Nico

rgr-pop:

As if I’m surprised that these bros are disregarding every history of the “movement” they have deigned to lead, as if I am surprised they choose to so consistently deliberately push out the voices and wishes and bodies and concerns and histories and works of every survivor.

How can you miss all the criticisms of the “‘yes means yes’” epidemic? What kind of grasp can you have on consent if you don’t understand that sometimes yes doesn’t mean yes? What does it say about you that you can’t fathom a “yes” that is anything but enthusiastic? It says that you’ve never considered, you know, power relationships, it says that you have never listened to survivors, especially survivors of prolonged domestic abuse, it says you have not read literally any literature about the dynamics of rape, like, ever. (It also says you might be a rapist, let’s be honest.) Most importantly, a men’s group fighting to preserve the “‘yes means yes’” slogan which is alreadycontroversial among survivor advocacy groups just highlights how important it is for would-be rapists to have this tool in their belt. Men and/or rapists need us to keep saying “yes means yes” because that means that all they need to do to attain total amnesty is get you to say “yes” at any cost.

I just—naively—never thought I would see a semi-institutionalized anti-rape group telling me that “no means no” doesn’t apply anymore. “Enthusiastic consent” means “you no longer can use ‘no’ as a potential response.” What are we supposed to say? Does enthusiastic consent mean we have to be enthusiastic in nonconsent? That we have to say “I am not gonna have sex with you and I swear I have a good reason”? What about silence? If “no” isn’t enough, what good is silence?

It makes me think about how, to these people, the tools of consent, the tools of “stopping rape,” are really really really really not supposed to be accessed by people who have already experienced rape. Because when they read the slogan “no means no” they read it as “when someone says no I am supposed to listen to them,” they are reading it from the perspective of the potential rapist, or the already-rapist. The potential violator of consent, the person who needs to learn how not to rape. And certainly there is a strong history, and an urgent need for that reading of “no means no.” But “no means no” is mostly an old tool for survivors, to assert “rights,” coming (first) out of contexts where some people aren’t allowed to say no. It was, in one permutation, a liberal rights affirmation addressing marital exemption laws (especially in affirming their repeal over the past thirty years or so). In other cases it has been used to resist situations where people aren’t given the “right” to say “no”—a resistance to political structures that invalidate the “no.” 

So often, though, “no means no” is like, one of the only things survivors-who-said-no-but-still-got-raped-and-still-got-no-justice have to cling to. “I said no,” while a really limited device that has often hurt the survivors who didn’t say no, is a classic part of the reparative process. “I said no” is a validation for survivors who blame themselves. It’s not necessarily even that useful, and it doesn’t change anything, but it has operated like this for a long time. It should be something survivors can use to heal, if nothing else. I just can’t even believe some dudes are like “nope, that doesn’t count anymore. you don’t get to use this.”

(via crunkfeministcollective)