ShareThis Page
Featured Commentary

Turning the 'joy of sex' into a police process

| Monday, Aug. 24, 2015, 9:00 p.m.


Rape is inexcusable and deserves to be discussed seriously, but the current nationwide push for so-called “Yes Means Yes” laws is likely to cause more harm than good.

“Yes Means Yes” puts into state statute a legally binding requirement that all parties involved in a sexual encounter demonstrate an “unambiguous, affirmative and conscious decision” to engage in voluntary sexual relations, to quote California's legislation.

In practice, this means getting an explicit “yes” at every progressive step in the sexual act. But this approach is both unreasonable and unworkable.

First, virtually all relationship counselors recognize the importance of healthy sexual relations for building long-term trust, empathy and identity within relationships. This intimacy is built using a range of verbal, nonverbal and behavioral actions, often ambiguous by legal definition, to cultivate respect and mutual understanding.

At the core of the “Yes Means Yes” legislation is a presumption that sex is unwanted and destructive. The law thus codifies legalistic rules that work against creating these bonds.

Second, such legislation completely misses the real problem surrounding sexual assault, particularly date rape and campus assault. Most rapes and attempted rapes are not committed by perpetrators who would be stopped because the person they're with has not said “yes.”

An estimated 80 percent of sexual assaults are committed by people the victims know. Consent already is a widely recognized legal and cultural standard for determining rape or sexual assault. A legal mandate for verbalizing consent explicitly adds little to the effectiveness of these already existing codes and laws.

Moreover, “Yes Means Yes” legislation effectively criminalizes millions of actions by individuals and partners that do not lead to rape or sexual assault.

If our goal is to reduce the incidence of sexual assault, less draconian, more targeted and more nuanced approaches are available. One such strategy focuses on influencing community norms.

The sexual violence prevention program at Florida State University uses this approach to help students better understand the meaning of consent, increase awareness of when a sexual assault may be taking place and increase the likelihood that somebody will intervene when they think a sexual assault is taking place.

Other strategies empower men and women by teaching self-defense skills and educating them about environments and activities — excessive drinking, for example — that increase the risk of sexual assault. Empowerment strategies recognize the fact that sexual assault and rape are not random occurrences. Helping young adults better understand the types of situations that increase the risk of sexual assault and giving them the tools to protect themselves contribute to a safer, more respectful environment for everyone.

Our efforts to reduce rape and sexual assault should not criminalize healthy sexual behavior. Rather, they should focus on reinforcing and expanding the respect we have for one another, our understanding of intent and consent, and the importance of relationships built on trust and communication in all of its many forms.

Samuel R. Staley is a research fellow at the Independent Institute, a think tank in Oakland, Calif., and the director of the Devoe L. Moore Center at Florida State University.

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.

click me