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.
You are grasping at straws. If the genuine intent is no, then it is always no. Period.
Then the discussion is over, stop throwing hypotheticals to goat a response or I will start calling "Ok Tradiozer".I fully agree with this.
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.
Then the discussion is over, stop throwing hypotheticals to goat a response or I will start calling "Ok Tradiozer".
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?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?
:yawn: Well done, champ!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:
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?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.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?
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.
|
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."
|
I fully agree with this. My only point is that not every "no" expresses such a genuine intent. That's all.
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?
|
Eeset:
Google it.
It would appear that the only one on a mission here is you.
No means no. No never means yes.
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"?
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.
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.