To obtain affirmative consent, reasonably than waiting to say or for a accomplice to say “no”, one offers and seeks an express “sure”. The “yes means sure” method includes communication and the active participation of people concerned. In a Time article, Cathy Young states that the California “sure means yes” law is unlikely to make sexual predators much less likely to assault or keep victims safe; she says it creates unclear and capricious guidelines on sexual exercise and moves the burden of proof to those who’re accused, who’re typically male. Shibley states that accused do not have core protections and he states that the school does the investigation, judges the case within the trial, and hears the appeal, which means there is not a separation of features. Robert Shibley notes that Jonathan Chait has expressed concern that colleges with “sure means yes” guidelines are eradicating due process; Shibley argues that fairness and consistency are needed in disciplinary techniques; he states that regardless that college tribunals will not be law courts, they still have components of court docket trials, as they are based mostly on an allegation, an investigation is done, a listening to is held, evidence is brought forward, sentences are handed down, and there may be an appeal that may be made.
Roffee argues that the usage of specific language within the legislation relating to these familial sexual activities manipulates the reader to view it as immoral and criminal, even when all parties are consenting. Dr James Roffee, a senior lecturer in criminology within the Monash University School of Social Sciences, argues that authorized definition (see Legal idea of consent) must be common, so as to avoid confusion in authorized selections. Julianne Ross states that in a Western society the place sexual narratives give attention to male want, what women need can be deemed much less necessary; as such, in this context, women in heterosexual encounters may feel a strain to say sure to sure intercourse acts for worry that they could also be criticized as a “prude” if they don’t agree, or because the girls need to fit into social expectations in their group, or as a result of they’re looking for validation. Within the late 1980s, educational Lois Pineau argued that society must transfer towards a extra communicative model of sexuality so that consent turns into more explicit and clear, objective and layered, with a extra comprehensive mannequin than “no means no” or “yes means sure”.
Camille Paglia calls “sure means sure” legal guidelines “drearily puritanical” and totalitarian. A variant of “sure means yes” consent is enthusiastic consent. In keeping with Yoon-Hendricks, a staff writer for Sex, Etc., “Instead of saying ‘no means no,’ ‘sure means sure’ seems at sex as a constructive thing.” Ongoing consent is sought in any respect ranges of sexual intimacy regardless of the parties’ relationship, prior sexual historical past or present activity (“Grinding on the dance ground just isn’t consent for further sexual exercise,” a college policy reads). T.K. Pritchard says that even after consent is given, participants in an encounter needs to be “constantly checking in”, and that there ought to be checking in before sexual contact, throughout intercourse, and after sex, to ensure consent was given. By definition, affirmative consent cannot be given if an individual is intoxicated, unconscious or asleep. Some people are unable to present consent, or even when they can verbally point out that they consent, they’re deemed to lack the power to make knowledgeable or full consent (e.g., minors under the age of consent or an intoxicated individual). Similarly, some minors under the authorized age of consent could knowingly and willingly choose to be in a sexual relationship.