As you say, there is a book "Yes Means Yes" which is a collection of essays around the theme -- some of which are well worth reading. The blog periodically has things worth reading too. I'm pleased to see more attention being given to "Yes means Yes", because as you say "No means No" only takes you so far. With either one, you end up with an area of uncertainty that people end up assuming means one or the other of the binary answers. But with the two of them together it's more obvious that you're in that area of uncertainty, and should seek more clarification.
Over time I think that widespread adoption of the concept will make life easier for everyone: people being willing to say what they want is vastly easier than being forced to guess, and it being considered a good thing to ask rather than a failing due to inability to romantically read someone's mind. But despite being intellectually in favour of it, and having had my own experiences with "freezing" and hoping bad things will stop -- and thus being quite keen to know that someone else isn't in that state -- as a man there's still something emotionally triggering about the way "yes means yes" is usually presented as a concept.
It's taken me a while to put my finger on this. I think part of it is the asymmetric nature of the changes required. Recipients (stereotypically termed "women") -- those to be asked -- have both their part in the question/answer, and the current society default, in their favour: they don't need to do anything in advance to make it obvious they're a fan of "yes means yes", and if the person they're with doesn't ask very early on they have the option of saying nothing and going with the societal default rules ("alls good until someone says no"). So they can approach saying "yes" gradually, and only do so when the "yes" is likely to be respected. Initiators (stereotypically termed "men") -- those doing the asking -- have neither of those advantages. By contrast they are expected to ask, every time, without any way (other than guessing) whether the person asked will welcome an explicit question or be offended at being asked ("what do you think I am? I'm a good girl, we don't want...."). And in addition to that are expected to be the "police" for this process, in that they're expected to withhold their affections from anyone not welcoming the question.
I hasten to add that I've been trying quite hard to explicitly ask out loud myself in any similar situation. But it's often quite a challenge to find a wording that seems unlikely to offend someone who didn't want an explicit verbal question, and makes it obvious that both "yes" and "no" are equally suitable answers, and is clear enough that saying "yes" really is explicit consent. (The "only yes means yes" also appears to rule out all implicit or tacit consent completely, in any situation: to work it's not just "only ask if you're not sure", it's "always ask for verbal confirmation".) "Only yes means yes", in its pure description, is very ask culture; and western society is generally still fairly "guess culture", complete with expectation of being offended at being asked something someone "should have known" the answer to.
Possibly the way to make progress is both to encourage recipients to welcome the question and be willing to say "yes" or "no" as is appropriate for their desire; and to enumerate ways of asking that are both explicit requests for consent, and less likely to offend, and don't sound like "please initial each page, then turn to page 47 and sign at the bottom". You cover some of those in your post. But a lot of the presentations of "yes means yes" tend to ignore that aspect as trivial. Yet it seems to me that it's integral to gaining acceptance: you can ask for verbal consent in a way that doesn't "ruin the mood" or "cause offence" or whatever might be the fear. Once there's a "safe" way to ask, an expectation that no one will be offended by the question being made explicit, and the belief that anyone genuinely interested will actually say yes, then I think there'll be a lot more willingness to go with the formality of always asking verbally.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Only Yes means Yes
Date: 9/7/11 10:42 am (UTC)From:Over time I think that widespread adoption of the concept will make life easier for everyone: people being willing to say what they want is vastly easier than being forced to guess, and it being considered a good thing to ask rather than a failing due to inability to romantically read someone's mind. But despite being intellectually in favour of it, and having had my own experiences with "freezing" and hoping bad things will stop -- and thus being quite keen to know that someone else isn't in that state -- as a man there's still something emotionally triggering about the way "yes means yes" is usually presented as a concept.
It's taken me a while to put my finger on this. I think part of it is the asymmetric nature of the changes required. Recipients (stereotypically termed "women") -- those to be asked -- have both their part in the question/answer, and the current society default, in their favour: they don't need to do anything in advance to make it obvious they're a fan of "yes means yes", and if the person they're with doesn't ask very early on they have the option of saying nothing and going with the societal default rules ("alls good until someone says no"). So they can approach saying "yes" gradually, and only do so when the "yes" is likely to be respected. Initiators (stereotypically termed "men") -- those doing the asking -- have neither of those advantages. By contrast they are expected to ask, every time, without any way (other than guessing) whether the person asked will welcome an explicit question or be offended at being asked ("what do you think I am? I'm a good girl, we don't want...."). And in addition to that are expected to be the "police" for this process, in that they're expected to withhold their affections from anyone not welcoming the question.
I hasten to add that I've been trying quite hard to explicitly ask out loud myself in any similar situation. But it's often quite a challenge to find a wording that seems unlikely to offend someone who didn't want an explicit verbal question, and makes it obvious that both "yes" and "no" are equally suitable answers, and is clear enough that saying "yes" really is explicit consent. (The "only yes means yes" also appears to rule out all implicit or tacit consent completely, in any situation: to work it's not just "only ask if you're not sure", it's "always ask for verbal confirmation".) "Only yes means yes", in its pure description, is very ask culture; and western society is generally still fairly "guess culture", complete with expectation of being offended at being asked something someone "should have known" the answer to.
Possibly the way to make progress is both to encourage recipients to welcome the question and be willing to say "yes" or "no" as is appropriate for their desire; and to enumerate ways of asking that are both explicit requests for consent, and less likely to offend, and don't sound like "please initial each page, then turn to page 47 and sign at the bottom". You cover some of those in your post. But a lot of the presentations of "yes means yes" tend to ignore that aspect as trivial. Yet it seems to me that it's integral to gaining acceptance: you can ask for verbal consent in a way that doesn't "ruin the mood" or "cause offence" or whatever might be the fear. Once there's a "safe" way to ask, an expectation that no one will be offended by the question being made explicit, and the belief that anyone genuinely interested will actually say yes, then I think there'll be a lot more willingness to go with the formality of always asking verbally.
Ewen