We’ve heard it time and time again. Men hear it from their parents, their friends, their siblings, television, magazines. Hell, even this newspaper.

No means no: This is the model we have adopted in an attempt to curb sexual assault against women. We are taught that male sexuality is active. The man is the actor. On the other hand, female sexuality is passive. The woman is the passive receiver of sex. Sex is something that men have to “get” from the passive woman. The only thing standing between a man and sex is a no. Consent is known as the absence of objection from a woman. Men are taught to stop only when they hear a no.

As a result of this “no means no” mentality, the responsibility of the “gatekeeping” of sex is forced upon women, instead of sex being a mutually enjoyable act shared between two equally powerful individuals. As a result of this responsibility, rape has become a women’s responsibility to stop. Just as men are taught the “no means no” mentality, women are taught the “it’s your responsibility to be sure he believes you when you say no” mentality.

We are told to protect ourselves. Make him believe you mean it. Don’t walk home alone at night; that’s giving the message you are open to chance encounters. Don’t drink too much; you’ll seem like you don’t care what he does to you. Don’t show cleavage; you’ll look like you want to show the rest. Don’t wear too short of a skirt; it’ll seem like you’re wearing it because you want him to have easy access to you.

What’s missing from the above equation is men. Why not, instead of teaching men to stop at no, we teach them not to start until yes — no matter what the circumstance, no matter what we’re wearing, how we’re acting or what we’ve done in the past.

The absence of no doesn’t necessarily mean a woman wants to have sex. It can mean multiple things. It can mean I don’t want to explain to you why I’m not in the mood. It can mean I don’t want to argue about it — I don’t have time. It can mean I want to get it over with because I’d rather watch a documentary. It can be because I care about you, and don’t want to hurt your feelings. It can be because I hate you, and I don’t want to hear your voice complain anymore than I have to. The absence of no can mean I do not want to have sex.

I would like to argue that in no way am I a vesicle for a man to “fuck” or “get some.” Sex is not something you will “do” to me. Women are completely capable of being autonomous sexual actors; this is not something we should be shamed for — and I’d love to completely deconstruct “slut” for you another time.

We should be able to say yes or ask for a yes from a partner when we truly want it, while feeling completely safe saying no when we don’t. True consent should require a yes. Even if I’m wearing tight jeans, even if I’ve got a low-cut shirt on, even if I’ve got no clothes on, even if you’ve heard I’ve had sex with multiple partners, even if I’ve been drinking, even if we’ve been fooling around for an hour, even if I’ve had sex with you before — the absence of no is not consent.

Yes is consent. Yes means yes.

What if the absence of no was never enough? What if consent meant an absolute, enthusiastic, truthful, “yes!” coming from both parties involved? There could be no “redefining of rape.” Rape would have no so-called gray area. Women could not be blamed for “asking for it.” There would be no room for argument. Rape would be the absence of a yes —straightforward and simple.

Nothing else means yes, besides yes. Doesn’t that seem like the obvious thing to do?