And the yes-means-yes policy would do nothing to fix this.
The question isn't about yes-means-yes as policy but yes-means-yes as cultural value.
No one says, "do you want to have sex?" or anything like that.
The fact that you don't know anyone who practices explicit consent doesn't mean that nobody practices explicit consent.
In the BDSM community it's standard to have explicit consent. Having sex with a person who's tied up without being explicit about bondaries beforehand is seen there as bad.
In Tantra they consigrate sexual sex before those acts are happening. That's also an explicit act.
Wheel of consent would be another model of how sex works where people engage in explicit consent.
That's three communities who thought about how to make sex work well that all value explicit consent and where people explicitely communicate about it.
Many guys who hasn't thought much about how sex is supposed to work and who take their ideas about the nature of sex from porn on the other hand likely doesn't explicitely communicate about it at the moment. Yes-means-Yes activism is supposed to work against that trend.
I did not say that no one practices explicit consent. My statement was in the context of an example.
I've started a podcast called Future Strategist which will focus on decision making and futurism. I have created seven shows so far: interviews of computer scientist Roman Yampolskiy, LW contributor Gleb Tsipursky, and artist/free speech activist Rachel Haywire, and monologues on game theory and Greek Mythology, the Prisoners' Dilemma, the sunk cost fallacy, and the Map and Territory.
If you enjoy the show and use iTunes I would be grateful if you left a positive review at iTunes. I would also be grateful for any feedback you might have including suggestions for future shows. I'm not used to interviewing people and I know that I need to work on being more articulate in my interviews.