Coming soon: California is poised to enact a “yes means yes” law – based on the so-called Antioch College rules – that will require college students to get “affirmative consent” – clear, verbal agreement – for each intended stage and type of sexual activity.
Yes Means Yes
Ted Rall
Ted Rall is a syndicated political cartoonist for Andrews McMeel Syndication and WhoWhatWhy.org and Counterpoint. He is a contributor to Centerclip and co-host of "The Final Countdown" talk show on Radio Sputnik. He is a graphic novelist and author of many books of art and prose, and an occasional war correspondent. He is, recently, the author of the graphic novel "2024: Revisited."
23 Comments. Leave new
I’m a hardliner when it comes to rape – I’ve suggested castration as a cure, and often noted that the UCMJ still defines rape as a capital offense. If you rape a fellow soldier you’re harming your own side, and you should get a blindfold and a final cigarette. End of story.
That said, I think this law is a Very Bad Idea. When I was young and idealistic I often tried to get explicit consent beforehand. The reply was usually ‘no’ – but when talking to the ladies later on, I was told things like, “Total mood killer” or “I wanted to but I didn’t want you to think I was easy” or “If I didn’t want you to, you’d know about it.”
I read a sad story in an advice column a while back. Seems the girl (sixteen) told the boy she didn’t want to go all the way, she just wanted to make out. They wound up having sex & she asked the columnist, “was I raped?” I’m pretty sure the boy didn’t see it that way, he probably figured he was a great seducer and she had come around. (or perhaps biology got the best of her, and she had regrets afterwards.)
If she says, “no” – and he doesn’t stop, that’s rape and he should be punished to the full extent of the pinking shears. But if he doesn’t know she doesn’t want to, then I have a real hard time seeing that as criminal behavior. The fix here is to teach our girls to assert themselves – as well as to teach our boys to respect her wishes.
So far as ‘yes means yes’ – what is it really going to accomplish? We’ve already got people in court arguing about whether it was consensual, one of them is lying – but which one? They could just as easily argue about whether the word “yes” was used. What next? Sign a contract? Wouldn’t it have to be notarized to stand up in court? That is most assuredly a mood killer.
… I’m assuming she’s conscious, here. If she’s passed out on the floor that’s still rape even if she doesn’t say ‘no’
There is no reading so engrossing as a pre-flight checklist. I’ve read and reread some of them for their pure literary and stylistic beauty. I jest.
Fly without a checklist at your own risk of prosecution.
The species will be on the brink of extinction before checklists are voluntarily incorporated into romantic novels and romance.
Will wall murals of the legislators who enacted these foreplay rules of engagement be required posting in legislatively designated sterile human reproduction laboratories, so as to keep ever present in the consciousness of prospective fornicators the high moral standards by which our rulers live?
A new GQ article claims men comprise more than half of the victims of sexual assault in the military.
http://tinyurl.com/q8nblyg
As well as too damn many here at home, and men have far fewer places to go for support. Would you tell your buddies? Hell, women get blamed all the time, I can only imagine what kind of reaction a man would get from his [former] friends.
The military mindset just makes it worse. Basic Training teaches you to suppress your natural inclination towards compassion; reinforces your aggressive tendencies, and conditions you to dehumanize other people. When it backfires and we wind up harming a few of our own, well that’s just collateral damage, isn’t it?
Now it’s even worse; the only people who enlist are either desperate or looking forward to the opportunity to hurt someone.
“I’m a hardliner when it comes to rape – I’ve suggested castration as a cure”
Move to Saudi Arabia or Libya where they welcome people with your sick and barbaric beliefs.
Rape is a sick and barbaric practice, why am I not surprised that you would rise to the defense of the perpetrator? Chemical castration is used in Germany and other barbaric European countries.
Contrast that to the rural areas of many strict Muslim countries, where the usual punishment for rape is that the men of the village all get together and gang rape the guilty party – then they stone her to death.
You know, blaming the victim, just like conservatives in this country.
Rape is not actually outlawed in Saudi Arabia. and if a woman is found to be in violation of purdah (e.g. outside the home without a male escort, wearing “scandalous” clothing) she is punished as well.
In Libya, the majority of rape cases brought to court end in marriage; and the law covering the subject is rather vague. It mentions “crimes against freedom, honor, and morality” – note that it’s not a crime against a woman, per se, but rather against the community values.
Google is your friend.
Mr. Rall, I don’t get this comic. Like, I’m trying to understand it really well. Please let me know where my interpretation falls apart
top panel: refers to the “Antioch Rules” aka Sexual Offence Prevention Policy which … seriously, all sexually-active people should follow (http://antiochmedia.org/mirror/antiwarp/www.antioch-college.edu/Campus/sopp/index.html)
next three panels: illustrate comical interpretations of two people actually seeking active consent
fifth panel: vaginal penetrative intercourse is assumed to be happening
sixth panel: woman suddenly withdraws consent
seventh panel: man is in jail, woman … taunts man by stating that she never gave consent?
I don’t get the comic because the situation in panel #6 does actually happen in reality. Part of the Antioch Rules recognizes that in ethical sexual situations consent can be withdrawn at any time by any party in a sexual situation. That’s one of the factors differentiating ethical and unethical sexual situations: in the former, a person can withdraw consent at any time. If the other people in the situation don’t un-sexify the situation, then that’s sexual assault and/or rape.
More to the point, the situation in panel #7 also does happen in reality: sometimes people don’t actually give consent and the other people in the sexual situation just assume consent was given. That’s also sexual assault and/or rape.
Right now this cartoon comes off as a lot more rape-apologetic than anyone intended, and I don’t think that’s just my reading of it.
Hi, I appreciate your thoughtful query and the opportunity to explain my cartoon.
What I am attempting to make fun of here is California’s ridiculous law, which doesn’t take into account the reality of how people actually have sex and obtain consent from one another. In the real world, people rely on a lot more than verbal permission or consent. They use nonverbal cues, glances, gestures, you name it, to ascertain that what they are doing is welcome and desired. The requirement that a person obtain a step-by-step checklist of permissions for every possible variation of sexual activity within a single encounter is not only unrealistic, it is patently absurd and ridiculous. Moreover – and this may be the more objectionable aspect of this proposed law – it validates the argument by countless rapists that it is otherwise far too confusing and difficult to determine whether or not their victim has consented, that failing verbal – hell, why not written? – consent, who can possibly know whether a rape is occurring? Rape is rape, it’s not that complicated or difficult, anyone who has any sexual experience whatsoever knows what’s going on, and anyway, if there is any doubt, everyone should assume the default assumption that the answer is no.
Though well-intentioned, this law is stupid, and my job is to make fun of things that are stupid.
Thanks for your (quick!) feedback.
I agree that most consent is given in non-verbal ways, and a often-raised criticism of the Antioch Rules is that they argue that only verbal consent is acceptable. i.e.,:
“Body movements and non-verbal responses such as moans are not consent. ”
“Use of agreed upon forms of communication such as gestures or safe words is acceptable, but must be discussed and verbally agreed to by all parties before sexual activity occurs.”
Those seem overly-restrictive … but … I’m a human who’s never had his consent violated. So what seems overly-restrictive to me might seem barely-restrictive to someone with an unfortunately much-less-safe past. But that’s tangential because California’s new addition to the California Education Code is not just a copy-and-paste of the Antioch Rules.
Are California’s new laws based on the Senate Bill 967? ( https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml;jsessionid=c40a3e8cfd339d739f3e93446c8c ) Because that bill doesn’t mention that only verbal consent is acceptable.
““Affirmative consent” means affirmative, conscious, and voluntary agreement to engage in sexual activity.”
That sounds like a body movement or non-verbal response can be a form of consent. I’m also not seeing any mention of a step-by-step checklist?
“It is the responsibility of each person involved in the sexual activity to ensure that he or she has the affirmative consent of the other or others to engage in the sexual activity. Lack of protest or resistance does not mean consent, nor does silence mean consent. Affirmative consent must be ongoing throughout a sexual activity and can be revoked at any time.”
SB 967 has not yet been signed, but yes, that is the bill.
Again, it doesn’t say anything about requiring “verbal” consent. You should really read the law, Ted! It’s probably my favorite law anywhere this year.
I’m just glad that my prime time was a time when there was no confusion about such matters and relations were mutually welcomed. 🙂
I own quite a few of your books and usually love your work, but when subjects like this rear their head…you and I break off.
You said this: “The requirement that a person obtain a step-by-step checklist of permissions for every possible variation of sexual activity within a single encounter is not only unrealistic, it is patently absurd and ridiculous.”
This is not the requirement.
Please read the actual law: https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201320140SB967
The “offending language” reads as follows: “The policy shall include all of the following:
(1) An affirmative consent standard in the determination of whether consent was given by both parties to sexual activity. ‘Affirmative consent’ means affirmative, conscious, and voluntary agreement to engage in sexual activity. It is the responsibility of each person involved in the sexual activity to ensure that he or she has the affirmative consent of the other or others to engage in the sexual activity. Lack of protest or resistance does not mean consent, nor does silence mean consent. Affirmative consent must be ongoing throughout a sexual activity and can be revoked at any time. The existence of a dating relationship between the persons involved, or the fact of past sexual relations between them, should never by itself be assumed to be an indicator of consent.”
This does not mean you need to sign a document. This does not mean you need to even verbally do anything. In sex, as you may know, body language does a lot. A partner simply engaging back, for instance, is consent.
It’s my opinion that this law is necessary, and I hope it’s instituted in every state, because boards of trustees care more about liability than sexual assault, so we need our legislatures to force this on them.
You have been tricked by reactionary second-hand media saying that these policies are going to turn sex into a sort of weird, robotic thing. And thinking that affirmative consent means “clear, verbal agreement” tells me you didn’t read the actual bill.
It also strikes me as odd that you didn’t realize that this is about higher education policy, not law. A university could at most kick you out, not put you in jail. And Ted, let me tell you, men getting kicked out of universities under false pretense has NOT been a problem.
Occidental College in Los Angeles has had some issues over the past few years of not having consistent/strict responses to student-on-student sexual violence. Things like SB 967 are intended (as far as I can tell) to better codify what is and is not acceptable sexual conduct at colleges/universities in order to make sexual offenders more easily kicked off of campuses and/or jailed. That’s a _good thing_, not a “good thing” or even a “sounds like it’s good but is actually bad thing”.
Actually, we’ve already got that codified. Rape & “indecent liberties” are already illegal.
The problem is twofold – enforcement and education – this kind of law does nothing to help either of those. It’s simply showboating. The colleges get to publicly “do something,” while privately letting jocks off the hook.
Rape is hard to prosecute, yes, but those we do catch should be made examples of. Rape a cheerleader – your academic & sports career is OVER. The same should be true 100x in pro sports: Tyson should never have been let back into the ring, instead he should have been publicly shamed and shunned for his actions.
On the education side, our sex ed is a dirty joke. It covers the microscopic mechanics of baby-makin’ but teaches absolutely nothing about making love. Two young people with raging hormones & no clues are going to make mistakes. They should be taught what to expect, how to go about pleasing their partners, and most of all – how to communicate.
@ JoeyD –
The language of this bill is contradictory:
1) In the beginning (LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL’S DIGEST), it states: “… to ensure that students, faculty, and staff who are victims of sexual assault on the grounds or facilities of their institutions….” [Note the wording that the activity be “on the grounds or facilities” part of that quote, which could be interpreted to mean that the “assault” could occur in an off-campus motel.]
2) The introduction of Section 1 states: “… involving a student, both on and off campus.”
I’m not a lawyer, but I know the English language, and in my opinion these statements do not correlate.
You’re the man, Ted Rall! I just love you drawings!
Quick question:
How does this verbal consent at each stage thing work in court? Do you bring in photocopies of the verbal agreement or will only the original do?
Lawyer: Did you obtain consent?
Defendant: Yes. Of course.
Accuser (jumping up in outrage): That’s a lie. I never gave consent.
Defendant: Yes, you did.
Accuser: No, I didn’t.
Defendant: Oh, yes you did.
Accuser: Didn’t.
Defender: Did.
This whole thing is nonsense.
This thing started in colleges. Instead of enacting unenforceable laws, how about a mandatory course on human sexuality preferably with a lab partner?
A (small) part of the problem is indeed missed cues – teach young people proper bedroom communication & that will solve multiple problems at once.
Hell, can you imagine that? A course where you had to talk about complicated issues and discuss things that made you feel uncomfortable?
Thank God college isn’t about THAT!
When I was a student at Abilene Christian College (now ACU) I thought I might live to see the day when sex wasn’t a taboo subject. I even wrote a paper about “The Christian Marriage” or something like that. (Got an “A” for it, too.) I think it’s still around somewhere. I have to say, things haven’t changed over the course of the (almost) 50 years since. Stupidity must be hereditary.
I bet the conservatives are pissed off about this law. Usually they’re the ones legislating bedroom behavior.