When does "no" mean "no"?
Oct. 13th, 2003 02:53 pmThis is wholesale copying. I need to think about both sides for a bit, so I'm sticking it here. I'm on the look out for a far left and a far right argument largely free of ad hominem attacks, so if anyone reading this knows of one please leave a comment.
From New Republic Online
"NO" DOES NOT ALWAYS MEAN NO; TIME TO AGREE ON A PHRASE THAT DOES: Right now there are only two people in the world who know if Kobe Bryant is guilty; will there always be only two people who know?
( Because rapes happen in private )
From Dahlia Lithwick:
"No means no" is still a pretty good rule.
By Dahlia Lithwick
Posted Friday, October 10, 2003, at 3:12 PM PT
In a preliminary hearing this week in Eagle, Colo., the details of Kobe Bryant's alleged rape of a 19-year-old woman were recounted on the stand. Bryant's accuser, speaking through the police detective who met with her after the alleged assault, indicated that she said "no" at least twice over the course of the encounter. Today, Gregg Easterbrook suggests that the problem is that the word "no" is just not strong enough to signal that a rape has taken place. Why? Because, according to Easterbrook, "no" has come to mean "yes." As he observes (doubtless with the empirical evidence to back it up), "Maybe half the sex in world history has followed an initial 'no.'"
( I'm guessing it's closer to 80 percent, but that still makes it rape, doesn't it? )
From Eugene Volokh:
[Eugene Volokh, 10:55 AM]
What does "no means no" mean? Gregg Easterbrook and Dahlia Lithwick debate the "no means no" question in rape. I think that Dahlia's piece is closer to the mark; but what puzzles me in a lot of these discussions is the ambiguity in what the discussants themselves mean by "no" (and thus "no means no"), which can lead either to the parties talking past each other, or sometimes to inconsistency in a party's own argument.
( I would think that both Lithwick and Easterbrook would agree )
From New Republic Online
"NO" DOES NOT ALWAYS MEAN NO; TIME TO AGREE ON A PHRASE THAT DOES: Right now there are only two people in the world who know if Kobe Bryant is guilty; will there always be only two people who know?
( Because rapes happen in private )
From Dahlia Lithwick:
"No means no" is still a pretty good rule.
By Dahlia Lithwick
Posted Friday, October 10, 2003, at 3:12 PM PT
In a preliminary hearing this week in Eagle, Colo., the details of Kobe Bryant's alleged rape of a 19-year-old woman were recounted on the stand. Bryant's accuser, speaking through the police detective who met with her after the alleged assault, indicated that she said "no" at least twice over the course of the encounter. Today, Gregg Easterbrook suggests that the problem is that the word "no" is just not strong enough to signal that a rape has taken place. Why? Because, according to Easterbrook, "no" has come to mean "yes." As he observes (doubtless with the empirical evidence to back it up), "Maybe half the sex in world history has followed an initial 'no.'"
( I'm guessing it's closer to 80 percent, but that still makes it rape, doesn't it? )
From Eugene Volokh:
[Eugene Volokh, 10:55 AM]
What does "no means no" mean? Gregg Easterbrook and Dahlia Lithwick debate the "no means no" question in rape. I think that Dahlia's piece is closer to the mark; but what puzzles me in a lot of these discussions is the ambiguity in what the discussants themselves mean by "no" (and thus "no means no"), which can lead either to the parties talking past each other, or sometimes to inconsistency in a party's own argument.
( I would think that both Lithwick and Easterbrook would agree )