YES MEANS YES IS MEANINGLESS

Justice Potter Stewart in 1964 explaining his position regarding a “pornography” case (Jacobellis v. Ohio) brought before the United States Supreme Court stated, “I shall not today attempt to define [pornography]… But I know it when I see it…”

I can’t put my finger on exactly what a “yes” is, but any person with an IQ higher than a cow knows what “no” or “stop” means. And any person that presses forward (usually men), either by force or some other form of coercion, is committing a sexual assault.

You’re a man or a woman, but whichever you are, picture that you’re currently involved in a make-out session with someone you feel attracted to (and they to you.)
As you are kissing one another, do you ask or do you expect the other person to ask, “Is it okay if I caress your neck?”
Is it okay if I move my hands under your blouse or shirt?
Is it okay if I touch your private parts?
Is it okay if we have sex?

NO. Besides being a total mood killer, this process would be ridiculous.

What happens instead?

You’re making out and at some point the other person physically uses his or her hand to stop your hands from moving to parts preferred kept private. OR he or she says something to the effect of “Stop” or “I’m not ready for that” or any similar type of statement.

Once the forward movement is stopped or requested to be stopped, IT IS THE OTHER PERSON’S DUTY TO STOP. But I also need to point out that just because a man or woman doesn’t want to engage in oral or some other kind of sex, does not mean that they aren’t interested in continuing to kiss or engage in acts previously engaged in during the interlude – - it just means they don’t want to go further.

I’ve been with women who’ve asked me to stop, and guess what? STOP IS WHAT I DID. We continued to kiss and do the other stuff because “stop” just meant she wasn’t ready to move to the next level.

I have no interest in “Yes Means Yes.”
But I am EXTREEEEMLY interested in No Means No.

Why is “Yes Means Yes” being debated one might ask. Schools are attempting to define (not that they actually care) they are attempting to define a specific “policy.” So that, in theory, they could now hold a person responsible for a violation of that policy.

A few years back California tried to call it murder to kill someone when a person was drunk driving. People who knew me all said, “Well Richard, I guess you’re pretty happy that they’re finally punishing these people.” (Note: I have always HATED drunk drivers.)
To which I responded, “I’M NOT HAPPY AT ALL. The state came up with something that looks like they’re doing something about drunk driving; when they really aren’t. Killing someone by drunk driving is not murder. Murder by definition requires intent (or a complete lack of care for lesser degrees of Murder such as Murder 2, etc.). Given that a person is legally drunk, intent could NEVER be established due to diminished capacity. This person could not be bound to a contract he or she had signed, nor could they be held responsible for the commission of “murder.”
“If the State TRULY wanted to change the law here is how they would do it. ‘We the legislature for the State of California hereby write a new law intended to dissuade people from driving drunk and to punish those who continue to risk and take the lives of innocents while drunk driving. This is the law: Any person who is driving a car and is involved in a collision with another car or pedestrian where the death of any person occurs, is guilty of Death By Drunk Driving. The punishment for violation of this law will be such and such.’”
“What are the elements of this crime? A driver has to be proven to be above the legal limit to drive and there was a death. THAT’S IT!! No arguments about intent. No trying to prove the person has drunk driven in the past. No Nothing. Was the person above the legal limit and was there a death. DONE! Guilty! That’s all the legislature had to write. Instead, they called it murder – - which any idiot, mediocre attorney could argue was not really murder and get his client off the hook.”

Schools are in a similar position now. What they want to do is muddy the waters by arguing did she REALLY mean “yes.” This is a waste of everyone’s time.

If schools or the state want to make a difference here’s what they write.

1) If a person is passed out from either drinking, drugs, or merely a deep state of sleep, and another person fondles or engages in any sexual act with the person, the perpetrator of such act is guilty of rape or sexual assault.
2) If a person’s capacity is diminished by drugs or alcohol or is not mentally capable of giving consent or physically or mentally incapable of preventing sexual contact, the perpetrator of the act is guilty of rape or sexual assault.
3) If a person has spoken the words, “stop,” “I don’t want to,” or has physically attempted to stop the advances of another person and the aggressing person through force, violence, threat of force, threat of violence or any other means engages in sexual activity the perpetrator is guilty of rape or sexual assault.

BE CLEAR – - I cannot always define clear concise consent – - BUT EVERYONE (including perpetrators) IS CRYSTAL CLEAR WHEN “NO” IS PRESENT.

Determining whether a Rape or Sexual Assault has taken place is not rocket science. If a woman has said “no” or is incapable of saying no or has been forced to engage in sexual acts then a rape or sexual assault has taken place.

Any person attempting to classify this stuff as anything other is attempting to, once again, charge the victim with the responsibility for the commission of the crime.

F – - “Yes Means Yes.”

Police and District Attorneys: Enforce the laws that are on the books.
Government: Enforce mandatory reporting laws that are already on the books.
Schools: Quit F’ing around. Admit that you don’t give a sh** about half of your student population. Write your rules steps 1,2,3 above and enforce this garbage. WTF??!! Do the young women under your care REALLY mean soooo little to you that you would allow 20 to 25 % of them to be raped or sexually assaulted while students of your F’ing institutions?

The police and DAs probably aren’t going to step up their actions. They’re already overworked and some are underpaid.
There’s nothing more the legislative bodies can do, since laws are already on the books.
BUT YOU SCHOOLS. I know what’s going to get your attentions. The hundreds of millions of dollars of lawsuits that are going to start raining down on your F’d up institutions. You could make this problem disappear overnight. YOU JUST DON’T WANT TO.

Young Women and Parents. THE TRUE POWER LIES IN YOUR LAPS.
You have a choice. Say NO.
No – we will not write any more checks to colleges and universities;
No – we will not show up in class;
No – we will not participate in ANY events;
until this school we’re in and EVERY SCHOOL we’re attending cleans up their acts.

Dr Martin Luther King had it right. But everyone forgot his lesson. “Don’t meet violence with violence. Boycotts can accomplish the exact same result.” Piss off Gays or Lesbians on TV and advertisers pull their dollars IMMEDIATELY. People get fired. Policies change. OVERNIGHT.

Tell the colleges and universities that your daughters are attending ENOUGH!
NO MORE RAPES.
NO MORE SEXUAL ASSAULTS.
NO MORE SHIRKING YOUR RESPONSIBILITY TO KEEP YOUNG WOMEN UNDER YOUR CARE SAFE.

The time has come.
20 to 25 % – - ARE YOU F’ing KIDDING ME??!!

 

This entry was posted in Uncategorized and tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


two − 1 =

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>