Also, a whispered “no” does, in fact, mean “no,” so I’m not sure of your point there. Same with the note scenario. You lost me on that one.
“No yes yes yes” is, as you indicated, ambiguous. One should hesitate upon hearing it til one has gotten clear.
The “I don’t know” example is not worth responding to.
Basically, what Jimmy Chitwood said.
I have not (yet) said you werre a troll, so stop arguing against an accusation that has not been leveled.
And if you continue to harp on this topic in this thread you will receive a Warning for refusing to follow Moderator instructions.
[ /Moderating ]
Well, that’s very obviously just the first line. And you also obviously said you might eventually give me the label ‘troll’ purely because of this thread, and so I said that even then, I wouldn’t be…
Besides, like I detailed, I’m not really trolling, even just in this thread.
And the whole “Warning for not following mod” instructions would be in any other context dismissed as an excuse. I was neither trolling nor explicitly breaking a rule, without your subjective interpretations of the rules, and you’re just flying off the handle. Like I said, it’s a very subconscious, fundamental, emotional issue.
Apparently I’m not being clear enough. ‘No’ does not mean ‘no’ except in the dictionary. In real life the meaning of every word is based on context. And communication is not a way affair, you can say no all you want and it’s meaningless if it’s not heard. And the ‘no means no’ campaign has not changed anyone’s mind on this subject. As a matter of fact, the assholes you have to worry about laugh when you say it because they know that ‘no’ does not mean rape unless you can prove it in a court of law. So your entire effort and childish insistance on not considering the reality of a serious problem is a waste of your time. If you think date rape is a problem then you’d be better off looking for a solution instead of continuing down a path that isn’t working.
What is the reality of this serious situation?
Is it that “the assholes,” by which it isn’t really clear whether or not you mean people like yourself, because you are certainly not being clear about whether or not you personally think it’s acceptable behavior, have so little agency in the matter that it doesn’t even matter whether they should or shouldn’t ignore the fact that they’re being told “no”?
Or is that that they do have agency, but you think it is acceptable behavior to ignore a vocalized “no” if it isn’t cold and clear and set in stone, so there’s no reason to call them assholes about it in the first place?
Keep on the track to failure if you like. I’ve given you no reason to think I would approve of the kind of behavior you describe, but you have no argument and instead attempt to malign my character.
Well I certainly wasn’t suggesting that a guy “just plug away” until something significant happens to stop him. I was saying that there is more to gauging consent than just whether she once said one word e.g. If she is basically tearing the guy’s pants off.
I agree that not resisting the guy is not the same thing as giving consent.
The “no means no” side of this accuse the other of concocting unlikely counter-examples. But I feel the suggestion that someone would, of their own volition, jerk a man’s junk when actually they do not wish to have sex is winning the unlikeliness game right now.
You seem to not be appreciating an important detail. The “no means no” campaign is not really targeted to women. It’s targeted to men. Why? Because the aim is to get men to stop thinking that consent has been given just because the woman isn’t kicking and screaming. It’s to stop men from looking only for signs of interest from a woman and get them to look and listen for signs of disinterest, including the words coming out of her mouth (even if those words are being whispered). Ultimately, “no means no” is intended to reduce the number of self-serving assumptions that many guys make. Like, “she invited me upstairs, therefore any sign of protest from here on out is just an act…she really wants it” or “she said no but she probably said that because she worried about looking like a slut…let me keep pushing until her resistance breaks down” or “wow, she just whispered the word ‘no’ like a coy, sexy little temptress…let me fuck this naughty bitch now!”.
To me, “no means no” is an aspirational goal; its a concept that should not so much turn men into unthinking robots but rather cause them to approach sex with more caution and deliberation than generally has been the case. Everyone knows communication is a lot more complex and nuanced than short yes/no responses. But if you hear a woman rebuff your advances, being programmed with “no means no” means your ears should reflexively perk up and your hands should pull away. And then, rather than searching hungrily for signs that she didn’t really mean what she said, you should open your mouth and ask her what she wants to do that night or whatever. As opposed to, say, pressing on with your agenda to get in her pants. (general you, of course.)
Should women be encouraged to forcefully and unambiguously state “no” when they don’t want it? Yes. Effective communication should always be encouraged whether we’re talking about work stuff or play. But again, if we’re attempting to affect a positive change in men, that effort is somewhat undermined by messages that imply that women get raped because they contradict their “no” messages by affectations like twirling their hair, using whispery voices, or other highly subjective gestures that are readily interpreted as come ons by certain types of men.
Surely you can see the slippery slope here. Woman says “I told him no!” and the guy retorts with “But your honor, she didn’t say it very loudly. How was I 'spose to know she wasn’t whispering it in an attempt to seduce me?” Or, when you talk to your daughter and tell her to always say “no” like she means it, and then God forbid she gets assaulted. Let’s guess what the first thing running through her mind will be. It will probably be “Was I firm enough when I told him to back off? I mean, I said it several times, but I probably should have been more forceful…oh shit, it’s kind of my fault this crap happened because I led him on.” Which is exactly the kind of thing that runs through women’s minds now.
Questions and disputes about Moderator actions go in ATMB.
When a Moderator tells a poster to stop a specific behavior so as to stop hijacking a thread, the poster is expected to follow those instructions.
You have deliberately chosen to ignore Mod instructions and this is another Warning that your behavior is not appropriate on this message board.
[ /Moderating ]
I do that, and it’s not working. I agree with some of your other points, but attempts to discuss this subject are frequently met with the responses I’ve had so far instead of any rational discussion on the subject. If you think this problem is just going go away then you should be satisfied with the approach right now. If not you might want to start considering alternatives.
I keep seeing people say this. By which metric is it not working? We need some facts in this Great Debate.
Moderators like you aren’t appropriate on this message board 
Can you ban him already, it’s what he wants.
Well now I have to confess to ignorance. That looks like a reasonable cite. I have seen other indications that there was no improvement but nothing with specifics and I failed to verify them. Thank you for educating me, and I must reconsider my position. Apparently something is working.
Your ban will expire in 24 hours.
Try to play nice if you come back.
(And, just as a note: if you return with a sock account, Mods with much less patience than I have will be delighted to make your ban permanent.)
[/Moderating ]
Please. If I wanted to malign your character it wouldn’t come in the form of a series of leading questions about your opinions. I don’t care about your character. It only matters to the extent I’m trying to understand what it is that you’re saying, so I can give you the answer you were presumably looking for when you started a thread to ask a question.
You keep talking about how futile and pointless and destined for failure it is for any of us to expect that a normal adult human male can internalize the notion that he isn’t entitled to sex unless he gets some form of unambiguously positive assent from his partner to have it with him. Specifically, that she does not actually say the word “no” out loud to him in a way that suggests that she is talking about whether or not she wants to have sex. I’m asking you why should this be the case? What prevents that – which is the same rule that applies to, like, playing football with somebody or cutting their hair or borrowing their car – from being the rule about when you have sex with somebody?
This has been another episode of “What you with the face said.” Trite or not, no means no should be it for guys. It doesn’t matter what you think might be behind it, or how solid you think it is. Even if you think she might not mean it, no means no.
If you have to treat it like Indiana Jones and the chalice at the end of the movie, you just have to let it go.
And really, it has to be so simple as to be trite, because only the most dim witted guys will need it. The reality is that in nearly every case no actually did mean no, but it seems too many guys don’t get that.
I think this lady does a pretty good job at describing Mysogyny as it stands today.
The first sentence above is pure fiction. There’s no point in addressing the rest of it. You are not asking leading questions you are making false attributions and disgusting insinuations.