What is Wrong with “'Yes' Means 'Yes'”

The key concept in the "Yes Means Yes" idea is meaning: it is that something that appears to be saying or doing one thing actually means another. (This is much easier with affirmation than negation.) This empowers a professional managerial class wielding hermeneutic creativity in the interest of unlimited government in service of their ideological agenda. 

Sexuality can only be regulated by legal codes in a very imperfect and sketchy way. Otherwise, relationships become what they were for Kant: a contractual agreement for the mutual use of the other person's body for one's own pleasure. It is also curious that the very philosopher who claimed that one must never use another person for an end but treat persons as their own ends would say this. You can have a marriage based on this, but not a love affair. 

Requiring an affirmative yes for all sexual acts or contact brings law into all of social life. In contrast, "No means No," by founding violation alone on what was stated, maintains that crime is the exception and not the norm, without which the very idea of crime is meaningless. 

Then too there is what Freudians call the unconscious, the effect of which is that we all tend most of the time to mean more and less than we say and say more and less than we mean. What if one lover touches the other while both are asleep?