No Means Yes

A thought about the ever-present "No Means No" rhetoric. 

"No Means No" gets taught alongside sexual education (in places where comprehensive sexual education actually exists) and it's become pretty much the extent of what we, as a society, have to say to teenagers about consent. 

The problem is... we human beings are super good at justifying our actions to ourselves. "No Means No" leaves a whole heck of a lot of room for us to come up with gray areas where none exist. "No Means No" leaves room for us to wheedle our partner into a reluctant "yes"; it allows us to pretend that we aren't good enough at reading body language to ascertain that our partner means no when they're pushing us away or acting nervous; it lets us think to ourselves that having sex with our significant other when they're passed out drunk is fine because they probably would have said yes anyway.

The average human being is not willing to admit to himself/herself that he/she is a rapist. Rape isn't always about sadism and control... a lot of times it's just about someone not respecting boundaries, not having enough empathy, or just wanting what they want. But, even when rape isn't motivated by some perverse desire to hurt other people, it's still rape. And we need to leave less room for people to excuse the inexcusable by having a legitimate, comprehensive discussion about the nature of consent. 

In a society in which rape culture is in full force, in which girls are socialized to avoid asserting themselves, in which the sexualization and objectification of women is inextricably linked to violence and brutality in media, "No Means No" is not enough. It effectively robs the idea of consent of any meaning whatsoever. 

~Jessica Franzoi

See: Continuum of Harm