I think it’s deliberately constructed to imply both “Only Yes Means Yes” and “Yes Definitely Means Yes, no strings attached”—because both are needed for the system to function. After all, we don’t want people to just say “Yes” after mistakenly perceiving this as just the new standard of acting nice/”political correctness”, and then try to manipulate their partner into not going through with the sex.
Although the phrase “no strings attached” might not have quite the connotations you want.
I think a better phrasing would be “yes definitely means yes, within the boundaries explicitly negotiated”.
I’m coming from the BDSM community, where explicit negotiations of consent and boundaries are kind of a Big Deal—maybe this is something that the mainstream sexual community could adopt with minor modification. (We’ve been beta testing it for them for at least three decades, after all)
I think it’s deliberately constructed to imply both “Only Yes Means Yes” and “Yes Definitely Means Yes, no strings attached”—because both are needed for the system to function.
But… there are strings attached. Yes doesn’t definitely mean yes. It means yes most of the time but if the earth hasn’t gone around the sun many times since the speaker was born it can mean nothing, it can likewise not mean anything if certain other formal power differences exist. What ‘Yes’ means in cases when prompted by various kinds of coercion or in response to certain kinds of favours (but not others) depends on the environment and the subtlety of the participants.
Ohh yes indeed. Which is why there are courts, and laws, and social mores. Sex isn’t a perfect libertarian utopia of mutual contract negotiation and enforcement, even in the world we’re imagining in this thread.
it can likewise not mean anything if certain other formal power differences exist.
Incidentally, as an aside into VERY dangerous waters, I think this is the actual important distinction. Enthusiastic consent is only possible between equals or near-equals. When any formal power differences exist, it muddies the waters too much for society to trust that consent was enthusiastically given.
Which, interestingly enough, makes pedophilia a problem of power-disparity interfering with the consent mechanism, instead of a mere social ‘ugh field’, which is deeply satisfying as a rationalist. (It also means that these problems can be corrected for, but discussing that might drift too far into taboo even for this site).
Maybe “Only Yes Means Yes”? Otherwise the statement is open to misinterpretation.
I think it’s deliberately constructed to imply both “Only Yes Means Yes” and “Yes Definitely Means Yes, no strings attached”—because both are needed for the system to function. After all, we don’t want people to just say “Yes” after mistakenly perceiving this as just the new standard of acting nice/”political correctness”, and then try to manipulate their partner into not going through with the sex.
Although the phrase “no strings attached” might not have quite the connotations you want.
I think a better phrasing would be “yes definitely means yes, within the boundaries explicitly negotiated”.
I’m coming from the BDSM community, where explicit negotiations of consent and boundaries are kind of a Big Deal—maybe this is something that the mainstream sexual community could adopt with minor modification. (We’ve been beta testing it for them for at least three decades, after all)
Well, yes, that’s what I should’ve said.
...making it hard to consent to bondage play for example?
What you did there.
But in all seriousness, yes. A more ‘vanilla’ example might be: “I enthusiastically consent to sex, but only if you wear a condom.”
But… there are strings attached. Yes doesn’t definitely mean yes. It means yes most of the time but if the earth hasn’t gone around the sun many times since the speaker was born it can mean nothing, it can likewise not mean anything if certain other formal power differences exist. What ‘Yes’ means in cases when prompted by various kinds of coercion or in response to certain kinds of favours (but not others) depends on the environment and the subtlety of the participants.
Ohh yes indeed. Which is why there are courts, and laws, and social mores. Sex isn’t a perfect libertarian utopia of mutual contract negotiation and enforcement, even in the world we’re imagining in this thread.
Incidentally, as an aside into VERY dangerous waters, I think this is the actual important distinction. Enthusiastic consent is only possible between equals or near-equals. When any formal power differences exist, it muddies the waters too much for society to trust that consent was enthusiastically given.
Which, interestingly enough, makes pedophilia a problem of power-disparity interfering with the consent mechanism, instead of a mere social ‘ugh field’, which is deeply satisfying as a rationalist. (It also means that these problems can be corrected for, but discussing that might drift too far into taboo even for this site).