just removes the idiotic argument of "well, I thought she wanted it, even though she was kinda fighting me, she was just playing hard to get" rapist bullshit.

Actually, it's about asking someone if they want tea everytime they go in to pick up the cup. And are taking a sip. Or stirring their honey in.

Granted, it's no shock you've come to misinform.

[Mihalik]

It seems like you should know whether or not your date / partner wants to have sex with you, and if they don't you probably shouldn't try to force yourself on them. Common sense that is apparently too hard for some "people" to grasp.

Unfortunatly this is not the issue.

What you just mentioned is perfectly covered by No means no.

Someone makes a move, the other person says no, if he keeps insisting it's sexual abuse/rape. Simple.

Affirmative Consent on the other hand is a lot more obscure.

It's more along these lines.

Person wants to make a move because he thinks he is getting the right signals. Makes a move, doesn't get any negative feedback. (The move could be anything, a kiss, placing of the hands in x or y place, penetration etc.) To only way to avoid this is, to literally ask for permission constantly for everything you do. Which is a silly concept.

But let's assume that consent was asked and was given (clearly and vocally expressed, as that is a requirement here as well). But the day after for XYZ reasons the one of the participants retroactively decides that while in the heath of the moment action xyz was okay, not it isn't. (I'm not even assuming malicious intent, which is also a factor).

Now this has to be arbitrated. In arbitration all this comes down to Word against Word. Affirmative Consent is not demonstrable, unless you literally filmed said consent being given.

The problem with Affirmative Consent is that it is EXTREMELY VAGUE, and removes EVERY SINGLE PROTECTION granted to someone being accused. Essentially the person being accused has no rights. This is silly.

Again, this would go into the realm of whether people lie about rape or not (I'M INTENTIONALLY AVOIDING GENDERS, BECAUSE THIS IS NOT ABOUT GENDERS, tho in practice it hilariously reinforces gender roles, by typically assigning the victim role to women, and the aggressor role to the male, and thus reinforcing the idea that women lack agency), and there the fact remains that people are essentially people, which means faulty. There could be a bazillion reasons why we mishandle sexual assault cases, mental illness, inability to understand consequences, malicious intent, mistakes, decisions driven by preconceptions or religious norms and so on.

We as a society are experiencing a rape hysteria. It's not dissimilar from the Satanist Child Abuse Hysteria of the 90's,https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satanic_ritual_abuse perhaps simply this being larger in scale and scope, and perhaps being a bit more grounded in reality. But it is still a hysteria, and we are still overreacting to it, as we did in the past. Driven by a media frenzy (add social media to it today) and honest good intentions to address a perceived problem (in this case I'm not saying the problem doesn't exist, I'm saying we are overreacting).

We can't throw logic and reason out the window in a frenzy to address a problem, real or perceived. On the contrary we should be applying reason, logic and an analytical approach to finding a solution.

[May90]

Actually, it's about asking someone if they want tea everytime they go in to pick up the cup. And are taking a sip. Or stirring their honey in.

Granted, it's no shock you've come to misinform.

Picking up the cup is an action of one person. Sex is an action of two persons. Why don't you look for a better analogy, such as, for example, boxing? Where, indeed, before every sparring match you are supposed to ask another person whether they want it, not just bash them in the head all of a sudden, simply because last time they agreed to fight you.

It is amusing how such a basic and intuitive concept as "consent" causes so much confusion...

[alexkeren]

Here's a thought: don't rape anyone and you won't have anything to worry about. I know that can be confusing for some people...

So then I take it you agree the example of a girlfriend giving her boyfriend a surprise kiss is rape and she should be jailed? Gotcha!

- - - Updated - - -

Picking up the cup is an action of one person. Sex is an action of two persons. Why don't you look for a better analogy, such as, for example, boxing? Where, indeed, before every sparring match you are supposed to ask another person whether they want it, not just bash them in the head all of a sudden, simply because last time they agreed to fight you.

It is amusing how such a basic and intuitive concept as "consent" causes so much confusion...

To use boxing with these laws. Person A asks Person B, may I punch you now. May I jab you now? May I upper cut you now? So on and so forth the whole boxing match?

That's the whole reason that the example in the OP would be considered rape when compared to these "yes means yes" laws, because you are REQUIRED to ask CONSENT before each AND every action.

[Dextroden]

Picking up the cup is an action of one person. Sex is an action of two persons. Why don't you look for a better analogy, such as, for example, boxing? Where, indeed, before every sparring match you are supposed to ask another person whether they want it, not just bash them in the head all of a sudden, simply because last time they agreed to fight you.

It is amusing how such a basic and intuitive concept as "consent" causes so much confusion...

So you are in fact calling Endus's tea comparison stupid? Because he made the decision sex is tea.

And the comparison for boxing becomes asking to take a swing or block a punch before each movement. Next.

[nextormento]

Asking "would you like a cup of tea?" is looking for affirmative consent. It's hardly an extreme request.

Consent is not debated, but the way to acquire it.
The extreme position is the pretense that formulating that question is the only acceptable way to figure if they want tea.
It, of course, isn't.
Sex is among the things we've naturally evolved to be good at figuring. But even barring that, the notion that the state needs to regulate how consent is acquired is major overreach, only comparable to their past legislation making some kind of sexual acts, like sodomy, illicit.

[Endus]

Unfortunatly this is not the issue.

What you just mentioned is perfectly covered by No means no.

Someone makes a move, the other person says no, if he keeps insisting it's sexual abuse/rape. Simple.

Affirmative Consent on the other hand is a lot more obscure.

Not really, no.

The difference between "no means no" and "yes means yes" is that the former appears to presume consent; if you don't actively say "no", you're consenting. So if you're too afraid to say no, you "consent". If you're passed out, well, you can't say no! And so forth.

All things which are obviously rape, but which "no means no" wouldn't contradict.

Connecticut law isn't being changed by this. You've ALWAYS needed consent, and without affirmative consent, you cannot assume consent. This isn't changing at all. The bit in this legislation was just mandating that colleges be extra-clear about affirmative consent, in their own policies.

It's more along these lines.

Person wants to make a move because he thinks he is getting the right signals. Makes a move, doesn't get any negative feedback. (The move could be anything, a kiss, placing of the hands in x or y place, penetration etc.) To only way to avoid this is, to literally ask for permission constantly for everything you do. Which is a silly concept.

This is incorrect. There's non-verbal forms of consent, like when she grabs your hand and puts it somewhere, or the like. Affirmative consent isn't about asking constantly, it's about being sure they're still into it.

But let's assume that consent was asked and was given (clearly and vocally expressed, as that is a requirement here as well). But the day after for XYZ reasons the one of the participants retroactively decides that while in the heath of the moment action xyz was okay, not it isn't. (I'm not even assuming malicious intent, which is also a factor).

Now this has to be arbitrated. In arbitration all this comes down to Word against Word. Affirmative Consent is not demonstrable, unless you literally filmed said consent being given.

This has nothing to do with affirmative consent, either way. You're moving goalposts, now.

The problem with Affirmative Consent is that it is EXTREMELY VAGUE, and removes EVERY SINGLE PROTECTION granted to someone being accused. Essentially the person being accused has no rights. This is silly.

If you didn't have affirmative consent, you were potentially raping someone. Your uncertainty about whether they consent SHOULD deny you the protection of the law; it's an admission of fault.

[alexkeren]

I really don't see why the issue of consent is even debated. "Affirmative consent" basically exists as a concept because of how much people have tried to tread the line, requiring a firm legislative position.

When really, it's this simple;



Asking "would you like a cup of tea?" is looking for affirmative consent. It's hardly an extreme request. The definition of "consent" isn't changing. Requiring affirmative consent just removes the idiotic argument of "well, I thought she wanted it, even though she was kinda fighting me, she was just playing hard to get" rapist bullshit.

That's not even close to how these laws are written, let alone implemented at Universities, like the one I am attending.

It literally requires you to get consent for every individual action. You must ask and get a yes to hold their hand, to kiss them, etc ... long before even dealing with full on sex.

[Self Inflicted Wounds]

Not really, no.

The difference between "no means no" and "yes means yes" is that the former appears to presume consent; if you don't actively say "no", you're consenting. So if you're too afraid to say no, you "consent". If you're passed out, well, you can't say no! And so forth.

If you didn't have affirmative consent, you were potentially raping someone. Your uncertainty about whether they consent SHOULD deny you the protection of the law; it's an admission of fault.

A) Has that ever actually been used successfully? 'Well, even though she was passed out I, and couldn't say 'no' .. she didn't tell me no!" .. for some reason doubt it.

B) Its sad that a drunk couple having sex are technically raping each other, since you know, you can't give consent while drunk.

[Endus]

That's not even close to how these laws are written, let alone implemented at Universities, like the one I am attending.

It literally requires you to get consent for every individual action. You must ask and get a yes to hold their hand, to kiss them, etc ... long before even dealing with full on sex.

Here's SUNY's policy; http://system.suny.edu/sexual-violen...ative-consent/

Here's UMN's; https://policy.umn.edu/operations/sexualassault-appa

Chosen because they came up first on Google. Neither of those support your claim as to what "affirmative consent" entails; they make it clear that it can be words or actions, and that it must be present, and may be withdrawn at any point, and that lack of resistance as opposed to enthusiastic participation is equivalent to such withdrawal.

[Bollocks]

Republican and Democrat are meaningless labels.

Considering the origin of the idea of Yes means Yes, its a fair statement that its an idea invented by Liberals.

A liberal idea approved by the conservatives. So in this case liberals and conservatives are equals on this issue.

[Endus]

B) Its sad that a drunk couple having sex are technically raping each other, since you know, you can't give consent while drunk.

Not really; most of these laws don't say that you can't consent while drunk, just if you're so inebriated that you're insensible.

I fully agree that two drunk people "raping" each other is a ludicrous idea, and I'll attack any laws you can actually provide that allow for that, or which make a gendered distinction of the form that drunk women can't consent but drunk men can, but to be utterly honest, I've never seen anything of the sort.

[Theodarzna]

Anyway, what I don't understand is why is this limited to colleges and the like only when it's state law. If it was an initiative of a college or a group of them, I could understand that. After all, US colleges are places of feels and not places of learning. But it's the state telling them to do it. While keeping the criminal law in the old (and sane) way. Sounds rather inconsistent. Unless they are using places of feels as testing ground for insanity to make a point about how insane it actually is.

There is a few factors going on here.

First there is the cultural anxiety about free sexuality, part of this as a response to the elite media's voyeurism about the sex lives of young adults. Particularly college age woman, and in a painful irony a fear that we are losing out or being exploited by this free libertine sexual atmosphere. In this way both traditionalist conservatives and feminists get to combine forces, one gets to create a prosthetic were the family and social moors once ruled, the other gets to pretend its creating something radical and knew.

The second is just the general trend towards an over legislated society and over regulation and bureaucratization of our private lives by the increasingly ever present state. In a sense this is the expansion of managerialism or technocracy into micromanagement of peoples lives via creating new departments and avenues for policing of activity and behavior. For Feminists with an interest in recreating society, this is ideal since they will likely be the ones operating and running this new avenue of bureaucracy.

As it turns out free sex and no sexual moors has downsides. Mainly people get hurt, women have sex we later regret, boyfriends break our hearts and some guys lie to get a quickie. These are all terrible things, but really shouldn't justify any legislative action, but IMHO in the eyes of some people if something bad is happening it MANDATES some grandiose government policy to address it. The simplest is to just make sex effectively a crime (since under affirmative consent you cannot practically have sex) and while many like @Endus ;or @May90 ;ect will misrepresent this as merely "Stopping rape," they are being misleading either intentionally or out of ignorance. These policies cast a wide net, have no real interpretative solidity to them and basically can be easily abused to throw anyone in jail under a mere accusation. It is in effect a statutory idea whose purpose is to make sure that if we (As in society) want to punish somebody we absolutely can punish them and have a reason to do it.

- - - Updated - - -

A liberal idea approved by the conservatives. So in this case liberals and conservatives are equals on this issue.

Traditionalist conservatives and most mainstay conservatives are going to go along with it, either because it creates a new means of controlling the public's sexuality since we've discredited religion and the family, so bureaucracy is all they can hope for, OR out of simple fear of appearing okay with something as ominously named as "Rape Culture."