No' Means 'No,' But Exactly What Means 'Yes'?

[doggie]

this is interesting that it is a battle to define consent.

http://www.npr.org/2014/06/13/321677110 ... -means-yes

As the federal government presses colleges to improve the way they handle cases of sexual assault, schools are turning their focus to defining "consent" — how to distinguish between activity that's consensual and activity that's not.

On one level, it's obvious. As the old line goes, "You know it when you see it." But less obvious is how to spell it out for the student handbook. There are about as many different definitions of consent as there are colleges.

"If consent were easy to put into words, we'd have a sentence, and we wouldn't have a page and a half of definition," says Mary Spellman, dean of students for Claremont McKenna College, which recently rewrote its definition.

As with most colleges, the bulk of Claremont McKenna's definition covers what's not consent. That's the easier part. For example, any OK from someone who's drunk or drugged or coerced can never count as consent. And consent to have sex last weekend or even an hour ago can't imply consent now.

But the definition also tries to get at those grayer areas, like when a student may be ambivalent or when something ends up happening that a student never intended.

Claremont McKenna's definition says permission has to be "clear, knowing and voluntary," but it also has to be "active, not passive." So a student who's silent, for example — or not resisting — is by definition not consenting.

"I don't think [the definition] is perfect," Spellman says. "I think it's come a long way, but I think we will find over time that it will evolve."

Only 'Yes' Means 'Yes'

[SpeakNow]

this is interesting that it is a battle to define consent.

http://www.npr.org/2014/06/13/321677110 ... -means-yes

As the federal government presses colleges to improve the way they handle cases of sexual assault, schools are turning their focus to defining "consent" — how to distinguish between activity that's consensual and activity that's not.

On one level, it's obvious. As the old line goes, "You know it when you see it." But less obvious is how to spell it out for the student handbook. There are about as many different definitions of consent as there are colleges.

"If consent were easy to put into words, we'd have a sentence, and we wouldn't have a page and a half of definition," says Mary Spellman, dean of students for Claremont McKenna College, which recently rewrote its definition.

As with most colleges, the bulk of Claremont McKenna's definition covers what's not consent. That's the easier part. For example, any OK from someone who's drunk or drugged or coerced can never count as consent. And consent to have sex last weekend or even an hour ago can't imply consent now.

But the definition also tries to get at those grayer areas, like when a student may be ambivalent or when something ends up happening that a student never intended.

Claremont McKenna's definition says permission has to be "clear, knowing and voluntary," but it also has to be "active, not passive." So a student who's silent, for example — or not resisting — is by definition not consenting.

"I don't think [the definition] is perfect," Spellman says. "I think it's come a long way, but I think we will find over time that it will evolve."

Only 'Yes' Means 'Yes'

Claremont McKenna's definition says permission has to be "clear, knowing and voluntary," but it also has to be "active, not passive." So a student who's silent, for example — or not resisting — is by definition not consenting.

I wonder about the above part of the definition. I've never explicitly said to anyone, "I want to have sex with you." But, in the moment I was totally ok with it and wanted to have sex. I may have been silent, but the sex was consensual. (If I hadn't wanted it, I would've spoken up.) In that case, how would the man have known it was consensual?

I hope that doesn't come across as me trying to excuse rapists. I was sexually assaulted by the father of a child a babysat for. I wasn't raped, but he did try to kiss me and touch my breasts. I pushed him off, told him I needed to go, and walked out of the house. I know that I was lucky that that's all that happened and I was able to get away before anything more happened. The thing that bothers me though, is that when I'm kissing someone I want to be kissing, I don't normally give them verbal permission, but I kiss them back. Is that considered active consent?

I guess my concern is how to make consent clear for all parties involved. I feel like consent might look different for different people. I wish we had some sort of common language that was taught in school (during non-abstinence only sex ed), to help men and women communicate in a healthy way about sex and consent.

[IronicallyMaeve]

I think Laci Green does a great job of showing what is consent and what isn't.

[bBvideo 560,340:26zzs0ll]

[/bBvideo]

[Antimony]

I am fully accepting of the idea that there can be consent without an explicit "yes" but it is not my personal philosophy. Maybe it sounds crazy but me and some of my partners have filled out paperwork before ever having sex. There is a PDF list you can download of 8 pages of sexual activities (including ones you might not think to ask about, like "Are there any pet names that upset you?") and we fill those out separately and trade them so going in we're both aware where the "hard no" line is and the "only if we talk about it first" and the "totally fine to do" lines are. They're called Yes/No/Maybe lists and I think they are great especially for couples involved in fetish/kink play.

Other than that, I had a boyfriend for a while who had a pretty awful previous relationship in which sex was always stressful and always made him feel unsafe. Because of this, our questions were "Do you feel safe?" and "No stress?" during sexual activities. I know it sounds formal but it can certainly done in a way that you don't skip a beat. As we dated for longer, we asked this less and less but at the beginning of the relationship it was vital because of where he was coming from.

I'm noticing a big move towards these practices amongst my peers. One of my best friends even the other day asked a girl, "How would you feel if I made a move?" and the answer was "Not okay" because she'd been having PTSD flashbacks about being raped. She did say that the fact he asked if he could flirt with her made all the difference in making her feel safe with him.

[polecat]

I guess my concern is how to make consent clear for all parties involved. I feel like consent might look different for different people. I wish we had some sort of common language that was taught in school (during non-abstinence only sex ed), to help men and women communicate in a healthy way about sex and consent.

I think you're right in that consent may look different for every couple. I don't give my husband a clear and resounding verbal YES every time we do something sexual, but we have an understanding of what we're each ok with. I have always felt comfortable with having frank discussions with my potential sexual partners about what was and wasn't ok with me (and was always with partners who, thankfully, always respected my boundaries and were open with their own).

Then again, I don't see the problem with teaching both the idea of enthusiastic consent AND "no means no" rather than just "enthusiastic consent." (Thinking of those times when husband is in the mood and I can't or don't want to for whatever reason or vice versa). Our partners are not psychic. And again, this is why TALKING before ever having sex is so important, imo.

[Antimony]

I think you're right in that consent may look different for every couple. I don't give my husband a clear and resounding verbal YES every time we do something sexual, but we have an understanding of what we're each ok with. I have always felt comfortable with having frank discussions with my potential sexual partners about what was and wasn't ok with me (and was always with partners who, thankfully, always respected my boundaries and were open with their own).

Then again, I don't see the problem with teaching both the idea of enthusiastic consent AND "no means no" rather than just "enthusiastic consent." (Thinking of those times when husband is in the mood and I can't or don't want to for whatever reason or vice versa). Our partners are not psychic. And again, this is why TALKING before ever having sex is so important, imo.

I think the bolded is so important. I wish it was a major philosophy.

One of my former friends had sex with one our mutual friends and later she told me that she didn't like it because he wasn't rough -- he didn't slam her against the wall or hold his hand on her throat or push her around. My response? "Did you ask him to? Did you tell him that you're into that?" and she was like "No I can't do that. It's too awkward. Also it isn't as good if they don't just naturally do it just because."

That all sounds friggin' INSANE to me. And Louis CK even has a bit on it and it makes me so upset that that sort of non-communication is happening.

[polecat]

I think the bolded is so important. I wish it was a major philosophy.

One of my former friends had sex with one our mutual friends and later she told me that she didn't like it because he wasn't rough -- he didn't slam her against the wall or hold his hand on her throat or push her around. My response? "Did you ask him to? Did you tell him that you're into that?" and she was like "No I can't do that. It's too awkward. Also it isn't as good if they don't just naturally do it just because."

That all sounds friggin' INSANE to me. And Louis CK even has a bit on it and it makes me so upset that that sort of non-communication is happening.

Completely agree. I'd think it would be more of a red flag if a partner DID grab your throat and push you around without you mentioning that you were into rougher sex. Trying new things is always fun, but I definitely want to talk it through first so that there are no unpleasant (or scary) surprises.