This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/oct/07/yes-means-yes-sex-rape-universities

The article has changed 2 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 0 Version 1
‘Yes means yes’ laws will not actually reclassify all sex at universities as rape 'Yes means yes' laws will not actually reclassify all sex at universities as rape
(about 1 hour later)
Sex is not rocket science. Human desire is complex, yes, but you don’t need an advanced degree to determine whether the person you’re being amorous with is into it or not. Grabbing you closer: Into it. Lying there silently staring at the ceiling: Not into it.Sex is not rocket science. Human desire is complex, yes, but you don’t need an advanced degree to determine whether the person you’re being amorous with is into it or not. Grabbing you closer: Into it. Lying there silently staring at the ceiling: Not into it.
This is why I’m so baffled by the spate of criticism levied against “yes means yes” policies. Are people really so frightened of the consequences of a law that says that all sexual partners must enthusiastically consent? (If you answered yes, please understand when women aren’t universally keen to be alone with you.)This is why I’m so baffled by the spate of criticism levied against “yes means yes” policies. Are people really so frightened of the consequences of a law that says that all sexual partners must enthusiastically consent? (If you answered yes, please understand when women aren’t universally keen to be alone with you.)
For the uninitiated: affirmative consent requires the presence of a “yes” for sex to be legally considered consensual, as opposed to simply the absence of a “no”. As Annie Correal wrote in The New York Times about New York governor Andrew Cuomo’s announcement that the 64 campuses of State University of New York will now mandate “yes means yes” polices in the same way California does: “It conceives of women as equal sexual actors instead of as people who only have the option to be silent or to say no.” For the uninitiated: affirmative consent requires the presence of a “yes” for sex to be legally considered consensual, as opposed to simply the absence of a “no”. As Annie Correal wrote in the New York Times about New York governor Andrew Cuomo’s announcement that the 64 campuses of State University of New York will now mandate “yes means yes” polices in the same way California does: “It conceives of women as equal sexual actors instead of as people who only have the option to be silent or to say no.”
The short version of such policies: only have sex with people who actively want to have sex with you. Despite the common sense simplicity of the idea, some public intellectuals - confident in issues of complex political theory or economic trends - find themselves struck with a near terminal case of stupidity, unable to figure out the most basic tenets of sexual communication 101. The short version of such policies: only have sex with people who actively want to have sex with you. Despite the common sense simplicity of the idea, some public intellectuals – confident in issues of complex political theory or economic trends – find themselves struck with a near terminal case of stupidity, unable to figure out the most basic tenets of sexual communication 101.
Yet New York Magazine’s Jonathan Chait claims the “yes means yes” standard will mean most college sex will be classified as rape – goodness only knows what kind of sex Chait thinks “most” students are having, but dismal is the most generous way to describe that view of other men’s average sexual experiences (“coercive” would be another). New York Times columnist Ross Douthat, tweeting in response to Chait, wrote he was “a little puzzled as to how this policy would actually address the “‘he said, she said’ problem”.Yet New York Magazine’s Jonathan Chait claims the “yes means yes” standard will mean most college sex will be classified as rape – goodness only knows what kind of sex Chait thinks “most” students are having, but dismal is the most generous way to describe that view of other men’s average sexual experiences (“coercive” would be another). New York Times columnist Ross Douthat, tweeting in response to Chait, wrote he was “a little puzzled as to how this policy would actually address the “‘he said, she said’ problem”.
Chait promises that it’s not the “yes” part of the formula that he objects to - his “deep reservations” come from codifying that active consent into law. But we already have sexual communication codified into law through our current “no means no” model, a standard that presumes a woman is up for sex unless she explicitly says that she’s not. But current US law, which says that a woman who just lies there crying is “consenting”, doesn’t even reflect what most reasonable people – men or women – believe is actual consent. Chait promises that it’s not the “yes” part of the formula that he objects to – his “deep reservations” come from codifying that active consent into law. But we already have sexual communication codified into law through our current “no means no” model, a standard that presumes a woman is up for sex unless she explicitly says that she’s not. But current US law, which says that a woman who just lies there crying is “consenting”, doesn’t even reflect what most reasonable people – men or women – believe is actual consent.
And despite the apparent ignorance of Chait, Douthat and others of their ilk, I have a hard time believing that most adults – even 18 year-olds – don’t know how to accurately read sexual signals. After all, we communicate nonverbally all the time - and not just in bed. Someone who laughs and leans in when talking to you is engaged with what you’re saying. No one on the receiving end of an eye roll thinks that they were just taken seriously. We know body language. Yes, when it comes to sex the stakes are higher – but that’s a reason for more verbal sexual communication, not less. And despite the apparent ignorance of Chait, Douthat and others of their ilk, I have a hard time believing that most adults – even 18 year-olds – don’t know how to accurately read sexual signals. After all, we communicate nonverbally all the time – and not just in bed. Someone who laughs and leans in when talking to you is engaged with what you’re saying. No one on the receiving end of an eye roll thinks that they were just taken seriously. We know body language. Yes, when it comes to sex the stakes are higher – but that’s a reason for more verbal sexual communication, not less.
I understand the concern over younger people fully understanding what consent is and what it looks like. The ubiquity of victim-blaming and our subpar sexual education system - one that, if we’re lucky, teaches about contraception but rarely touches on consent - means that there is a shocking amount of rape illiteracy. But that’s why starting enthusiastic consent policies in colleges is the right, and smart, thing to do. I understand the concern over younger people fully understanding what consent is and what it looks like. The ubiquity of victim-blaming and our subpar sexual education system – one that, if we’re lucky, teaches about contraception but rarely touches on consent – means that there is a shocking amount of rape illiteracy. But that’s why starting enthusiastic consent policies in colleges is the right, and smart, thing to do.
If universities are going to hold their students to a “yes means yes” standard, they will need to supply them with a sufficient orientation to the concept. (They’ll be opening themselves up to a world of lawsuits if they don’t.) Despite the frenzied scare mongering about students writing up sexual contracts or women accusing innocent men willy-nilly, what this actually means is that more young people will talk openly about what “yes” really is, how to communicate it and how to listen to and respect both yes and no.If universities are going to hold their students to a “yes means yes” standard, they will need to supply them with a sufficient orientation to the concept. (They’ll be opening themselves up to a world of lawsuits if they don’t.) Despite the frenzied scare mongering about students writing up sexual contracts or women accusing innocent men willy-nilly, what this actually means is that more young people will talk openly about what “yes” really is, how to communicate it and how to listen to and respect both yes and no.
And if you’re really worried about your ability to tell if your partner is willing and enthusiastic, there’s a surefire solution: ask. So let’s not be dense.And if you’re really worried about your ability to tell if your partner is willing and enthusiastic, there’s a surefire solution: ask. So let’s not be dense.