Borrowing heavily from Scarleteen’s “Driver’s Ed for the Sexual Superhighway: Navigating Consent,” I taught sexual consent using the “yes means yes” model. In the US we’ve been so inculcated with the “no means no” model, that it is often difficult to get people to understand the limits of that model. For one, it ignores all of the reasons why saying no can be difficult or impossible such as power dynamics, intimidation, and being physically or mentally incapacitated. In its traditionally understood form, it also puts the burden of saying no upon the woman, forgetting the fact that sex is supposed to be fun—that everyone is supposed to be saying “hell yeah!” every step of the way. That’s where the “yes means yes” model comes in. The yes means yes model holds that consent is not when the other person “doesn’t say no” but instead when all involved parties are actively and willingly participating in the sexual activity. When I taught sexual consent from the “yes means yes” perspective in Aboansan, I didn’t encounter the challenge of shifting away from the “no means no” perspective, because they had never talked about the process of sexual consent as such. By this I mean to say that members of the peace cell group disagreed about whether or not a man was entitled to sex, but none had talked about sexual consent as such before. I started by emphasizing that no man or woman was ever entitled to sex and then moved on to talking about how to tell if your partner is consenting to sex. The sex-positivity defied my expectations of rural Ghana. The village leaders were very responsive to my argument that sex is better when all involved parties are really into it. This made it much easier for me to talk about both verbal and nonverbal signals of sexual consent. For example, I told them that “don’t stop!” and “whoohoo!” are verbal signs of consent, whereas “stop” and dead silence were signs of nonconsent. I told them that actively touching someone was a possible sign of nonverbal consent, whereas avoiding someone’s touch was a possible nonverbal sign of nonconsent.
Most of the village leaders I met with were men and we got into some really interesting conversation when talking about the idea that men don’t necessarily have to be the sexually dominant ones. It was hard for me to keep up, because when they really got into it with each other much of the conversation was in tri. But I was able to understand that they arrived at the conclusion that women initiating and wanting sex is sexy and that women wanted sex less when they felt like they had to. One of the more shy men shared that sometimes his wife did not want to have sex for 3 or sometimes 5 months but that he felt that this was okay. I don’t want to give any man too many kudos for simply respecting a woman’s sexual autonomy, but I think that him saying this in the company of other men was incredibly brave. The man who started off the sessions defending his entitlement to sex ended up telling us that he had changed his mind—that he knew now that consent was important. I think the first man’s openness and honesty had every bit as much to do with the success of our peace cell meetings on sexual consent. I learned from them that having what I would call backwards attitudes about sexual consent does not preclude having an open dialog about sex. And it seemed that they learned something from me too.