Should a clear “yes” be required, or is that unromantic and unworkable?  To the Editor: Re “Regulating Sex” (Sunday Review, June 28): As a sexual assault survivor, I was disappointed to read Judith Shulevitz’s article. “Affirmative consent” (or “yes means yes”) puts the burden on the people initiating intimacy, regardless of gender identity, to make sure that their partner wants to be intimate. That seems reasonable to me, but Ms. Shulevitz argues that affirmative consent guidelines are “anxiety-producing” and criminalize “poor communication.”  If Ms. Shulevitz’s contentions are true, I think that all of us need to evaluate why asking for permission is perhaps “anxiety-producing” and why we might feel entitled to be intimate with people if they are uncomfortable. (I’d be more anxious if I didn’t check in with my partner, lest I hurt her unintentionally, than if I had her enthusiastic consent.)  Are affirmative consent policies “reshaping sexual mores”? Absolutely. However, if the “mores” we’re reshaping involve proceeding without enthusiastic consent and prioritizing our own sexual gratification over our partner’s bodily integrity, I’m happy that we’re reshaping them; it will make sex safer for everyone.  To the Editor: This is a good article about the legal issues surrounding affirmative consent, but such laws, if followed, would destroy what Dr. Ruth calls “good sex.” Sex, when good, is a dance, a flow, usually nonverbal. I can’t imagine what my sex life would have been like if I had to constantly stop and ask, “Is this O.K.?” rather than read my partner’s response and she mine.  And when things are good, and bodies, minds and souls connect, there is no initiator and responder, no doer and done to. These kinds of regulations would eliminate this flow, turning it into “I do this to you, with your consent, then you do this to me with my consent.” Ughhh.  This is not a small thing. Unless one has chosen celibacy, this is a big part of what life is all about — at least for me.  Yes, rape is terrible, and nobody should be forced to have sex against his or her will. There are abusers, and there are just plain jerks. We must find ways to protect women (it is almost always women, at least in heterosexual situations) from abuse. But let’s not destroy joy in the process.  To the Editor: I am a strong supporter of “yes means yes” laws. Such laws will encourage people to consider that sexual intercourse can have serious consequences.  Despite the ready availability of fairly reliable contraception, a pregnancy can still result from sexual intercourse. In addition, various diseases can be transmitted by sexual intercourse. In view of these possible serious consequences, a “yes means yes” law would encourage people to discuss responses to them before engaging in sexual activity: Has the proposed partner had sex with other individuals, and if so, has she or he recently been checked for venereal disease? If the contraceptive method used fails, what will be done about the resulting pregnancy?  To the Editor: Sadly, all these discussions about and attempts to legally sort out people’s complicated and mysterious sex lives feel patronizing (and disempowering) to savvy women who are perfectly capable of expressing their sexual feelings unambiguously without interference from the sniffing law brigade in their bedroom or wherever they have sex.  What needs to be done is to strengthen the laws for real rape crimes — of which there are too many and they are too little reported and brought to trial. It’s offensive, trivial and unintentionally comical to think that there can be a law trying to regulate daily sexual behavior.  Instead, educate young girls about sex, and to speak up. Teach them how to act independently and intelligently. Give out free birth control, straighten out abortion laws, and make sure rapists land behind bars and are properly punished.  To the Editor: Judith Shulevitz’s argument against putting “people in jail for not doing what most people aren’t doing” might be understandable if sexual assault were an infrequent and justly prosecuted occurrence. But given the epidemic of rape on our college campuses and across the nation, Ms. Shulevitz’s claims exemplify the way rape is often handled in our country. Survivors of sexual assault are hesitant to speak out and press charges out of fear of ostracism, victim blaming and the lack of a guilty verdict in the vast majority of cases.  The blurred lines of consent cause rapists to receive no punishment for their crime and survivors to wonder whether it was their fault for being too scared or uncomfortable to say no. Stronger rules of consent empower survivors and reduce instances of sexual assault — far more important than the anxiety over an awkward “may I hold your hand?”  To the Editor: Judith Shulevitz misstates the affirmative consent standard at issue. No one disputes that “yes means yes” (barring universally agreed upon exceptions, such as the use of force, incapacitation through drugs or alcohol, failure to reach the age of consent). The affirmative consent standard properly stated is that “only yes means yes.” The point is that the absence of “no” does not constitute “yes”; there must be some positive affirmation to confer consent.  We derive no benefit from a discussion of the criminal law’s implementation of the platitude “yes means yes”; that’s already uncontroversially in effect. We need to decide whether the absence of “no” means “yes” (the old implied consent standard — a green light until someone says “stop”), or whether consent must be actively conferred (the newer affirmative consent standard — a red light until someone says “go”).  The writer is a professor of sociology and humanities at the University of Northern Iowa. A DVD of his lecture “Asking for It: The Ethics and Erotics of Sexual Consent” is used by colleges and government agencies.  To the Editor: Judith Shulevitz writes a compelling piece about the efforts to codify our sexual behavior. It seems to me that the “new normal” will now be for every young man to carry a condom and a consent form in his wallet.
Readers discuss an article that was critical of requiring affirmative consent as part of an effort to reduce rapes.