"'Yes' Is Better Than 'No'" - Michael Kimmel and Gloria Steinmen

Nikki Bracci

Professor Richardson

TA Nikki Fortier

PHI 297 - Philosophy of Feminism

08 November 2016

Blog Post #5

Michael Kimmel and Gloria Steinmen discuss a new bill passed in the state of California that promotes the use of  ‘yes’ as consent rather than the lack of the word ‘no’ in their New York Times article entitled “‘Yes’ Is Better Than ‘No’”. California decided to spark the redefinition of consent when they realized that the standard for consent was “no means no”. This meant that a person was only considered to be non-consenting when they used the term “no”- this leaves out all the people who are assaulted in their sleep or while intoxicated/ under the influence.  “Silence is not consent; it is the absence of consent” (Kimmel, Steinmen).

Kimmel and Steinmen were smart in their approach when writing this article. Including explicit definitions of each campaign “yes means yes” and “no means no” is crucial to the understanding of the new bill. Many people are ignorant or unaware of the difference or choose to only understand the word “no” or sometimes the lack of the word. Kimmel and Steinmen use examples completely unrelated to the act of sexual assault to show the relevance of “yes means yes.” They use examples such as a burglar breaking into your home while you are sleeping off a night of drinking - did the act of you being intoxicated imply consent to rob your home?  It is amazing that in the eyes of the law, as mentioned in the article, it is more intrusive and traumatizing the have your property invaded than to have your body invaded. This is a concept implemented all throughout the United States. The article also noted that this patriarchal law is biased partially due to the fact that only recently were women allowed to own themselves and not be owned by men. If as a society we can evolve to allow everyone to have ownership of their own bodies, why can’t we evolve enough to see that consensual sex is the best kind - because non-consensual sex is dangerous and morally wrong on every level imaginable. Women do not owe men anything, in fact men owe women - if not for women there would be no man. Many people justify assault with the fact that the women was flirtatious or asking for it, if she does not EXPLICITLY ask she does not want anything.

Antioch College made an attempt at a similar change in the 1990's. When they first enacted the new code of conduct there was an overwhelming negative reaction. Charlton Heston even went as far as to say it was another example of campus political correctness going out of control.  Many men at the college claimed that asking to move from act to act would result in him not getting what he wants. This exclamation just shows that some men only care about their sexual needs regardless of the needs or wants of the women.

I agree with the final claims of Kimmel and Steinmen. “Yes” is an extremely sexy word and encouraging in that setting. Using an example from literature, specifically a novel banned for many years due to sexual content, is powerful in solidifying their point. “Yes” is encouraging and shows satisfaction regardless of the context of its use.