Views from the Abyss #32: No Means No

A common misconception among the 'progressives' and those who shout their morality from the rooftops, is that 'No + Sex = Rape', and that this principle applies universally. It comes up often when TV shows such as Game of Thrones depict a complex sexual encounter, where one party (typically female) is reluctant and says the 'n' word but goes through with it anyway. The internet is quick to voice its outrage. 'Why did this otherwise reasonable character RAPE that poor woman?'

The point that is easily overlooked is that the "No Means No" principle was never intended to assert that "No" is the official safe word in all cultures throughout time. That would just be stupid. Having a universally understood safe word in a single culture is actually not a bad idea, and would probably go a long way towards reducing sexual assaults, but 'No' would not be it. It's far too common of a word to be of any use.

On the contrary, the purpose of it was to acknowledge that most sexual encounters are not scripted. They're nuanced and ambiguous, and involve a lot of sensing out the moment on both sides, and if one party decides they do not want to go through with it, they owe it to themselves to be as unambiguous about this as they can possibly be, so as to avoid any kind of misunderstanding. And the person they're with, being a reasonable not-rapey kind of a person like most people are, will hear the unambiguous message and respect it. In a mutual encounter, it's reasonable that responsibility sits on both sets of shoulders.

And while it's true that circumstances such as a pre-existing sexual relationship are not by themselves indicative of an immediate desire to engage sexually right now, it does muddy the waters with yet more ambiguity.

If in doubt, spell it out.