No Means Yes If You Know How To Spot It

[Loren Pechtel]

If I may be so bold as to quote an old sitcom: "If you say 'no' when you mean 'yes,' what do you say when you mean 'no'?"

Even if women do mean yes when they say no, any decent man will take the "no" at face value because the consequences of guessing wrong are pretty severe.

Of course one should not take the "no" as "yes". The problem is that very often it means "not yet"--thus the proper reaction is to back off for now and see how things develop. If her answer were truly "no <period>" why doesn't she leave?

 

[Bronzeage]

If I may be so bold as to quote an old sitcom: "If you say 'no' when you mean 'yes,' what do you say when you mean 'no'?"

Even if women do mean yes when they say no, any decent man will take the "no" at face value because the consequences of guessing wrong are pretty severe.

Of course one should not take the "no" as "yes". The problem is that very often it means "not yet"--thus the proper reaction is to back off for now and see how things develop. If her answer were truly "no <period>" why doesn't she leave?

Because you won't unlock the door to the basement?

 

[RavenSky]

Why would anyone want to have sex with another person if there is any doubt as to whether the other person even wants to have sex with you?

If not sure I understand the question. Desiring someone without knowing if they like you back is a fairly everyday occurrence. Two people liking each other, but not being sure if the other feels the same way, is also an every day occurrence.

are you also suggesting fucking that person without their permission?

Maybe there is confusion about the meaning of explicit?

Not on my part

It not only means without doubt, but also that something is explained/demonstrated so as to be beyond doubt. What you're advocating, as I understand it, is that two people, both of whom want to have sex with each other, should nonetheless seek explicit consent from the other. Which means they actually need to actually ask or confirm in some way, rather than merely sharing an understanding.

Your words simply do not make any sense.

"both of whom want to have sex" - have they actually communicated/expressed that in some way to each other? If not, how do they know the other person also wants sex?

"should nonetheless seek explicit consent from the other" - not "nonetheless". Either they have mutual explicit consent or they don't, but they should before proceeding.

"Which means they actually need to actually ask or confirm in some way, rather than merely sharing an understanding." - yes. Attempts at mutual mind-reading is not advisable.

 

[spikepipsqueak]

I had to stop reading at page 6 so may be beating a dead horse. If so sorry.

You don't have some entitlement to try to wring or extract a yes.

You can always try to change somebody's mind. And if she does change her mind without you going home and waiting for her phone call it doesn't make it a "rape" somehow.

Derec, can you say C-O-E-R-C-I-O-N?

Advocating the changing of others' minds, and the notion that women should be coy and unwilling to explicitly agree to sex if they want it, is to negate all the movement towards sexual honesty that the world has made.

I think everyone in this thread, including you, would agree that life will be easier when people are free to make their own choices and there is no ambiguity in the communication.

So why cling to, and encourage, practices and attitudes that muddy the water?

The universities are just saying "Be absolutely clear, people. If it's not clear, err on the side of caution". That's hardly revolutionary, or unfair.

 

[RavenSky]

How do _YOU_ know for sure that your sexual partner wants sex with you?

He usually comes down the stairs from the shower, and waggles his twig and giggle-berries in my general direction while asking "Is it sexy time now?"

To which I usually reply "Oh baby! Sexy, sexy!" And promptly follow him up to the boudoir.

This is after 20+ years together.

Now that is explicit

- - - Updated - - -

Exactly. Plenty of people--mostly women--have problems with that level of explicitness.

ON what basis do you assume that it's mostly women? My experience has been that it is men who are more reticent about being talkative and open about sexual matters. They've always been flustered and uncertain about simply discussing what they like and want when it comes to intimacy, much more so than I.

Based on way too many threads on this topic, I have to agree.

- - - Updated - - -

The key that you think I am assuming is not assumed but an actual answer in action _or_ word.

When you say "Saying that, and then taking that as consent to full sex, is still rape under the proposals we've been given. " you're ignoring that in each case I'm saying, "and wait for the answer."

No, I'm aware that you're getting an actual answer, but it doesn't matter. What you're describing is still rape under the proposals we're talking about.

nonsense. Moreover, as has been discussed, said consent is ongoing, and can also be withdrawn at any point.

- - - Updated - - -

Okay.

View attachment 1104

crjq

 

[Derec]

I had to stop reading at page 6 so may be beating a dead horse. If so sorry.

You can always try to change somebody's mind. And if she does change her mind without you going home and waiting for her phone call it doesn't make it a "rape" somehow.

Derec, can you say C-O-E-R-C-I-O-N?

How is persuasion same as coercion?

 

[RavenSky]

I had to stop reading at page 6 so may be beating a dead horse. If so sorry.


Derec, can you say C-O-E-R-C-I-O-N?

How is persuasion same as coercion?

Why would you have to "persuade" someone to have sex with you?

 

[Derec]

Why would you have to "persuade" someone to have sex with you?

That is not an answer.

 

[RavenSky]

Why would you have to "persuade" someone to have sex with you?

That is not an answer.

Correct. It is my question to you. Why would you have to "persuade" someone to have sex with you?

 

[Derec]

Correct. It is my question to you. Why would you have to "persuade" someone to have sex with you?

Please answer my question.

And how is your question even relevant to the question of consent?

Here we see how feminists try to narrow down the range of "acceptable" consent more and more. How long until colleges adopt Robin Morgan's (a radical feminist "thinker") idea that every sex that is not initiated by a woman is "rape".

 

[Arctish]

I had to stop reading at page 6 so may be beating a dead horse. If so sorry.


Derec, can you say C-O-E-R-C-I-O-N?

How is persuasion same as coercion?

It's not the same, but that quote of yours was said in response to this:

You don't have some entitlement to try to wring or extract a yes.

You can always try to change somebody's mind. And if she does change her mind without you going home and waiting for her phone call it doesn't make it a "rape" somehow.

Instead to trying to persuade someone to have sex with you (high pressure tactics, pleading, threats...?) how about trying to be the sort of person he/she would want to have sex with (actually interested in getting to know them, respecting their wishes, wanting them to enjoy their time with you, etc.). If it works, the end result is enthusiastic, affirmative consent and maybe some really good sex. If it doesn't work, *whew* you dodged a bullet there, because it looks like that could have gone really badly if you had tried to force the issue.

 

[Derec]

It's not the same, but that quote of yours was said in response to this:

I understand fully; spikepipsqueak thinks somebody changing their minds is the same as being coerced.

Instead to trying to persuade someone to have sex with you (high pressure tactics, pleading, threats...?) how about trying to be the sort of person he/she would want to have sex with (actually interested in getting to know them, respecting their wishes, wanting them to enjoy their time with you, etc.). If it works, the end result is enthusiastic, affirmative consent and maybe some really good sex. If it doesn't work, *whew* you dodged a bullet there, because it looks like that could have gone really badly if you had tried to force the issue.

This is not about advice or what is best case scenario. It's about what is sexual assault and what isn't and in that sense circumscribing acceptable forms of consent further and further is really dangerous.

Furthermore I do not think that this advice is that good anyway. "Actually interested in getting to know them, respecting their wishes, wanting them to enjoy their time with you" might work for those that are (perhaps like you) naturally attractive, charming and charismatic but will not be nearly sufficient for the majority of guys.

 

[RavenSky]

Correct. It is my question to you. Why would you have to "persuade" someone to have sex with you?

Please answer my question.

After you answer mine.

You asked your question to spikepipsqueak, not to me

And how is your question even relevant to the question of consent?

Because you keep advocating for non-consent

 

[RavenSky]

Furthermore I do not think that this advice is that good anyway. "Actually interested in getting to know them, respecting their wishes, wanting them to enjoy their time with you" might work for those that are (perhaps like you) naturally attractive, charming and charismatic but will not be nearly sufficient for the majority of guys.

What is the alternative? NOT respecting her wishes? Having sex with someone who is NOT enjoying their time with you?

 

[Derec]

Furthermore I do not think that this advice is that good anyway. "Actually interested in getting to know them, respecting their wishes, wanting them to enjoy their time with you" might work for those that are (perhaps like you) naturally attractive, charming and charismatic but will not be nearly sufficient for the majority of guys.

What is the alternative? NOT respecting her wishes? Having sex with someone who is NOT enjoying their time with you?

Arctrish is saying that that's all it takes when that's patently absurd.

- - - Updated - - -

Because you keep advocating for non-consent

No. You keep advocating for only certain, narrowly defined, kinds of consent to count as consent.

 

[Nice Squirrel]

Furthermore I do not think that this advice is that good anyway. "Actually interested in getting to know them, respecting their wishes, wanting them to enjoy their time with you" might work for those that are (perhaps like you) naturally attractive, charming and charismatic but will not be nearly sufficient for the majority of guys.

Well it works for this old, bald fat man. In fact my genuine interest in them is my secret to success and one of the cornerstones of charm, charisma and attraction.

 

[Arctish]

I understand fully; spikepipsqueak thinks somebody changing their minds is the same as being coerced.

I don't think so. I think spikepipsqueak might be remembering the guy who "persuaded" a girl until he got what he wanted, and she was so miserable and distressed she was crying while he fucked her. He might also be remembering you are the one saying playful demurring can be an invitation to proceed, while offering no way to distinguish the "playful" kind from the real thing. Your proposed course of action leaves open the possibility of genuine demurring being ignored, and you appear to be okay with that.

Instead to trying to persuade someone to have sex with you (high pressure tactics, pleading, threats...?) how about trying to be the sort of person he/she would want to have sex with (actually interested in getting to know them, respecting their wishes, wanting them to enjoy their time with you, etc.). If it works, the end result is enthusiastic, affirmative consent and maybe some really good sex. If it doesn't work, *whew* you dodged a bullet there, because it looks like that could have gone really badly if you had tried to force the issue.

This is not about advice or what is best case scenario. It's about what is sexual assault and what isn't and in that sense circumscribing acceptable forms of consent further and further is really dangerous.

In my lifetime, there's only one kind of consent that has ever been acceptable: the kind given freely by fully informed adults in their right minds. If it's not freely given, or if pertinent information has been withheld, or the person is under the age of consent, or the person is impaired by drugs, alcohol, disease or mental defect, then the consent isn't the acceptable kind.

Furthermore I do not think that this advice is that good anyway. "Actually interested in getting to know them, respecting their wishes, wanting them to enjoy their time with you" might work for those that are (perhaps like you) naturally attractive, charming and charismatic but will not be nearly sufficient for the majority of guys.

I disagree. Being naturally attractive, charming and charismatic might get you more opportunities for sex, but being a worthwhile partner gets you more fulfilling sexual relationships. That's true across all genders.

 

[RavenSky]

What is the alternative? NOT respecting her wishes? Having sex with someone who is NOT enjoying their time with you?

Arctrish is saying that that's all it takes when that's patently absurd.

Arctish did not even remotely say that ^^^

Instead to trying to persuade someone to have sex with you (high pressure tactics, pleading, threats...?) how about trying to be the sort of person he/she would want to have sex with (actually interested in getting to know them, respecting their wishes, wanting them to enjoy their time with you, etc.). If it works, the end result is enthusiastic, affirmative consent and maybe some really good sex. If it doesn't work, *whew* you dodged a bullet there, because it looks like that could have gone really badly if you had tried to force the issue.

You could choose to simply pay for it, thereby skipping all that onerous respecting of their wishes or caring if they are enjoying their time with you, though ironically you will still have explicit consent.

Because you keep advocating for non-consent

No. You keep advocating for only certain, narrowly defined, kinds of consent to count as consent.

Yes, I keep advocating for explicit consent. You keep advocating for assumption of consent which is the same as no consent at all.

 

[Rhea]

Of course one should not take the "no" as "yes". The problem is that very often it means "not yet"--thus the proper reaction is to back off for now and see how things develop. If her answer were truly "no <period>" why doesn't she leave?

Because you won't unlock the door to the basement?

"You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Bronzeage again."

 

[Rhea]

Furthermore I do not think that this advice is that good anyway. "Actually interested in getting to know them, respecting their wishes, wanting them to enjoy their time with you" might work for those that are (perhaps like you) naturally attractive, charming and charismatic but will not be nearly sufficient for the majority of guys.

See, I think your math is totally wrong here. You seem to be solving for the equation where you need a new variable every time you solve it. But if you treat the variable like a keeper, there are years and years and years of frequent solutions to this equation. On the whole, way more sex.

Your comments all seem centered around wanting that first encounter to be easy and frequent (or at least much easIER and MORE frequent). Which is really the hard way to approach getting sex. The first encounter is the most difficult to consummate. Put some psychological study into ways to ensure a second romp in bed and it will totally pay off. For realz. So much so that you can acquire that, "hey baby, want some hot monkey sex?" ease of entry.

Cause think about it, you only have to "get to know them" once. From then on out it's smooth sailing with "wanting them to enjoy time with you."


Invest early!