This is one of oh, so many responses to this post, or, more accurately, the firestorm that’s swirled up around it.
“No,” means “no,” correct? Can we all agree on that? Can we also agree it would be boorish and insulting to think anything else?
OK. If so, then another statement must also be true, axiomatically:
“Yes,” means “yes.”
What I’m seeing is a whole lot of rationalization, and patronizing, and wishing away that “Yes,” might possibly, actually, really mean “yes.” I see cries of “privilege!” and “peer pressure!” and “objectification!”
The problem is, every single time someone chips away at YMY, they’re also chipping away at NMN. If a person can’t say “Yes,” and have that decision respected and believed as sincere, it becomes very difficult for a person to say “No,” and get equal treatment.
Which is, unfortunately, equally as boorish and insulting as not respecting “No,” means “no,” in the first place.
If people are independent moral actors whose desires are legitimate, and should be respected as long as they cause no harm, then that bet is, as the poker folks say, All in. Even when they say “Yes,” to things you would never do.
This is, as usual, in one’s own self interest. If you want your own moral choices respected, you have to respect the choices of others.
If not, then not. But be aware just how sharp that edge is.
