Let's talk about "Coercive Sex".

[Warren DeMontague]

43. Consent should be a bright line, clearly communicated and understood.

I believe that was the commentary accompanying the study.

I'm pro choice. That means I support the right of people to choose to say no. I support the right of people to choose to say yes.

Just as I believe every child should be wanted, I believe every sex act should be a mutually agreed upon and enthusiastically enjoyed act performed by consenting adults. I understand why ANY messaging that indicates anything other than "no means no" would make people upset, even if it's an implication taken away from an NIH study. The fact is, people need to ASSUME no means no, that's the only way to proceed as a decent human being in the world. And no one should want to have sex with someone who doesn't want to have sex with them, I agree completely.

Some people have argued, in this group, for understanding of an "extremely nuanced view of consent". I am not one of them.

Not too long ago, in one of these discussions, I threw out a fairly simple statement on consent, suggesting it was something we all ought to be able to agree on:

"Consent is a bright line that shouldn't be fucked with. No means no. Yes means yes. Coercion invalidates consent, by definition. Women have the agency to consent just as they have the agency to not consent. Clear communication being the bedrock of adult relations, consent becomes meaningless if people try to interpret yes from a "no". Giving consent once does not imply eternal consent, and consent can be revoked at any time. However, broad sociological narratives don't invalidate the fact that consensual adult sex is a reality and consenting adults MUST HAVE the freedom to make their own damn decisions about their lives and bodies."

Perhaps suprising, perhaps not surprising, it was not judged acceptable.