No Means No!

[Traditio]

You are grasping at straws. If the genuine intent is no, then it is always no. Period.

I fully agree with this. My only point is that not every "no" expresses such a genuine intent. That's all.

 

[Quetzal]

I fully agree with this.

Then the discussion is over, stop throwing hypotheticals to goat a response or I will start calling "Ok Tradiozer".

 

[Traditio]

Oh, I see. They are "preparing" to engage. In other words you are proposing a hypothetical situation which has no basis in reality. Got it. Come back when you have some actual experience with the subject.

A substantial minority of women admit to having rape fantasies. That's a fact. Are you really going to tell me, Eeset, that not even one of them feigned a "no" and resistance, even though they were quite willing?

 

[Traditio]

Then the discussion is over, stop throwing hypotheticals to goat a response or I will start calling "Ok Tradiozer".

That's not the topic of the thread, Quetzal. The topic of the thread is whether "no" always means "no."

If what "'no' means 'no'" means is "every genuine 'no' means 'no' and should be respected," then this saying is completely correct, and you are right, the discussion is over and there's no need for further discussion.

But that's not the point that I initially raised, and for some reason, you seem utterly unwilling to approach this: If "'no' means 'no'" means "if the word 'no' has come out of the woman's mouth, then she disapproves of what you are doing, and you should put a halt to the proceedings," then it's not true: "no" does not always mean "no."

 

[Quetzal]

That's not the topic of the thread, Quetzal. The topic of the thread is whether "no" always means "no."

If what "'no' means 'no'" means is "every genuine 'no' means 'no' and should be respected," then this saying is completely correct, and you are right, the discussion is over and there's no need for further discussion.

But that's not the point that I initially raised, and for some reason, you seem utterly unwilling to approach this: If "'no' means 'no'" means "if the word 'no' has come out of the woman's mouth, then she disapproves of what you are doing, and you should put a halt to the proceedings," then it's not true: "no" does not always mean "no."

You are being stupid for the sake of an argument. "Well, if I subscribe to a very specific fetish held by a very specific, minority of people, then I am right!" Fine, you win. Feel fulfilled?

 

[Traditio]

You are being stupid for the sake of an argument. "Well, if I subscribe to a very specific fetish held by a very specific, minority of people, then I am right!" Fine, you win. Feel fulfilled?

The bolded is the was the only point that I was making. I admit that it doesn't usually come up, and most women probably don't do this. Sometimes, though, it does come up, and when it does, "no" doesn't mean "no."

I don't think that "'no' means 'no'" is particularly useful or true. What is better is:

"One should take all reasonable measures to ascertain the wishes of a woman, and, having ascertained them, should respect them accordingly."

Unless you're not married to the woman in question...at which point the question shouldn't even arise in the first place. If it does arise, however, then that's where the line between fornication and rape is drawn. It's not the line between a verbal "no" and a verbal "yes." It's the line between acting in accordance with or contrary to the understood intentions/wishes of the woman. If you are reasonably sure that the woman isn't receptive to your approaches, then you should cut it out. Period. :idunno:

 

[Quetzal]

The bolded is the was the only point that I was making. I admit that it doesn't usually come up, and most women probably don't do this. Sometimes, though, it does come up, and when it does, "no" doesn't mean "no."

I don't think that "'no' means 'no'" is particularly useful or true. What is better is:

"One should take all reasonable measures to ascertain the wishes of a woman, and, having ascertained them, should respect them accordingly."

Unless you're not married to the woman in question...at which point the question shouldn't even arise in the first place. If it does arise, however, then that's where the line between fornication and rape is drawn. It's not the line between a verbal "no" and a verbal "yes." It's the line between acting in accordance with or contrary to the understood intentions/wishes of the woman. If you are reasonably sure that the woman isn't receptive to your approaches, then you should cut it out. Period. :idunno:

:yawn: Well done, champ!

 

[Eeset]

A substantial minority of women admit to having rape fantasies. That's a fact. Are you really going to tell me, Eeset, that not even one of them feigned a "no" and resistance, even though they were quite willing?

What I am telling you is that without any actual sexual experience you are not qualified to speak to the subject. Where did you dredge up that "fact" about rape fantasies? Been reading old issues of Penthouse?

 

[Traditio]

Eeset:

Google it.

 

[PureX]

A substantial minority of women admit to having rape fantasies. That's a fact. Are you really going to tell me, Eeset, that not even one of them feigned a "no" and resistance, even though they were quite willing?

This doesn't really have anything to do with the subject of rape, because the moment the "confusion" in the man's mind becomes apparent to the woman, she will make it quite clear what she wants or does not want. And it's at that point that the man will have no excuse to continue.

Role playing is mutually participatory, and the moment one of the "players" stops playing, the game is over. And the other "player" no longer has any excuse to continue it. Feigning confusion is not an excuse, nor a justification, for rape.

 

[glorydaz]

1. I agree with the OP that "no" doesn't always mean "no"; in point of fact, depending on context, intonation of voice, body language, etc., it very well may mean "yes."

2. I don't think that this topic is appropriate for polite discussion. If you're married, this question probably doesn't even arise.

We aren't talking about "polite discussion"....we're talking the PC TYRANTS of TOL. Poor Trad....you got sucked in....even though you didn't want to go there. :chuckle:

Are you speaking from experience?

The TRYANTS demand details.

For the sake of propriety, I'm going to decline to answer this. Let it suffice to be noted that human speech must be taken in its appropriate contexts of discourse. "Yes," for example, said sarcastically, actually means "no."

Propriety is too passé for the PC TYRANTS.

Listen up clodhopper. No means no. No never means yes. When you hear no then stop. If the woman wants to restart then she will. But in the meantime you have no right to rationalize. Well said! Since you are not a woman your words are just so much vapid gas! If anyone says "NO" it means "NO"! Let your Aye be Aye and let your Nay be Nay! That is the best way to get on in community. Now listen up buttercup. If I recall correctly you freaked out at women wearing skimpy clothing. You admitted lack of any sexual experiences yet now you are offering guidance on this topic? This is not a "word play" subject. Come back when you have some actual experience with sex. What were you doing? Were you engaged in foreplay or were you making sandwiches in the kitchen?

I fully agree with this. My only point is that not every "no" expresses such a genuine intent. That's all.

Not enough for the PC Tyrants.

A substantial minority of women admit to having rape fantasies. That's a fact. Are you really going to tell me, Eeset, that not even one of them feigned a "no" and resistance, even though they were quite willing?

What I am telling you is that without any actual sexual experience you are not qualified to speak to the subject. Where did you dredge up that "fact" about rape fantasies? Been reading old issues of Penthouse?

Eeset:

Google it.

They won't accept facts. Most women will freely admit to what you say, just as most women know full well they have helped a man unhook their own bras while saying no, but because you are a man you have no right to speak the truth. Just as women like me, who haven't swallowed the women's lib crazy pills, are deemed hard-hearted and evil. Common Sense has no place here.

Poor Trad, you've just been raped by the PC Tyrants. :rotfl:

 

[bybee]

It would appear that the only one on a mission here is you.

 

[glorydaz]

It would appear that the only one on a mission here is you.

It would appear so to you, I'm sure, but someone needs to stand against the tyrants.

 

[Crucible]

No means no. No never means yes.

What's next, that tires are rubber and the sun is bright?

And, sometimes yes means no, according to liberal female college students. I wonder where that presumed immunity to responsibility came from..

 

[Rusha]

That's literally the only issue I was trying to address in this thread. Does the simple fact that the woman said "no" mean that you should stop? Does the simple fact that the word "no" came out of a woman's mouth mean that she does not consent to the sexual act in question?

YES, that's what it means. No means NO ... even when the "no" is inconvenient.

IF your girlfriend has driven your car umpteen times, and asks to use your car after a fight or break up, and you say "NO!" ... does your "no" mean yes?

Is there any OTHER situation when you tell someone "no" that they should disregard your answer and take it as a "yes"?

 

[Traditio]

YES, that's what it means. No means NO ... even when the "no" is inconvenient.

Convenience has nothing to do with what "no" means in a given context. It has everything to do with the mentality and general circumstances of the speker in the given circumstances. It's not true that every "no," when taken together with the sum totality of the circumstances of the case, means "no."

More on this below.

IF your girlfriend has driven your car umpteen times, and asks to use your car after a fight or break up, and you say "NO!" ... does your "no" mean yes?

If I say "NO," mean "No," and otherwise convey "no" with my intonation of voice, body language, etc., then my "NO" means "no." Those circumstances, however, might not be present. Again, more on that below.

Is there any OTHER situation when you tell someone "no" that they should disregard your answer and take it as a "yes"?

YES! That's exactly my point. Human communication is a complex affair that you simply cannot treat in black and white terms like this. Human communication by its very nature is contextually dependent.

Here's an example that has nothing to do with sexual intercourse:

A: So, uh...wanna play this level of Mario Maker?
B: No...I mean, I really shouldn't...-clutches his notebook full of class notes that he really should be studying.-
A: Well, okey doke. -starts playing the level.-
B: -is not studying at all; his eyes are fixed on the screen-
A: -fails to beat the level; mario dies; notices that B is not studying- You sure you don't want to play?
B: No...I mean...homework...-is staring dead at the TV screen-
A: -hands B the controller-

-5 hours later, and B still has not given the controller back to A-

This happens all the time. :idunno:

 

[Traditio]

This doesn't really have anything to do with the subject of rape, because the moment the "confusion" in the man's mind becomes apparent to the woman, she will make it quite clear what she wants or does not want. And it's at that point that the man will have no excuse to continue.

I completely agree with all of this. The only point that I was making initially is that the simple fact that a woman say the word "no" doesn't in and of itself indicate an unwillingness to commit a sexual act. All of the circumstances have to be taken into account.

Role playing is mutually participatory, and the moment one of the "players" stops playing, the game is over. And the other "player" no longer has any excuse to continue it. Feigning confusion is not an excuse, nor a justification, for rape.

I completely agree with all of this. I haven't argued otherwise.

 

[Traditio]

To clarify all of my previous comments:

The central point that I am making should be a fairly common sense one. Interpersonal communication is not reducible simply to word choice. This is why electronic communication tends to lend itself to misunderstanding and misinterpretation.

We communicate with more than simply our choices of words. We convey meaning by our vocal intonations, body language, etc. All of that has to be taken into account to understand what the speaker actually means.

Sometimes, our body language, vocal intonation, etc. actually "contradicts" the ordinary, literal, public meaning of the actual words that we use and transforms their meaning into something else entirely. There are such things are communicative "undertones." "Reading between the lines" is a thing.

Even I know that. :noid:

At any rate, this is pretty much all that I've been arguing in this thread. No more. No less.

 

[glorydaz]

To clarify all of my previous comments:

The central point that I am making should be a fairly common sense one. Interpersonal communication is not reducible simply to word choice. This is why electronic communication tends to lend itself to misunderstanding and misinterpretation.

We communicate with more than simply our choices of words. We convey meaning by our vocal intonations, body language, etc. All of that has to be taken into account to understand what the speaker actually means.

Sometimes, our body language, vocal intonation, etc. actually "contradicts" the ordinary, literal, public meaning of the actual words that we use and transforms their meaning into something else entirely. There are such things are communicative "undertones." "Reading between the lines" is a thing.

Even I know that. :noid:

At any rate, this is pretty much all that I've been arguing in this thread. No more. No less.

Absolutely true and well stated. It really shouldn't need to be stated, but I'm glad you did, anyway. :thumb:

 

[Crucible]

Mothers are now teaching their sons to have a text message showing that the women they have relations with consent.
And the response was 'sometimes yes means no'. A college male went went under fire despite doing just that- having proof of consent.

It doesn't take a genius to know that this so called movement is just an assault on men. 'Subtle misandry' is something to rebuke, not bargain with. This whole 'rape awareness' thing is madness. Everyone is aware of rape, it is simply wool over a wolf.