In the wake of the horrifying gang rape of a 15 year old high school student at Richmond High, Christine Borden has written an important--nay, essential--piece for SF Appeal on what it means to consent to sex. Even when there are drugs or alcohol involved:

For the most part, we understand the phrase "no means no" as the primary aspect of consent, but this is a flawed assumption that excludes positive communication during sex and other partner play. Within the feminist community, "yes means yes" is a much more popular banner. What's the difference?

"No means no" implies that a verbal denial is the only way to withdraw consent, but think of all the times you've had sex because you felt you had to, because you felt you owed it to your long-term partner, because you kinda sorta maybe wanted it. Consent should be a verbal affirmation, freely issued and without mental, physical, or emotional constraints. "Do you want to f-ck?" "How do you want it?" "Show me where to touch you." "Does this turn you on?" Asking for consent doesn't have to clumsy, and it can become a natural routine between partners or a sexual tease.

Alcohol and other drugs muddle consensual sex. It's your prerogative to drink, take a hit, etc. even if you are underage or the substance is otherwise illegal. That's your choice, but that never means that you deserve to get raped or you had it coming to you. That doesn't even make sense. California law says that when you have sex with someone who is intoxicated (and therefore unable to consent), that is sexual assault. Is that one drink? Two? Three? A tab, a hit, a line, a pill?

You must, must, must read the rest. I insist.