This article discusses sexual assault and may be triggering for some readers. The Journal uses “survivor” to refer to those who have experienced sexual assault. The Kingston Sexual Assault Centre’s 24-hour crisis and phone line can be reached at 613-544-6424 / 1-877-544-6424.
It’s Valentine’s Day—which means love is in the air, and so should affirmative consent.
The lack of affirmative consent lies at the centre of the Gisèle Pelicot mass rape trial that took place in Avignon, last fall. This trial found Pelicot’s ex-husband—along with 46 other men—guilty of sexually assaulting her while she was drugged and unconscious. Though Pelicot’s trial has ended, justice for sexual violence can’t be served until we set affirmative consent as the standard.
In the Pelicot trial, a common theme is observed: many perpetrators took Pelicot’s unconsciousness and her inability to verbalize “no” as a green light to commit sexual assault. Additionally, a 2022 Shift Survey reported that 59 per cent of the six per cent of Queen’s students who experienced sexual violence were incapacitated when the incidents took place.
Both examples highlight the narrowed understanding of affirmative consent, which seeks to ensure consent isn’t assumed, but an active, ongoing process. I believe “no means no,” as it stands, is primarily built upon stopping the action when refusal is expressed. This feels like a harm reduction tactic rather than a proactive approach to ensure consent is continuous and enthusiastic. Through this standpoint, a better framework to promote consent culture is to popularize “yes means yes.”
“Yes means yes” was popularized by Jaclyn Friedman and Jessica Valenti in 2008. The feminist authors aimed for a more reformed approach to “no means no,” which gained prominence in the ’90s. While the latter serves as an excellent starting point for establishing boundaries, there’s room for further refinement.
The issue with “no means no” lies in its inability to for situations where an individual might be unable to say no. These situations go beyond sobriety or consciousness—the lack of a verbal “no” also overlooks times when a victim is coerced or feels physically unsafe to deny advances.
As a standalone principle, “no means no” is limiting. If objections are required to respect boundaries, it adds significant burdens onto the victim to uphold these boundaries by saying no. This added pressure can be especially problematic in relationships with power imbalances, where victims might not feel like they have the agency to refuse.
On the contrary, “yes means yes” ensures consent is affirmative. An affirmative “yes” isn’t a “maybe” or an “okay.” Instead, it’s a “yes” that’s provided with enthusiasm and one that should be congruent with body language.
Regulation 131/16 requires every Ontario university to establish its own sexual violence policies. Queen’s University’s Policy on Sexual Misconduct and Violence adheres to this mandate, with Section 4 clearly stating the University’s commitment to “promote a culture of consent” through awareness and training.
A “culture of consent” is defined by establishing affirmative consent as the norm, where an objection or the absence of one shouldn’t serve as a basis for obtaining consent. This isn’t an invitation to disregard “no means no.” Instead, it should be combined with the newer “yes means yes” to clarify all ambiguities and prevent any misunderstandings concerning consent.
Through slight yet monumental changes in our language, we can work towards creating a consent culture that’s more focused on mutual engagement and enthusiasm.
Nay Chi is a fourth-year Health Sciences student and The Journal’s Assistant Photos Editor.
Tags
All final editorial decisions are made by the Editor(s) in Chief and/or the Managing Editor. Authors should not be ed, targeted, or harassed under any circumstances. If you have any grievances with this article, please direct your comments to [email protected].