I have to ditto lokifan that there are a lot of problems with saying "What about situations where someone doesn't *give* consent, but also doesn't have the guts to vocally *deny* consent?" If you need "guts" to do something, then you've been put into a threatening situation, and the entire thing has already taken a seriously wrong turn.
I read -- I think as a part of the gun-control debate -- something pointing out the massive shift in our attitudes toward drunk driving, as a result of concerted social campaigns. It used to be a stock figure of humour, the driver weaving back and forth across the road, narrowly avoiding pedestrians and other cars. That isn't true anymore, and it isn't true because we worked hard to make people see it differently. I think the "no means no" campaigns tried that, but I agree with those who say it would be more effective to push "yes means yes." People should engage with their partners, look for positive confirmation that they do indeed want what's happening. And then absence of refusal (which can happen for a lot of reasons, many of them bad) won't be taken as presence of consent.
no subject
I read -- I think as a part of the gun-control debate -- something pointing out the massive shift in our attitudes toward drunk driving, as a result of concerted social campaigns. It used to be a stock figure of humour, the driver weaving back and forth across the road, narrowly avoiding pedestrians and other cars. That isn't true anymore, and it isn't true because we worked hard to make people see it differently. I think the "no means no" campaigns tried that, but I agree with those who say it would be more effective to push "yes means yes." People should engage with their partners, look for positive confirmation that they do indeed want what's happening. And then absence of refusal (which can happen for a lot of reasons, many of them bad) won't be taken as presence of consent.