No Means No!

[Sherman]

No means I got headache...

 

[ok doser]

this is what passes for "intelligence" on campus today :doh:

Student Op-Ed: ‘Yes Means Yes’ Is Not Enough Because Sometimes ‘Yes Means No’


Apparently, you can be “raped by rape culture.” When it comes to consent, it’s not enough to teach that “no means no” or even that only “yes means yes” — because sometimes “yes” can actually mean “no.”

At least that’s the point of view expressed in an op-ed written by Jordan Bosiljevac for Claremont McKenna College’s student newspaper, the Forum. In the piece, Bosiljevac explains that she and her friends even came up with a phrase to describe someone having sex with you who you didn’t want to have sex with even though you told him that you did, which they apparently consider a form of rape: “We coined the term ‘raped by rape culture’ to describe what it was like to say yes, coerced by the culture that had raised us and the systems of power that worked on us, and to still want ‘no,’” she writes in the April 30 article, titled “Why Yes Can Mean No.” “We coined the term ‘raped by rape culture’”.

Bosiljevac writes that she’s been dealing with the oppression of this culture her whole life — beginning with having to endure relatives kissing her cheeks “even as I winced and turned away” — and that it continues to influence her sexual decision-making abilities, almost to the point where she doesn’t seem to think she really has any ability to make those decisions at all. She describes one incident in particular in which she had hooked up with a guy who had asked her outright if she was okay with what was happening and she had told him “yes” — explaining that even though she had said “yes,” she had really meant “no,” and it wasn’t really entirely her fault that she couldn’t just say what she wanted: “Sometimes, for me, there was obligation from already having gone back to someone’s room, not wanting to ruin a good friendship, loneliness, worry that no one else would ever be interested, a fear that if I did say no, they might not stop, the influence of alcohol, and an understanding that hookups are ‘supposed’ to be fun,” she writes.

Bosiljevac also throws racism and homophobia into the blame-game mix, asserting that “consent is a privilege, and it was built for wealthy, heterosexual, cis, white, western, able-bodied masculinity. . . . When you’re poor, disabled, queer, non-white, trans, or feminine, ‘no’ isn’t for you.” She does, however, clarify that you can actually be a person in one of these groups, or, as she explains it, “a person oppressed in these systems of power,” and still be capable of having “empowering consensual experiences.”

Yep — even if you’re a female, you’re still capable of maybe actually wanting to have sex and enjoying it sometimes! Glad she clarified. If she hadn’t, I would have never imagined such a thing could be possible. So what do we do? After all, there’s no way to tell if a woman is actually wanting to have sex or just saying that she wants to have sex even though she doesn’t because she’s a helpless victim of male oppression that makes it impossible for her to use the right words. Lest you think Bosiljevac is just complaining, she does offer a solution: “First, we have to realize that all oppression is connected, and all rape is racist, classist, ableist, patriarchal, hetero and cissexist,” she writes. “We cannot make consent available to all if we are not simultaneously disrupting these structures.”

it's morons like this who put bammy in the white house :doh:

 

[patrick jane]

No means - nah, too much trouble

 

[Angel4Truth]

this is what passes for "intelligence" on campus today :doh:


it's morons like this who put bammy in the white house :doh:

Sounds to me like what hes really guilty of, is hooking up with a brain dead liberal extremist.

 

[Bright Raven]

ugh, another rape thread.

 

[Crucible]

They're on to 'yes means no' now. Which is sad. Sad for them.

It's a pretty dumb state of affairs, feminism. Where women are essentially adult children who can't be responsible for themselves.

Also
Why so many 'rape threads'..

 

[Quetzal]

They're on to 'yes means no' now.

What do you mean? Example?

 

[Traditio]

Provide an example.

1. I agree with the OP that "no" doesn't always mean "no"; in point of fact, depending on context, intonation of voice, body language, etc., it very well may mean "yes."

2. I don't think that this topic is appropriate for polite discussion. If you're married, this question probably doesn't even arise.

 

[quip]

We are taught (in rape prevention lectures) that No Means No!

speaking from my experience, I would agree with the statement that:

No sometimes Means No!

No sometimes also means Yes

No sometimes means Not Yet

No sometimes means Not Until The Kids Are Asleep

No sometimes means Pour Me Another Glass Of Wine And Put On Some Luther Vandross

No sometimes means Not Here - My Mother's In The Next Bedroom




i'm sure i'll think up some more - please feel free to add you own!

No.

 

[annabenedetti]

1. I agree with the OP that "no" doesn't always mean "no"; in point of fact, depending on context, intonation of voice, body language, etc., it very well may mean "yes."

Are you speaking from experience?

2. I don't think that this topic is appropriate for polite discussion. If you're married, this question probably doesn't even arise.

Why do you think the question wouldn't arise?

 

[PureX]

"we shouldn't do this" as she's taking off my clothes"

"no" as she helps me unhook her bra"

Never happens.

I agree. Dozer's full of crap.

 

[Traditio]

Are you speaking from experience?

For the sake of propriety, I'm going to decline to answer this. Let it suffice to be noted that human speech must be taken in its appropriate contexts of discourse. "Yes," for example, said sarcastically, actually means "no."

A: So, shall we commit fornication?
B: Oh, yes, why certainly! I would love to do that! I most certainly want to debase myself, make myself God's enemy and merit unending condemnation. I have no strong urge to commit fornication, but by golly, let's do it anyway!

Sometimes, "no" actually means "no."

A: So, uh, do you want to commit fornication?
B: No.
A: Are you sure? So um...I should leave now?
B: Yes.
A: Really?
B: Yes. Do be sure to call me later. Here is your coat. There is the door. Do you require me to call a taxi?

"No," however, could appear in a completely different context in which it is quite clear that B is quite willing to engage in an act of fornication.

Why do you think the question wouldn't arise?

The spouses, I am assuming, know each other quite well enough to be able to ascertain when there is and is not consent. If there is an allegation of spousal rape, I doubt that anyone is going to claim: "Yes, she said 'no,' but I thought she really meant 'yes.'"

 

[annabenedetti]

For the sake of propriety, I'm going to decline to answer this.

Okay, then I'll decline to address the rest of that part of your post then.

The spouses, I am assuming, know each other quite well enough to be able to ascertain when there is and is not consent. If there is an allegation of spousal rape, I doubt that anyone is going to claim: "Yes, she said 'no,' but I thought she really meant 'yes.'"

Do you think it's about knowing the other well enough, or do you think it's about power?

 

[Traditio]

Okay, then I'll decline to address the rest of that part of your post then.

My points stand independently of whether or not I'm speaking from personal experience. I'm making a point about human language in general, and ultimately, I think that the modern feminist focus on "'no' means 'no'" is just misguided. Even supposing that consent were what primarily mattered, two facts must be emphasized:

1. The communicative expressiveness of a word or set of words only is fully realized in a given context. I quote an old high school English teacher of mine: "Words don't mean a thing until they're used."

2. We express ourselves not only in words, but also in deeds, and indeed (no pun intended), "deeds speak louder than words."

When it comes to rape, what should be emphasized is, not the specific words that the man or the woman used, but whether a reasonable person would have felt, in that context, that his or her partner was willing to commit the act in question.

If there's a gun to a woman's head, her "yes," even if accompanied by a seductive tone of voice, active participation in the act in question, etc., cannot reasonably be assumed to imply any real consent.

Conversely, there may be any number of factors which any reasonable person would understand would disqualify the woman's "no" from actually meaning "no."

I am going to ask you straight up, Mrs. Benedetti: can you really not envision any circumstances in which a woman would say "no," in any given tone of voice, with any accompanying body language, with any accompanying deeds, in which she nonetheless would be a perfectly willing participant in a sexual act?

I'm not saying that this is common, mind you, nor am I in any way trying to justify rape or any kind of rape mentality. On the contrary, even between married persons, I think that both parties should take reasonable steps to make sure that the other partner is a willing participant...all that I'm saying is that saying "no" doesn't necessarily indicate that the partner is not a willing participant and, in a given set of circumstances, actually may contribute to an overall communicative context which signifies "Yes!"

Ultimately, at the end of the day, I'm simply saying that interpersonal communication is a complex affair.

Do you really wish to deny this?

Do you think it's about knowing the other well enough, or do you think it's about power?

Y'know, I may have to recuse myself from this particular discussion and retract my previous assertion...not, of course, as though it were definitely false. I simply don't have sufficient statistical/sociological/psychological knowledge to make a claim either way.

 

[annabenedetti]

Y'know, I may have to recuse myself from this particular discussion and retract my previous assertion...not, of course, as though it were definitely false. I simply don't have sufficient statistical/sociological/psychological knowledge to make a claim either way.

That might be a good decision.

 

[Traditio]

That might be a good decision.

...I was referring specifically to the matter of whether the issue would arise between a married couple.

...

...

Do you really want to play this game? :sigh:

 

[Arthur Brain]

...I was referring specifically to the matter of whether the issue would arise between a married couple.

...

...

Do you really want to play this game? :sigh:

Do you?

How many times do you suppose rape has occurred within the confines of marriage Trad? You're not in a "game" with this whatsoever so think before you answer unless you want to look evermore the precocious ignorant *so and so* etc...

 

[Traditio]

How many times do you suppose rape has occurred within the confines of marriage Trad?

What I called into question was whether "'no' means 'no,'" is ever an issue in marital rape. Is it the case that the woman said "no," the husband thought that the woman's "no" actually meant "yes," and then mistakenly proceeded to copulate with her, even though she was not willing?

I doubt it, but I don't really have any knowledge either way.

You're not in a "game" with this whatsoever so think before you answer unless you want to look evermore the precocious ignorant *so and so* etc...

To be clear:

It's been made known to me that there's apparently been a massive rape controversy as of late. My posts in this thread have nothing to do with that controversy. I was dealing with a single, particular issue:

"If a woman says the word 'no,' does it always really mean 'no'?"

I was answering in the negative, for the reasons stated previously.

Again, to be clear: my comments have nothing to do with the controversy that spurred the creation of this, or other, rape threads. I was completely ignorant of the controversy when I started posting. Do try to keep that in mind.

 

[bybee]

What I called into question was whether "'no' means 'no,'" is ever an issue in marital rape. Is it the case that the woman said "no," the husband thought that the woman's "no" actually meant "yes," and then mistakenly proceeded to copulate with her, even though she was not willing?

I doubt it, but I don't really have any knowledge either way.



To be clear:

It's been made known to me that there's apparently been a massive rape controversy as of late. My posts in this thread have nothing to do with that controversy. I was dealing with a single, particular issue:

"If a woman says the word 'no,' does it always really mean 'no'?"

I was answering in the negative, for the reasons stated previously.

Again, to be clear: my comments have nothing to do with the controversy that spurred the creation of this, or other, rape threads. I was completely ignorant of the controversy when I started posting. Do try to keep that in mind.

What does "NO" mean to you?

 

[Traditio]

What does "NO" mean to you?

"NO" implies a certain intonation of voice. You're prejudicing the question. If by "NO" you mean that the woman is shouting, or otherwise, firmly and seriously insisting "NO," and is overall expressing, in her body language, intonation of voice, words, etc., that she does not want to engage in sexual contact, then yes, "'no' means 'no.'" If she has just pushed your hand away, has a frown on her face, and has just said "NO" in her best Darth Vader impression, then you most certainly should stop what you are doing and respect her wishes.

That's not always the case.

Sometimes, that's not how she is saying "no." Sometimes, she says "no" in an intonation of voice, with body language, with behavior, and, in general, in a general communicative context that actually means: "Yes," and if the guy were to stop, she legitimately might be confused and ask: "Why on earth did you stop?"