New York University Sexual Consent Policy and College Students Rhetorical Analysis

Write a 3-4 (double spaced) page analysis that assesses the rhetorical effectiveness of an author’s argument.

MARCH-APRIL 2015
“Yes Means Yes”? Sexual Consent Policy and College Students
by Kristen N. Jozkowski
In Short
California’s “Yes Means Yes” legislation—while a notable attempt to address the rape culture prevalent on many
campuses—does not take into account how consent is actually negotiated in sexual relations.
College women are given more permission to be direct in saying no to sex than in saying yes. But some men
realize that their partners might not willingly consent to sexual activity, so they avoid a refusal by not asking.
When women are not aggressive in rejecting sex, campus discourse may suggest that they did not do enough to
prevent the assault. This can lead to internalized self-blame, prevent reporting, and perpetuate rape culture.
Campus climate needs to change. While students need to be involved in this shift, campus administrators,
athletic directors and coaches, faculty and staff, and inter-fraternity and PanHellenic councils need to take the
lead.
Those who sit on committees that hear cases of sexual assault need to be properly trained and educated; sexualassault-prevention initiatives also need to be given adequate resources, and their programs should be made
mandatory for all students.
When not just sexual assaults but egregious eruptions of sexism and rape culture surface, those responsible for
them need to be held accountable.
In the past year, some important initiatives have begun to address sexual violence on college campuses and to define
sexual consent for college students. For example, in April 2014 the White House Task Force to Protect Students from
Sexual Assault released Not Alone, a report addressing sexual violence in college and providing recommendations for
how to address it.
Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 prohibits gender-based discrimination in education programs or
associated activities for universities that receive federal financial assistance. Acts of sexual violence, including sexual
assault and sexual harassment, are considered forms of discrimination prohibited by Title IX: “If a school knows or
reasonably should know about student-on-student harassment that creates a hostile environment, Title IX requires the
school to take immediate action to eliminate the harassment, prevent its recurrence, and address its effects” (United
States Department of Education’s Letter from Secretary of the Office for Civil Rights, p. 4).
Following the establishment of the Task Force and in an effort to increase transparency regarding sexual violence on
college campuses, in 2014 the United States Department of Education released a list of institutions under investigation
for mishandling or inappropriately handing cases of sexual violence in accordance with Title IX. The list, which started
1
out with 55 campuses in May 2014, now includes over 85.
In light of the increased publicity regarding sexual violence on college campuses generated by the list, universities are
beginning to examine their sexual-assault policies, and some are implementing more programming to address the
problem. At the same time, some universities have experienced an increase in the number of reported incidents of
sexual assault. Awareness-promoting campaigns to address sexual assault may have given students a better
understanding of what sexual assault, rape, and consent look like—they often do not include a weapon, are not
characterized by extreme violence, and are often perpetrated by someone known to the victim.
For example, the University of Connecticut’s reports of sexual assault nearly doubled from 2012 to 2013. The local police
attributed the steep increase in these reports to heightened awareness of sexual violence in general and to women’s
better recognizing their experiences of nonconsensual sex as “rape” or “sexual assault” (Megan, 2014). Other
universities have acknowledged similar trends.
Sexual assault and consent have also captured the attention of policymakers. In September 2014, California passed
legislation that directed the state’s public institutions of higher education to implement an affirmative-consent (i.e., “yes
means yes”) policy in regard to sexual encounters among students. According to this legislation, students need to not
only verbally agree to engage in sexual activity initially, but the parties involved need to explicitly say yes to one another
for each sexual behavior they engage in as part of a sexual interaction.
On the surface, this seems like a policy that could help address problems of sexual violence on college campuses by
increasing communication about agreements to engage in sex. But critics question the law for a variety of reasons.
Some believe that by dictating how to negotiate sex, the government is infringing on people’s rights in the bedroom.
Others argue that an affirmative-consent policy will not reduce the rates of sexual assault because it does not protect
those who are sexually assaulted while under the influence of alcohol (or other drugs). An affirmative-consent policy,
critics further believe, will not change the “he said/she said” difficulty in prosecuting sexual assault, since the accused
will now simply report that “she said yes” instead of “she didn’t say no” (Bogle, 2014).
Finally, there are critics who, while finding some benefit in such a policy, argue that it ignores the larger social context:
Sexism, patriarchy, and hegemonic masculinity pervade college campuses, just as they do society as a whole. They
contribute to and facilitate sexual violence.
Nevertheless, most sexual-assault researchers and advocates, school administrators, students and parents,
policymakers, and the lay public agree that something needs to be done to address sexual assaults on college campuses.
Current statistics indicate that one in five women will experience a rape or attempted rape during her lifetime, with
increased risk when she is in college (Daigle, Fisher, & Cullen, 2008; Krebs et al., 2007; Tjaden & Thoennes, 2006). The
1970’s women’s movement can be credited for increasing awareness about sexual violence, but since then, have we
made much progress?
Researchers, at least, have made some advances in understanding the rape culture that permeates and profoundly
affects consent negotiation. Here I examine some of the messages that culture sends regarding sexual consent and the
ways in which it influences the sexual behavior of college students in the United States.
RAPE CULTURE AND SEXUAL CONSENT
Over the last few years, we have seen some egregious examples of rape culture on college campuses that call into
question the effectiveness of current sexual-assault policies. What follows is a brief recap of four recent events that took
place at prominent American universities, drawn from a laundry list of contemporary examples. They exemplify rape
culture in general, but they specifically demonstrate a deliberate disregard for consent.
2
Yale University’s “No Means Yes, Yes Means Anal” Chant
In 2010, pledges and members of the Delta Kappa Epsilon (DKE) fraternity at Yale University chanted “No means yes
and yes means anal” and “My name is Jack, I’m a necrophiliac, I f— dead women and fill them with my semen” while
walking around outside freshmen women’s residence halls as part of an alleged hazing ritual. The day after they engaged
in this behavior, the DKE president apologized for the incident, calling it “a serious lapse in judgment by the fraternity
and in very poor taste.”
The fraternity’s initial punishment following the event was that five men from the fraternity had to meet with
representatives from the Women’s Students Office at Yale. The Yale administration’s response (or lack thereof) to the
incident spurred law suits and garnered media attention, since the university inadequately addressed the gender-based
violence inherent in the men’s activity (Zeavin, 2010).
University of Southern California’s “Gullet Report”
In 2011, a mechanism for tracking the number of women whom men in the Kappa Sigma (KS) fraternity at the
University of Southern California (USC) engaged in sexual activity with, called the “gullet report,” was brought to the
attention of campus administrators and ultimately the mainstream media via an email circulating on the USC campus.
The email, allegedly written by a member of KS fraternity, described the purpose of the gullet report as follows: “I want
raw data on who f—s and who doesn’t. … The gullet report will strengthen brotherhood and help pin-point sorostitutes
more inclined to put-out. … My hope is that ALL of our brothers will follow this creed with pride and distinction.”
The long email provided detailed information on how the “brothers” should keep track of the women they engaged in
sexual activity with and specific language to use as part of the tracking “game.” Until recently, BroBible.com described
the report on its website, taking the position that it was not offensive and that those who found it objectionable needed
to lighten up. BroBible has since removed the material from its website, but the entire email can still be found at
Jezebel.com.
The gullet report awarded points to men based on the number of women they engaged in sexual activity with; they
earned more points if the women were perceived to be attractive. In the description of the tracking system, the author
wrote, “Note, I will refer to females as ‘targets.’ They aren’t actual people like us men. Consequently, giving them a
certain name or distinction is pointless.” He then goes on to objectify women further by using words such as “pie” (i.e.,
vagina) and “gullet” (i.e., mouth) to describe women’s body parts, and he names the men playing the “game”
“Cocksmen.”
Particularly relevant to a discussion about consent was the first of the “Additional Rules for a Cocksman,” which was
worded as follows: “Non-consent and rape are two different things. There is a fine line, so make sure not to cross it.” The
message communicated via this rule is that non-consensual sex is something that you can get away with, but rape is
not—and as long as you can get away with it, whatever tactics you use to obtain sex are fine, as long as the
non-consensual sex (i.e., sexual assault) is not so outrageous or violent that you raise suspicions of rape (Hartman,
2011).
Miami University of Ohio’s Top Ten Ways to Get Away with Rape
Fraternities are the culprits in the two initial examples provided, but they are not alone. In 2012, a flier was posted in
the men’s restrooms in a co-ed residence hall at Miami University of Ohio that read: “Top Ten Ways to Get Away with
Rape.” The flier recommended, among other things, the rape of women who are unconscious: “Put drugs in the woman’s
drink,” it counsels—“therefore she won’t remember you.” The last recommendation read: “Rape, rape, rape!! It’s college
boys, live it up!!”
The university responded by holding a mandatory meeting for the male students in that residence hall and increasing
3
police presence there. Additionally, the police launched an investigation into who posted the fliers. In 2012, the
university’s director of news and public information stated that if found, the individual(s) responsible could face
repercussions such as being removed from the residence hall, attending mandatory educational programs, or
suspension. It is unclear whether the administration and/or the police ever identified the responsible party (Roberts,
2012).
University of Kansas’ Sexual Assault
At the University of Kansas, a perpetrator of a 2013 sexual assault who was found guilty by the university received a
minor punishment. In this incident, the perpetrator acknowledged that sexual intercourse had occurred without
consent. According to him, the victim said, “No,” “Stop,” and “I can’t do this” prior to his forcing sex on her.
Yet he was not expelled, permanently or temporarily, from the university, as long as he agreed to seek counseling.
Instead he was ejected from university housing, put on probation, and instructed to write a four-page paper.
This incident received national media attention because of the way the University of Kansas handled it. The chancellor’s
email to the campus asserted that it was up to the students to protect one another from sexual assault. Additionally, the
university’s spokespersons avoided the words “sexual assault” to describe the incident, using, instead, the more neutral
(if synonymous) term, “non-consensual sex.” In doing so, the institution seemed to imply that sex without consent is
somehow not sexual assault and that such incidents thus ought not to have severe repercussions (Kingkade, 2014).
These contemporary examples challenge the very notion of what it means to engage in consensual sex. They all
emphasize an important theme: consent does not matter—a belief that seems to be deeply rooted in the culture of
universities and in society as a whole.
In light of California’s “yes means yes” policy, this raises an important question: Will an affirmative-consent policy help
reduce rates of sexual assault? This question cannot be answered without examining how college students currently
negotiate sexual consent.
CONTEMPORARY CONSENT RESEARCH
Rape and sexual-assault research is abundant in the peer-reviewed scientific literature. By comparison, there is little
research examining sexual consent (Beres, 2007). This is somewhat surprising, given that 1) sexual assault/rape is
typically defined as non-consensual sex (Hickman & Muehlenhard, 1999), 2) many sexual-assault-prevention education
programs are built around consent promotion (Donat & White, 2000; Schewe, 2006), and 3) consent research could
contribute to our understanding of the effects of affirmative-consent policies.
Hall (1998) and Hickman and Muehlenhard (1999) were among the first to examine sexual consent among college
students. They presented heterosexual college students with a list of 34 behaviors and vignettes in which individuals
engaged in vaginal-penile intercourse. Hickman and Muehlenhard asked the students to read the vignettes and then
indicate which of the 34 behaviors they believed the couple in the vignette used to communicate sexual consent. College
students identified the non-verbal cues as communicating consent more frequently than they did the verbal ones.
Similarly, Hall (1998) provided students with a list of sexual behaviors and asked if they communicated permission
using verbal or non-verbal cues to engage in those behaviors. Like Hickman and Muehlenhard, Hall found that college
students more frequently used non-verbal cues to communicate permission.
However, Hall did find differences across sexual behaviors. Students more frequently reported using non-verbal cues to
indicate permission for behaviors such as kissing and genital touching. By comparison, they used more verbal cues to
indicate permission to engage in sexual intercourse.
More recently, Jozkowski et al. (2013) examined how heterosexual college students indicated consent to a range of
4
sexual behaviors. Their respondents too reported that non-verbal cues were given more frequently for kissing/touching
behaviors, whereas verbal cues were used more frequently for intercourse behaviors (vaginal-penile or anal-penile),
with oral sex falling in the middle.
Jozkowski et al. examined gender differences in consent cues as well. In their study, men more frequently reported
using non-verbal cues to both communicate sexual consent to a partner and interpret consent from that partner. But
women in their sample reported more frequent use of verbal cues to communicate consent and reported using verbal,
non-verbal, and a combination of cues to interpret consent from a partner.
According to Jozkowski and Peterson (2013), the ways in which college students communicate consent seem to mirror
the traditional sexual script, with men acting as sexual initiators and women acting as sexual gatekeepers. Specifically,
in Jozkowski and Peterson’s study, women’s use of verbal cues to communicate consent was consistent with the
traditional sexual script: The women reported giving consent by responding verbally to men’s requests for sex
(Wiederman, 2005). However, if men do not open the dialogue by asking for consent, it is unclear how these women
would communicate consent.
Moreover, Jozkowski and Peterson (2013) found that a small percentage of men reported being intentionally deceptive
in their approach to consent. About 13 percent of men in their sample stated that they start having sex with their partner
and then, if the partner objects, pretend as though they inserted their penis “by mistake.”
This finding is worrisome on a number of counts. First, it demonstrates that some men think about consent primarily in
terms of how they can obtain sex instead of as a probe for their partner’s agreement to or interest in sexual behavior.
Second, some of these men seemed to realize that their partners might not willingly consent to sexual activity, so they
avoid a refusal by not asking. Finally, if women are waiting to be asked for their consent, as suggested by the traditional
sexual script, there is a potential for non-consensual sex to occur if men are “taking without asking.”
These findings highlight an important point of contention among sexual-consent/sexual-communication researchers:
whether or not men and women miscommunicate consent cues, resulting in sexual assault, or whether they have a
shared understanding of those cues.
Miscommunication Theory
Some researchers (e.g., Abbey, 1991; Abbey, McAuslan, & Ross, 1998; Jozkowski et al., 2013; Tannen, 1992) suggest that
the differences in how men and women communicate sexual consent can lead to misunderstandings that could result in
non-consensual/assaultive sex. This conceptualization of sexual consent has been labeled the “miscommunication
theory,” since it posits that some sexual assault occurs as a result of misunderstanding or miscommunication regarding
sexual consent (Tannen, 1992).
This theory suggests that at least some men either do not understand that they need to obtain consent from their sexual
partners or they do not understand what obtaining consent looks like during a sexual encounter. Thus, according to the
miscommunication theory, obtaining clear consent via affirmative consent (yes means yes) and understanding strong,
assertive refusals (no means no), will prevent sexual assault.
The miscommunication theory provides the foundation for consent-promotion-based campaigns, a dominant model in
sexual-assault-prevention education (Crawford, 1995; Donat & White, 2000; Schewe, 2006). If the miscommunication
theory is accurate, an affirmative-consent model such as California’s “yes means yes” policy may be effective in reducing
rates of sexual assault.
Refutations of the Miscommunication Theory
Those who refute the miscommunication theory argue that men and women frequently negotiate consent via subtle,
5
non-verbal cues and in most instances are able to accurately interpret each other’s cues (Beres, 2010; Beres, Senn, &
McCaw, 2013; Frith & Kitzinger, 1997; McCaw & Senn, 1998; O’Byrne, Hansen, & Rapley, 2008). O’Byrne, Rapley, and
Hansen (2006) reported that men accurately understand women’s sexual refusals, even those refusals that are
communicated in subtle, implicit ways. Similarly, Beres (2010) found that men and women communicated consent via
“tacit knowledge”—they know or have a sense of their partner’s consent from non-verbal cues and contextual factors
associated with the interaction.
Consistent with these findings, Jozkowski and Hunt (2013) found that students in their sample believed they could
accurately interpret consent to casual sex (i.e., hooking up) via a progression of subtle non-verbal cues communicated
over time, beginning in a social context (e.g., at a bar or party). In fact, the action of transitioning from the bar to a place
of residence was frequently identified as a consent cue by young adults and college students (e.g., Beres, 2010;
Jozkowski & Hunt, 2013). If we believe that men and women accurately understand each other’s consent cues, as
suggested by these researchers, then affirmative-consent policies are not likely to have much effect.
But in addition to understanding college students’ conceptualizations of consent, it may be helpful to understand the
factors that influence consent communication.
CONSENT NEGOTIATION NORMS
In addition to understanding conceptualizations of consent, it is equally important to comprehend gender power
dynamics on college campuses and how they influence consent communication by examining consent through a
gendered lens.
Feminists have discussed gender power dynamics in both the peer-reviewed literature and the mainstream media. Some
of the examples of rape culture described above are rooted in gender inequity and a hegemonic masculinity that seems
to prevail on many college campuses in the United States.
An underlying factor that influences college students’ consent negotiation is our culture’s continued constraint of
women’s sexuality. Nearly five years ago, in a blog post for Kinsey Confidential, I posed the question–can women really
say yes to sex? (Jozkowski, 2010). The question remains relevant today. When women say yes to sex “too often” or
desire “too much” sex, they may be labeled “sluts” or “whores.” Women are aware they run the risk of being categorized
in this way and have learned to act accordingly.
For example, in a qualitative study, Hunt and Jozkowski (2014) found that college women reported refusing vaginalpenile sex during a hook up because they did not want to develop a bad reputation. Hamilton and Armstrong (2009)
describe how college women who do not want to be in romantic relationships but do want to be sexually active try to
avoid negative labels: They stay in relationships they are unhappy with.
So if women are not respected when they say yes to sex they want and agree to, why would their refusals be respected?
And although college women are given more permission to be direct in regard to saying no to sex than to saying yes,
they are apt to find being explicit in refusing sex problematic.
As they do with other types of refusals, women often refuse sex by first offering some kind of palliative remark, such as
expressing appreciation or making an apology (e.g., “That’s kind of you, but…”; I’m really flattered but…”)—followed by
an explanation to justify, excuse, or redefine the rejection (e.g., “It’s not you, it’s me”) (Kitzinger and Frith, 1999).
According to Jozkowski and Humphreys (2014),
the account usually describes their inability rather than their unwillingness to engage in sexual activity.
Rarely do people say no without providing justification for their responses. To do so would seem
awkward, rude, arrogant, or even hostile. It violates culturally accepted norms of conversation.
6
Many college women seem to be worried about hurting men’s feelings by being too upfront in their refusals (e.g.,
Burkett & Hamilton, 2012; Jozkowski & Hunt, 2014), whereas men report expecting and preferring women to be
obvious in their sexual refusals (O’Byrne, et al., 2006; 2008). Many men interpret faint refusals as a desire for sex
mediated by the desire not to appear sexually “easy” (O’Byrne, et al., 2006; 2008). Thus, there is a consequent potential
for miscommunication.
These findings suggest that in order for men to interpret women’s refusals as genuine, women have to be blunt, explicit,
curt, or aggressive. These traits are not socially acceptable for women in general and certainly buck gender norms in the
context of hook ups (Armstrong, Hamilton, & Sweeney, 2006).
But when women are not aggressive in rejecting sex, not only are their partners likely to misunderstand their desires
—campus discourse may suggest that they did not do enough to “prevent the assault.” This can lead to internalized
self-blame, prevent reporting, and perpetuate rape culture. According to Burkett and Hamilton (2012), women should
be empowered to say no or yes to sex, but gender imbalances and inequalities exist in college culture that limit women’s
actual ability to be listened to and respected.
Gender norms are further implicated in the dynamics of relationships and sexual history, both of which, previous
research suggests, influence consent negotiation. General relationship norms seem to dictate that sexual behavior, and
specifically sexual intercourse, is assumed within intimate relationships (Gavey, McPhillips, & Braun, 1999). So explicit
consent in the context of a relationship in which sex has previously occurred may seem unnecessary, because consent is
assumed through the acts of previous sexual intercourse.
Empirical data—including 1) accounts from men regarding the degree to which sex is expected once a couple is over the
age of 18 and in a relationship (O’Byrne et al., 2008) and 2) college students’ interpretations of ambiguous sexual
encounters as consensual when the individuals engaged in the sexual activity have had sex previously (Humphreys,
2007)—verify that these norms exist. Burkett and Hamilton (2012) too found that women’s perceptions of consent shift
based on relationship status. Women in their sample tended to consider uncomfortable or unwanted sex to be a form of
“relationship maintenance,” as opposed to something they could refuse.
Marital rape laws in the United States have reflected the perception that consent within the context of a romantic
relationship (i.e., marriage) is assumed. Prior to the 1970’s, marital rape (i.e., forced/nonconsensual sex occurring
between individuals who are married) was exempted from rape laws. For example, language used in legislation defined
rape as something that occurred between unmarried individuals: “A male who has sexual intercourse with a female not
his wife is guilty of rape if…” (Model Penal Code, 1962).
In 1984, New York was the first state to consider the marital exemption unconstitutional: “A marriage license should
not be viewed as a license for a husband to forcibly rape his wife with impunity. A married woman has the same right to
control her own body as does an unmarried woman” (People v. Liberta, 1984). Soon after, other states followed suit and
by 1993, all fifty states recognized marital rape. However, even today some states distinguish between marital and
non-martial rape.
WHAT DOES THE RESEARCH IMPLY FOR A “YES MEANS YES” POLICY?
To recap, an affirmative-consent policy rests on the belief that if men and women were more explicit in their consent
communication (i.e., by saying yes to sex), there would be reductions in rates of sexual assault. So, given what we know
about college students’ consent communication, will an affirmative-consent policy be effective?
Such a policy means that if a person asks for consent and his/her partner says yes, both expect that consensual sex will
follow (assuming they have a shared understanding of the behaviors they are both asking and agreeing to). In this case,
an affirmative policy may be helpful in regard to increasing dialogue between individuals engaged in sex, which
could—as proponents of affirmative consent have argued (e.g., Millar, 2008; Jozkowski, 2013)—increase enjoyment in
7
the sexual activity.
However, consider another scenario: A man asks his female partner for consent (hoping she will say yes), but his
partner refuses or says nothing at all. The expectation should be that the sexual activity will halt, right? A “yes means
yes” policy implies that silence means no. As a statement of human rights, this should certainly be the case.
But saying no without an explanation is conversationally uncommon for women, and absent or non-obvious gestures of
refusals are sometimes interpreted by even conscientious men as women’s non-verbal cues of consent. Thus, something
needs to change in order for affirmative-consent policies to be effective.
Campus climate is that thing that needs to change. While students need to be involved in this shift, those at the top
(including campus administrators, athletic directors and coaches, faculty and staff, and inter-fraternity and PanHellenic
councils, etc.) need to take the lead. And in order for them to demonstrate a genuine commitment to eliminating sexual
assault, strong campus-level policies need to be in place, and violations of those policies need to result in serious
repercussions.
SHIFTING THE CAMPUS CLIMATE
Generally speaking, current sexual-assault-prevention initiatives and even contemporary discourse put the onus on
women to avoid rape by being more sexually assertive (consent-promotion programming), monitoring their alcohol
consumption (risk-reduction programming), having a buddy system to look out for friends who might get assaulted
(bystander-intervention programming), etc. Such approaches underscore the importance of personal responsibility on
the part of women (and to a smaller extent, bystanders) to prevent sexual assault. At the same time they also
deemphasize the role of male perpetrators—especially when the perpetrators are well-known individuals (e.g., star
athletes).
Such initiatives and general discourse also focus so intently on individual behaviors that they understate the importance
of the sociocultural environment in which the sexual assault occurs. In order to address sexual violence on college
campuses, we need to identify the features of rape culture—such as patriarchal ideology and institutions of male
dominance and entitlement—that are linked to sexual assault and aggression, and then to change that culture.
Policy can play an important role in doing so. There are countless examples of effective policy-level public-health
interventions that have had long-lasting effects. For example, “Click it or Ticket” campaigns have been successful in
increasing people’s use of seat belts while driving (National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 2014). Vaccination
polices have also worked: They have increased vaccination rates and reduced the rates of or eradicated certain serious
diseases.
Finally, smoking-policies exemplify how policy-level interventions can shift cultural norms. In the 1970’s, people
smoked cigarettes freely in public spaces such as college classrooms and business meetings. When smoking bans were
instituted, people were forced to refrain from smoking in those spaces. Fast forward to 2015: Now, a professor who
lights up a cigarette while teaching a class would be violating not only campus policy but cultural norms.
If college students are forced, by means of a “yes means yes” policy, to obtain affirmative consent, over time explicitness
in consent communication might be adopted as a cultural standard. But for this to happen, affirmative-consent policies
need to be championed by campus leaders.
And because of the need for serious repercussions in cases of policy violations, faculty, students, and staff who sit on
committees that hear cases of sexual assault need to be properly trained and educated. Moreover, if such individuals
engage in victim blaming, they need to be removed from these positions and held accountable.
At the same time, sexual-assault-prevention initiatives need to be given adequate resources, and such programming
8
should be mandatory for all students. This programming should not be limited to one 45-minute session telling women
to avoid drinking and walking alone at night; it should be ongoing rather than confined to freshman orientation and
include initiatives that highlight gender inequity.
Finally, when egregious eruptions of sexism and rape culture such as “no means yes and yes means anal,” and “rape,
rape, rape, it’s college boys, live it up” surface, those responsible for them, as well as their institutions (e.g., the entire
fraternity), need to be held accountable. For a “yes means yes” policy to make a difference, it needs to be enacted in a
way that addresses rape culture in a serious and meaningful way.
RESOURCES
Abbey, A. (1991). Acquaintance rape and alcohol consumption on college campuses: How are they linked? Journal of
American College Health, 39, 165–169.
Abbey, A., Ross, L. T., McDuffie, D., & McAuslan, P. (1996). Alcohol and dating risk factors for sexual assault among
college women. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 20, 147–169.
Armstrong, E. A., Hamilton, L., & Sweeney, B. (2006). Sexual assault on campus: A multilevel integrative approach to
party rape. Social Problems, 53(4), 483–499.
Beres, M. A. (2007). “Spontaneous” sexual consent: An analysis of sexual consent literature. Feminism and Psychology,
17, 93–108. doi:10.1177=0959353507072914
Beres, M. A. (2010). Sexual miscommunication? Untangling assumptions about sexual communication between casual
sex partners. Culture, Health & Sexuality, 12(1), 1–14.
Beres, M. A., Senn, C. Y., & McCaw, J. (2013). Navigating ambivalence: How heterosexual young adults make sense of
desire differences. Journal of Sex Research. Online advance of print. doi:10.1080/00224499.2013.792327
Bogle, K.A. (2014, October 27). “Yes means yes” isn’t the answer. The Chronicle of Higher Education. Retrieved from
http://chronicle.com/article/Yes-Means-Yes-Isnt-the/149639/
Burkett, M. & Hamilton, K. (2012). Postfeminist sexual agency: Young women’s negotiations of sexual consent.
Sexualities, 15(7), 815–833.
Crawford, M. (1995). Talking difference: On gender and language. London, England: Sage.
Daigle, L.E., Fisher, B.S., & Cullen, F.T. (2008). The violent and sexual victimization of college women: Is repeat
victimization a problem? Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 23, 1296–1313.
Donat, P. L. N., & White, J. W. (2000). Re-examining the issue of non-consent in acquaintance rape. In C. B. Travis & J.
W. White (Eds.), Sexuality, society, & feminism (pp. 355–376). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Frith, H., & Kitzinger, C. (1997). Talk about sexual miscommunication. Women’s Studies International Forum, 20(4),
517–527.
Gavey, N., McPhillips, K., & Braun, V. (1999). Interruptus coitus: Heterosexuals accounting for intercourse. Sexualities,
2(1), 35–68.
Hall, D. S. (1998, August 10). Consent for sexual behavior in a college student population. Electronic Journal of Human
Sexuality, 1. Retrieved from http://www.ejhs.org/tocv1.htm
Hamilton, L., & Armstrong, E. A. (2009). Gendered sexuality in young adulthood: Double binds and flawed options.
9
Gender & Society, 23, 589–616.
Hartman, M. (2011, March 8). Frat email explains women are “targets,” not “actual people.” Jezebel. Retrieved from
http://jezebel.com/5779905/usc-frat-guys-email-explains-women-are-targets-not-actual-peoplelike-us-men
Hickman, S. E. & Muehlenhard, C. L. (1999). “By the semi-mystical appearance of a condom”: How young women and
men communicate consent in heterosexual situations. The Journal of Sex Research, 36, 258–272. doi:
10.1080/00224499909551996
Humphreys, T. P. (2007). Perceptions of sexual consent: The impact of relationship history and gender. The Journal of
Sex Research, 44(4), 307–315.
Hunt, M., & Jozkowski, K. (2014, November). “There is nothing to work towards if they are getting it already”:
Emerging themes in college students’ sexual decision-making regarding hooking up. Paper presentation at the Society
for the Scientific Study of Sexuality Conference, Omaha, Nebraska.
Jozkowski, K.N. (2010, August). Can women ever really say yes…? Kinsey Confident: Sexual Health Information from
The Kinsey Institute. Retrieved from http://kinseyconfidential.org/women/
Jozkowski K.N. (2013). The influence of consent on college students’ perceptions of the quality of sexual intercourse at
last event. International Journal of Sexual Health, 25, 260–272. doi: 10.1080/19317611.2013.799626
Jozkowski, K.N., & Humphreys, T.P. (2014). Sexual consent on college campuses: Implications for sexual assault
prevention education. Health Education Monograph, 31(2), 30–36.
Jozkowski, K.N., & Hunt, M. (2013, November). Beyond the dyad: When does consent to sex begin? Paper presented at
the annual meeting of the Society for the Scientific Study of Sexuality, San Diego, CA.
Jozkowski, K.N., & Hunt, M. (2014, November). ‘Who wants a quitter?…So you just keep trying’: How college students’
perceptions of sexual consent privilege men. Paper presented at the meeting of the Society for the Scientific Study of
Sexuality, Omaha, Nebraska.
Jozkowski, K. N., & Peterson, Z. D. (2013). College students and sexual consent: Unique insights. Journal of Sex
Research, 50(6), 517–523.
Jozkowski, K. N., Peterson, Z. D., Sanders, S. A., Dennis, B., & Reece, M. (2013). Gender differences in heterosexual
college students’ conceptualizations and indicators of sexual consent: Implications for contemporary sexual assault
prevention education. Journal of Sex Research. Online advance of print. doi: 10.1080/00224499.2013.792326
Kingkade, T. (2014, September 4). KU students outraged over soft punishment in rape case. The Huffington Post.
Retrieved from http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/09/04/ku-rape-students_n_5767824.html
Kitzinger, C., & Frith, H. (1999). Just say no? The use of conversation analysis in developing a feminist perspective on
sexual refusal. Discourse and Society, 10, 293–316.
Krebs, C. P., Lindquist, C.H., Warner, T.D., Fisher, B.S., Martin, S.L. (2007). The Campus Sexual Assault (CSA) study.
National Institute of Justice. NIJ Grant No. 2004-WG-BX-0010.
McCaw, J. M., & Senn, C. Y. (1998). Perception of cues in conflictual dating situations. Violence Against Women, 4,
609–642.
Megan, K. (2014, October 25). Reports of sexual assault on college campuses climb as more victims come forward.
10
Hartford Courant Education. Retrieved from http://www.courant.com/education/hc-clery-campus-sexualassault-1016-20141025-story.html#page=1
Millar, T.M. (2008). Toward a performance model of sex. In J. Friendman, & J. Valenti (Eds.) Yes means yes! Visions of
female sexual power and a world without rape (pp. 29–42). Berkeley, CA: Seal.
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (2014). Don’t get faked out: Click it or ticket. Retrieved from
http://www.nhtsa.gov/nhtsa/ciot/stats.html
O’Byrne, R. Rapley, M., & Hansen, S. (2006). “You couldn’t say ‘no,’ could you?” Young men’s understandings of sexual
refusal. Feminism and Psychology, 16, 133–154.
O’Byrne, R., Hansen, S., & Rapley, M. (2008). “If a girl doesn’t say ‘no’…”: Young men, rape and claims of “insufficient
knowledge.” Journal of Community & Applied Social Psychology, 18, 168–193.
Roberts, C. (2012). Flier found at Miami University in Ohio advises “top ten says to get away with rape.” Daily News.
Retrieved from http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/flier-found-miami-university-ohio-advisestop-ten-ways-rape-article-1.1184009
Schewe, P.A. (2006). Interventions to prevent sexual violence. In Paul A. Schewe (eds). Preventing violence in
relationships: Interventions across the life span (pp. 223–239). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Tannen, D. (1992). You just don’t understand: Women and men in conversation. London, England: Virago.
Tjaden, P., & Thoennes, N. (2006). Extent, nature, and consequences of rape victimization: Findings from the
National Violence Against Women Survey. Washington, DC: Department of Justice (US); Publication No. NCJ210346.
United States Department of Education: Office for Civil Rights. (2011). Dear colleague letter: Sexual violence. Retrieved
from http://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/letters/colleague-201104.pdf
White House Task Force to Protect Students From Sexual Assault (US). (2014). Not alone: The first report of the White
House Task Force to Protect Students From Sexual Assault.
Wiederman, M. W. (2005). The gendered nature of sexual scripts. Family Journal, 13, 496–502.
doi:10.1177=1066480705278729
Zeavin, H. (2010, October, 14). The last straw: SKE sponsors hate speech on Yale’s old campus. Broad Recognition: A
Feminist Magazine at Yale. Retrieved from http://broadrecognition.com/yale-new-haven/the-strawthat-broke-the-camel%E2%80%99s-back-dke-sponsors-verbal-assault-on-yale%E2%80%99s-oldcampus/
© 2016 Taylor & Francis Group · 530 Walnut Street, Suite 850, Philadelphia, PA · 19106
http://www.changemag.org/Archives/Back Issues/2015/March-April 2015/yes_full.html
11