In response to the article, "Sexual assault charge thrown out," April 14, it disturbs me that the sexual assault felony charge against Scott Paxson was dismissed because the alleged victim did not explicitly say "no."

In the sexual assault glossary from www.advocatesforyouth.org, consent is defined as "Saying 'yes' to engaging in a particular act. Consent does not occur when one person says no, says nothing, is coerced, is physically forced, is mentally or physically helpless, is intoxicated, is under the influence of drugs, is unconscious or any time that consent is not explicitly given." The alleged victim did not say "no" to sex with Paxson, but this by no means implies that she consented to sex. The defense made statements such as, "There was no way he could have known her wishes," and "this behavior... is just as consistent with a woman in the heat of passion." Why is it that a man in the heat of passion doesn't feel the need to find out the wishes of his partner? I am not pointing fingers at either side, but consent is not the absence of a "no," but rather the presence of a "yes."

To anyone in a sexual situation, I suggest you stop and clarify that what is going on is ok with anyone else involved. Gaining consent is the best protection against charges of sexual misconduct, and the judges ruling and reasoning in the Paxson case sets a horrible precedent for future sexual assault cases.