This is the second in a series of posts critically examining some of the ways consent has been framed in feminist and other circles. For more info, Go to Part 1.
Despite the clear issues with the no means no message, the slogan continues to be employed in anti-rape campaigns. It is a catchy slogan, and it’s message, while incomplete to a degree that is potentially dangerous (as we’ve seen), is an important one. It is clear, however, that even those employing the slogan are aware of it’s limitations, and as a result we see a lot of campaigns expanding on the message to make it clear that the absence of a “no” is not, in itself, an indication of consent.
Here are some examples of what I’m talking about:
There’s a number of really important things going on here, that address many of the criticisms I made of no means no as a stand-alone message.
The Canadian Federation of Students’ messaging in particular directly addresses the phenomenon in which people (especially women, or members of any marginalized group) are uncomfortable giving direct rejections. “No” can be hard to say, and we often try to say it without using the word no. Instead, we make excuses (I have a partner/I need to do this other thing right now, sorry!) that kick the rejection can down the road, and that are sometimes interpreted (by assholes, mostly) to be encouragements. These kinds of excuses unfortunately make people who aren’t actually concerned about what you want feel like they can negotiate with you about your sexual desires (pro tip: this is not a thing that works). The messaging in the images above combats the idea that it is ok to keep pushing after receiving ANY form of rejection – it’s not. Appreciate that the person who propositioned is being kind, but recognize the rejection for what it is and don’t be an ass about it.
Cool. I’m glad we cleared that up.
The second poster also deals with the more insidious form of deliberate ignorance and advantage-taking in the absence of a no. “Staying still means NO” is possibly the single most important concept here. The message is that just because someone doesn’t explicitly object to what you’re doing to them does not mean that they have consented. This is actually a very powerful and meaningful message, and is the one that most often trips people up when talking about consent in sexual situations. It just about erases the possibility that you can get away with whatever you want as long as you don’t ask permission first (i.e. as long as you don’t give your victim a chance to object, or put them in a situation where they will be too confused or scared to do anything that could be construed as an explicit objection).
Just about. But not quite.
In Part 3, I discuss the messages behind “yes means yes” campaigns, the ways in which it differs from “no means no” messaging, and fills some of the remaining gaps left even by expanded non means no campaigns like those discussed here. And I’ll also be exploring some of the flaws of “yes means yes” messaging.