When it comes to sex, we all know "no means no." But does yes always mean yes?
I'm not sure on that one. I think it does but I also think many people regret that yes later. Interestingly there were 69 comments on this poll when I commented. LOL
Only women can say no in the middle of, or after sex, and put a man in prison. Crafty bitches can lure, seduce, and claim a man "raped" her when it was totally consensual but she gets embarrassed or shamed. Protect yourselves young men.
That's why I'm gay, bro. You should try it.
Lol! No thank you.
Nope. Your consent has to be (correctly) informed, you have to be in your right mind, you must be at or above the age of consent, and you must be agreeing to a sex act that is legal in your current location. Then and only then does yes mean yes.
A guy and a girl both of age get drunk together and fuck, are they raping each other?
Technically - under either no-means-no or yes-means-yes - yes.
Rape is NOT a technicality. You're trying to force it into something manageable and easy to teach. But it's not. One person may experience rape from the exact same circumstances that another may not.
I understand for legal purposes we may need technical black and white definitions. But that does a huge disservice to actual victims who may not have experienced rape by the book, and people who may have but don't feel raped.
Excuse me. If neither party is able to consent, then the opposite party raped them. So the fact that each was drunk is not a valid defense to being a rapist, but the fact that each was drunk means they couldn't consent to the other.
I'm one of both, kermie. I have been both raped & not wanted it, and technically raped and not felt like it. So what? Prosecutorial discretion is allowed, but discussing technicalities is also allowed. If nothing else, it helps us write better laws.
So what???? o.O
I guess I'm of the opinion that technicalities never make for better laws. The more we try to define what's okay and what's not the more we miss and muck it up. It gets worse not better.
Anyway I think I'm not making myself very well understood here, so I'm going to step away for now.
If the person was coerced into saying yes, then no. Consent is not truly given.
This goes for if the person is made to be afraid to say no.
If the person is a competent adult, when wouldn't it?
I would say not always. Check my Instagram page we are at the beach today and I've been thinking of you.
Yes does not always mean yes. If the sexual partner is intoxicated, a minor, or a prostitute then he or she is not actually consenting.
How about if "he" is intoxicated?
As I inferred by saying "he or she" the gender is irrelevant.
Should an intoxicated person be held accountable for their actions if they get behind the wheel?
Those scenarios are incomparable. A drunk driver poses a threat to society. An intoxicated person who has been taken advantage of in any way especially sexually deserves justice.
Why is it any different if a drunk person decides to have sex or if a drunk person decides to drive. Why can she be held accountable for one but not the other?
I explained the difference. In the case of drunk driving an intoxicated individuals impaired judgement may cost lives. The other scenario involves a sober person taking advantage of an intoxicated individual.
When did sex as a result of being drunk/high become someone elses fault. It's a consequence of your bad choices. (This doesn't count raping someone passed out.)
Ditto. If you're passed out, you're not saying yes.
But if you're saying yes, well ...
Minor and completely wasted are the two exceptions that comes to mind
How about we just give up on this whole thing and commit mass earth wide suicide. There'd be much fewer problems.
From what I understand this "yes means yes" movement means that women can consent to sex, but if they later regret it they can take back consent after the act? And therefore the man will be guilty of rape? Do I have this right?
If it's coming from someone who doesn't understand the situation or is not of sound mind then no yes does not always mean yes
Well of course it does. Unless one person doesn't speak English or something
What if one person is 15? Or threatened? Just the word itself doesn't always equal proper consent.
It does, unless it is coerced, or is offered by someone who is ineligible (under the age of consent, impaired, etc). It seems like the long way around to get to one of the first lessons we all learned in grade school, to respect each other's space.
If it's coming from an adult of sound mind. It doesn't count for people below age of consent, drunk/high people, and coerced people.
Crap, I said the same thing up there, guess I should read first
I like to think yes means yes, or is that what is, is ?
I don't know? The left hand never knows what the right hand is doing.
I support a somewhat more traditional definition of rape:
(1) sex obtained by force;
(2) sex obtained by duress;
(3) sex obtained by deception; or
(4) sex against someone incapable of consent.
In my opinion, #4 ought to include minors and individuals who are mentally handicapped as well as individuals who are unconscious, etc.
Two drunk people having sex is not rape.
I think this "yes means yes" campaign, though well intentioned, is one of the worst things to happen to our societal dialogue about rape and sexual assault. We're trying to neatly define and contain something that doesn't have easy parameters.
The whole purpose of this campaign is to highlight that waiting for an explicit no is not always a good idea. It's a far better practice to try getting a yes. This doesn't mean there'll never be a case of yes not meaning yes, but at least...
an attempt was made to be sure the other person was willing. Do you really think that's a bad thing?
For once, Kermie, we agree.
I think oversimplifying it is the bad thing.
I'm for it. And I'm for it because no-means-no requires that the victim prove they said no. And if they don't prove it hard enough, their rapist walks. But they're not on trial. Yes-means-yes puts the responsibility on the rapist where it belongs.
So guilty until proven innocent?
WTF? No. If you murder someone, that's all you - did you, or did you not deliberately cause someone's death? But under no-means-no, the question is did the victim give or not give their consent? Yes-means-yes turns a rape trial into a normal one.
It goes back to being about the alleged perpetrator, not the victim. Did the accused get permission or not? The prosecution argues they didn't. The defense argues they did. The victim isn't the one on trial.
The onus is on the prosecution to prove that the accused violated the law -- i.e., that he employed unlawful force, threats, or deception to obtain sex.
Not if it's somehow coerced.
If someone says "yes" and doesn't mean it, that's messed up.
They may not understand. They may be too young or too mentally handicapped. They may be scared. They may be coerced or drunk or any number of things.
Ok Kermie, you set a trap and I fell for it.
I think of those things as a given
Sorry, I wasn't trying to trap or trick anyone. I'm trying to point out the danger of oversimplifying the idea of rape.
We're heading in a direction of needing signed consensual forms before having sex that I'm trying to avoid. That's all.
I totally agree.
"They may not understand. They may be too young or too mentally handicapped. They may be scared. They may be coerced or drunk or any number of things." Yes-means-yes doesn't change any of that. Those people can't consent, which means there's no yes.
Maj- did you miss the part where I said I get that?
Uh but they can still say the word "yes."
Trivializing it to a slogan like "yes means yes" makes people think all you need to hear is "yes" or "no."
Kermie- if this is about a slogan, I've not heard of it. Sorry.
As I mentioned earlier, I thought most of us on SoH have move past having to point out the obvious.
It's the new thing on college campuses. Yes means yes. They even talk about "enthusiastic yes."
The problem is Early that not all exceptions are "obvious." Consent is a continuum, not a binary as we want to think it is.
Ok Kermie, point taken :-)
I totally disagree, Kermie. But that's because I know that there's a lot more to the program that a three word slogan.
Yes, we will probably have to agree to disagree.
Kermie... On this subject, you sort of sound like a fearmongerer. So let's actually start bringing facts into this discussion - because there aren't many here. www.cnn.com/2014/09/03/living/affirmative-consent-school-policy/
Fear? Of what? You don't seem to know me if you think I'm fearmongering. Exactly the opposite. Most people around here sensationalize and compartmentalize this and most subjects. I'm just realizing it's gray like everything else.
It doesn't seem that way because you're taking three words (as if the law is three words, or the classes they teach on it three words) literally and over-simplistically. I think that's a bit dishonest.
*sigh* no I'm not. I've repeatedly said that. The problem is that a lot of people do take it that way. Thats the whole point of the question. No matter how well-meaning, the campaign has been turned into a slogan most people don't understand.
Not if the person is pressuring you to say yes.