Yes means yes!

 My kingdom for an online text medium with a "Tab" function.

 I decided to christen my long-neglected bloggy thing with a more mainstream version of an essay some of you may have already read elsewhere. It was inspired by a discussion at a local university that got me to thinking about the difference between "No means no" and "Yes means yes" as banner slogans for the fight against sexual violence. I had a certain instinctive understanding of the difference, a gut reaction, but that gut reaction wasn't easy to explain. And I wanted to explain it. Because I feel that as a society we've grown past "No means no," and we need to start reflecting it in our language. I really think we need to resign "No means no" to the rubbish bin of useful slogans and move on to "Yes means yes" and methods of sexual interaction that reflect it.

 Here's the main difference between them as guidelines regulating sexual interaction: "No means no" defaults to the assumption that sex WILL take place unless one of the parties involved says "No" loudly enough and clearly enough to make themselves understood to the other party. Failure to say "No" the right way means sex will take place. It is the responsibility of the disinterested party to put forth effort to stop it. Even when you're dealing with a decent human being who will stop as soon as another party says "No," the mere fact that it is their job to stop it and that if they don't it will happen anyway is still just wrong. It's victim blaming, because if sex took place it means the victim just didn't say "No" correctly.

 "Yes means yes" defaults to the assumption that sex WILL NOT take place unless all parties involved say "Yes" loudly enough and clearly enough to make themselves understood to the other parties. It is the responsibility of the interested party to obtain assent to their intentions before sex will take place. Failure to say "Yes" the right way means sex will not take place. At worst, someone who really was interested but doesn't make their intentions clear goes home frustrated. Which sucks, don't get me wrong. That's me all over. But there is a world of difference between unclear intentions resulting in going home alone to masturbate and unclear intentions resulting in rape.

 "No means no" was a good start. It is still absolutely true. If at any time anyone withdraws their consent to an activity, that activity should cease. That will never stop being true. It's just not good enough. "No means no" allows people to continue on the assumption that they are allowed to do whatever they want until the other person stops them.

 Now, so far I've managed to avoid gender pronouns. I'm going to stop avoiding them now. Because the fact of the matter is "No means no" grew out of a cultural view of rape where the male is the aggressor and the female is the victim. And it reflects that viewpoint. It reflects the cultural views of men, women, sex, and rape that are already wrong and continuing to change.

 Knowing that it comes from that viewpoint, "No means no" assumes that a man is a directed force of sexual intent that must be stopped with a verbal rolled-up newspaper to the snout. At best, it defaults to the assumption that men WILL try sex, and that while they can be stopped after they start they cannot be expected to not start under any circumstances, only to react properly when ordered to stop.

 And that sucks! Why are we still teaching each other that men are like this? Can we not stop talking about men like this and see if maybe that starts to be reflected in how they think about themselves? Small steps people, small steps.

 Well, I suppose first it would have to be true, to be worth teaching. And no, while I'm advocating optimistic language, I'm not sure it is all true. The ideas of entitlement that so very many human males are walking around with are real. They lead many men to believe that they are allowed to just try it first. Often it simply doesn't occur to them that they shouldn't. If you want it, just go for it! If she doesn't want it she'll just say no, right? "No means no" actually gives them an excuse to barrel ahead without thinking, because they're relying on that magic talismanic word to come up if their decision turns out to have been a bad one.

 But "Yes means yes" shuts down those ideas of entitlement. "Yes means yes" comes before sex. To get a "Yes" you have to ask first. You have to think first, not just react after.

 And you know what? "Yes means yes" reminds us that women can say "Yes!" Women can want sex! Women can enjoy sex! Women are not just the waiting playthings of men, with their only options being complacency or outright refusal. "No means no" paints a woman as a recipient, someone who has things done to them until/unless they say "No." "Yes means yes" reminds us that women should be active participants in their own sex lives, that they have desires, and that those desires matter. And we damn sure need reminding of that.

 Now, I don't know you as well as you know yourselves. You and your partner(s) can know when nibbling on his ear is as clear as the words "Take me, take me now." You can know when you trust someone enough that you are willing to communicate in winks and nods and believe that you are being understood. I can't proscribe what consent looks like for everyone. And I can't fix the poor souls who will consent to things they don't actually want because they are afraid of rejection.

 But conceptually, can we agree that aiming for a clear expression of consent is better than just avoiding a clear expression of refusal? Can we agree that continuing without expressed consent is still not to be tolerated even if it did not come with expressed refusal? Can we maybe start chanting "Yes means yes!" instead of "No means no!"?

I mean, hell, at the next SlutWalk at least paint one on one side of your sign and the other on the other side.