TW for sexual assaultGloria Steinem on consent and sexual assault: “Since when is hearing ‘yes’ a tu

TW for sexual assaultGloria Steinem on consent and sexual assault: “Since when is hearing ‘yes’ a turnoff?”The feminist icon weighs in on California’s new affirmative consent laws and it critics“Until now, this has been the state of affairs in our nation’s laws on sexual assault. Invading bodies has been taken less seriously by the law than invading private property, even though body-invasion is far more traumatic. This has remained an unspoken bias of patriarchal law.After all, women were property until very recently. In some countries, they still are. Even in America, women’s human right to make decisions about their own bodies remains controversial, especially when it comes to sex and reproduction. […] Until [California passed SB 967], the prevailing standard has been “no means no.” If she says no (or, more liberally, indicates any resistance with her body), then the sex is seen as nonconsensual. That is, it’s rape.Under such a standard, the enormous gray area between “yes” and “no” is defined residually as “yes”: Unless one hears an explicit “no,” consent is implied. “Yes means yes” completely redefines that gray area. Silence is not consent; it is the absence of consent. Only an explicit “yes” can be considered consent.And rather than being a buzz kill, Steinem and Kimmel see this as a truly erotic turn: “But seriously, since when is hearing ‘yes’ a turnoff?,” they asked. “Answering ‘yes’ to, ‘Can I touch you there?’ ‘Would you like me to?’ ‘Will you [fill in blank] me?’ seems a turn-on and a confirmation of desire, whatever the sexual identity of the asker and the asked.”Read the full piece here  -- source link

More pics about