When Yes Isn’t Consent: The Diddy Trial

In one of our latest podcast episodes, EO asked a tough but necessary question—one that’s been echoed across group chats and social threads since the allegations against Diddy became public:

“If Cassie kept saying yes to the ‘freak offs,’ how can the state say it was coercion?”

It’s a fair question—but it also reflects a common misunderstanding about how coercion, power, and consent work in the eyes of the law. Let’s break it down.

Consent Is Not Just About Saying Yes

Under federal law, consent is not valid if it’s obtained through force, fraud, or coercion.

That means:

Even if someone says “yes,” if they felt unsafe, threatened, or emotionally manipulated—especially by someone who holds power over their livelihood or freedom—that “yes” doesn’t count.

In other words, you don’t need to be physically forced to be legally coerced. Power alone can do the job.

How Prosecutors Are Likely Connecting the Dots in Trial

Since the case is currently being tried in federal court, the prosecution is working to build a narrative that supports their trafficking and RICO charges. Here’s how they may be establishing coercion:

1. Pattern of Violence

If they show Diddy was abusive—physically, emotionally, or otherwise—towards Cassie or other women, they can argue that his behavior created a culture of fear, not freedom. That lays the foundation for coercion.

2. Power Imbalance

When one person controls another’s career, income, and public image, that creates dependency. Even if Cassie agreed to things, the prosecution may argue it was because she felt she couldn’t say no without losing everything.

3. Grooming & Isolation

Cassie was reportedly 19 when their relationship began. If she was gradually made to feel dependent, isolated from outside support, or “trained” to believe that this lifestyle was normal or necessary to stay in his orbit—that strengthens the state’s coercion argument.

As we said on the pod:

“You don’t have to hold a gun to someone’s head for it to be coercion. Sometimes fear sounds like agreement—especially when you’re dealing with someone who can take your whole world away if you say no.”

The Legal Difference Between Participation and Exploitation

This part trips a lot of people up.

Yes—Cassie may have participated.
No—that doesn’t automatically make it legal.

Why?

Because the law doesn’t just care about what someone did. It cares how and why they did it.

If a person agrees to something because they’ve been abused, manipulated, or threatened, that’s not consent. That’s survival.

This matters especially in sex trafficking cases, where prosecutors only need to prove:

• A commercial sex act occurred,
• The defendant (in this case, Diddy) benefited from it,
• And force, fraud, or coercion played a role in how it happened.

The victim doesn’t have to “look like a victim.” They don’t have to “hate it.” They don’t even have to say no.

If the “yes” was shaped by fear or manipulation, it’s not a lawful yes.

“If It’s Consensual, Why Is Prostitution Illegal?”

Let’s also talk about this for a minute—because the lines between trafficking, sex work, and consent often get blurred in public discourse.

Here’s the legal backdrop:

In most U.S. states, prostitution is still illegal. Lawmakers argue that it:

• Encourages exploitation and trafficking,
• Involves too many people acting under duress (poverty, addiction, etc.),
• And puts people—especially women—at risk of harm.

But there’s also a growing push to decriminalize sex work—not because it’s always safe, but because criminalizing the worker only makes it more dangerous.

The truth: Criminalizing prostitution doesn’t stop sex work—it just pushes it underground, and that’s where the danger grows.

When sex work is illegal, the people doing the work—primarily women—are less likely to:

• • Report abuse or assault, for fear of being arrested themselves.
  • Screen or vet clients, because everything has to happen in secret.
  • Seek medical help or legal protection, due to stigma or lack of legal standing.

This makes them vulnerable to:

• • Violence from clients, traffickers, or even law enforcement.
  • Exploitation, because they have no official rights or workplace protections.
  • Coercion, since working conditions are shaped by fear and secrecy.

In contrast, when sex work is decriminalized (as some jurisdictions are now exploring), workers can:

• • Report crimes without fear of retaliation.
  • Negotiate boundaries and safety measures more openly.
  • Access healthcare, housing, and support systems without shame or legal risk.

The bottom line: Criminalization doesn’t protect sex workers—it isolates them. And isolation is what traffickers, abusers, and exploiters count on.

The shift we’re seeing is:

Punish the buyers and traffickers.
Protect (and empower) the workers.

So why is it illegal now?

“Because the law assumes there’s a power imbalance or coercion behind it—even when it looks consensual. But the truth is, a lot of people are pushing to decriminalize it, especially for those doing the work. The law is still catching up to the conversation.”

When it comes to conversations about power, consent, and sex—we can’t afford to be surface-level. We have to ask the deeper questions:

• Who had control?
• Who had the most to lose?
• Was it really a choice—or was it survival masked as consent?

Because at the end of the day…

A “yes” that comes from fear is still a no.
And a freak-off that makes someone feel trapped isn’t just wild sex—it’s potentially a crime.

Want to join the conversation?

🎙️ Listen to Episode 19 of the Hear Mee Out Podcast

🗣️ Drop a comment or share your thoughts in the comments below.

📧 Subscribe for more legal breakdowns, real talk, and culture analysis at hearmeout.com.