“yes” means “yes?”
your sex is not determinative of your truthfulness. there are men who are not truthful. there are women who are not truthful. this is life’s sad reality.
those dating, having relationships, or being married run the risk of being involved with a toxic individual. toxic individuals can damage people long term. toxicity is not based on sex. there are both toxic men and women. this is another reason for valuing truthfulness and honesty.
a foundational protection for women with respect to sexual assault allegations was the concept that “no” means “no.” the declaration of “no,” however, is not meant for the victim. it is meant for the accused. the accused’s hearing the utterance of “no, ” implies upon them a legal state of mind. the justice system will find, if they do not adhere to the “no,” they are culpably acting in non-consensual manner. thus, criminal and tort liabilities could then be applicable.
a recent legal case flipped the script on an alleged victim. the court was confronted with the issue of the utterance of “yes.”
from court ruling, it appears that “yes” will be interpreted as consent. thus, disturbing conduct may be found permissible.
the legal case is a sad one. for star baseball pitcher mr. trevor bauer, his alleged dalliance into the world of rough sex may cost him millions of dollars, his reputation, and his career. as an entertainer, professional baseball players are marketed as role models. thus, his decision to engage in risky activity diminished his value to his club, the los angeles dodgers, and displayed poor judgment which future teams will consider when offering him a constract. even if he is innocent of any wrongdoing in his high publicity case, his short ill fated relationship is a pr disaster.
in the court hearing, there were allegations that the victim viewed the relationship with mr. bauer as a financial opportunity. there were also allegations concerning her credibility.
the court’s issue, at the time of the hearing, was the alleged victim’s entitlement to a “restraint order” against mr. bauer,
after the hearing was completed, the judge’s opinions and commentary struck a blow to the #metoo movement.
the facts of this matter are horrifying: ” the judge questioned hill’s [victim] claim that she was in a ‘dating relationship’ with bauer, saying the relationship was at most tenuous and noted that the two were only together in person twice. ‘[w]hat she thought and what she communicated to bauer were not the same, particularly regarding rough sex,’ judge gould-saltman said. ‘she had multiple opportunities to set boundaries…..bauer could not know her boundaries if she did not set them down.’ the judge said that what hill did consent to was, as she said in a text message, she wanted ‘all the pain.’ ‘when she said she wanted to be choked out, he had believed her. she said yes,’ the judge continued. ‘she said stop and he did. he did not coerce her. he did not threaten her.’ dailymail
simply put, despite the depravity involved, the judiciary took the words used by the party at face value. “no” means “no” and “yes” means “yes.”
thus, the accused’s state of mind was found important. culpability will only attach once there is the declaration of “no.”
in sum, this is a sad story with an important message. words are important. both women and men must make sure that is clarity as to their “yes”s and “no”s.
if you would like to read more blog posts, click here
if you find this post meaningful, please share
note: this post is commentary only and is not meant to provide legal advice or guidance. it should not be relied upon for legal issue.