No means try harder

[Cassius Clay]

I have a confession to make. I know what vegas meant by this(meaning there was a reasonably charitable way to interpret his words), but I refused to defend him because he is such a creepy piece of shit in general...so I just stayed silent about it.

[CashRules]

It is still a rape-apologist line even though there is a somewhat reasonable way of taking it. Sadly, Vegas has become one of the less creepy people on that board without changing at all.

[Islandmur]

My problem with Vegas was never about the "no means no but" it was always about the fact that when called upon since the very first time he would argue with everyone telling him that yes they understood however in order to be safe it was better to act in all cases as if no was the end of an encounter. That's the part he kept arguing against that got me mad.

[Gendo]

Yeah there's a difference between saying that what Vegas said has no charitable interpretation, and saying that what Vegas said is harmful in that it promotes a dangerous message whether intended or not. We've always all been saying the second thing, and Vegas has always been arguing against the first thing.

[Cassius Clay]

Well, I was a little frustrated with the back and forth because I felt it avoided the meat of the issue.

Firstly, I'm not sure how it all began, but it is dishonest to respond to the "no means no" sentiment with "no does not always mean no(as in abort the encounter/interaction altogether)" or "no sometimes means maybe"...even if the latter can be true/has a reasonably interpretation. It reminds me of the #notall derails. It is true that "not all men do blah blah", but it's often a non-sequitur that intentionally misses the point.

But the problem with the response to that nonsense was: instead of simply acknowledging the irrelevant/complex truth of the statement and pointing out that it wasn't the point, people seemed to inflexibly fall into the trap of arguing over whether the derailing statement was true or not. Which the opportunistic piece of shit then jumped on as a reason to not listen...because he told himself "these guys are socially inept morons who are blindly repeating a mantra because they can't grasp the nuances of social interaction and communication. I win!"

[Islandmur]

Not all people did that, some of us did acknowledge his statement as true but argued that since you couldn't actually know "when" it was true, that it was best to err on the side of caution as a matter of fact a LOT of people in the latter stages of this were arguing that point (if I recall correctly), but then he always came back with the "well a man knows the difference" and as I pointed out once (as well as a couple of others) if men could really tell the difference lots of rapes particularly the date rape / husband rape / friend rape category would not happen, he still refuses to accept that a man can't always tell the difference unless they are bent or raping.

[Cassius Clay]

My problem with Vegas was never about the "no means no but" it was always about the fact that when called upon since the very first time he would argue with everyone telling him that yes they understood however in order to be safe it was better to act in all cases as if no was the end of an encounter. That's the part he kept arguing against that got me mad.

But this is part of the miscommunication. Erring on the side of caution does not necessarily equate to aborting the encounter altogether. I feel like he used this kind of rigidity to justify spouting his nonsense.

My girlfriend gives me a hard time because we don't have sexy times as much as she'd like to. There have been a few times where I've completely aborted a potential sex session because she expressed some resistance. And she has complained afterwards that she did not want me to stop my advances altogether, but to slow down/take a few steps back..or that she was playing hard to get.

Any show of resistance or verbal nos should be taken seriously as a message to not move the interaction forward any further and/or to stop what you're doing and take a few steps back/respect boundaries. But the conversation with vegas did not make a distinction between that and aborting an encounter altogether...and vegas took advantage of that implicit conflation to paint you guys as unreasonable. Because a playful no can sometimes mean slow down...or back off a little...or I'm interested but I still want to flirt for a bit...etc. But even a playful no should never be taken as "keep moving forward/pressuring me."

[Cassius Clay]

Not all people did that, some of us did acknowledge his statement as true but argued that since you couldn't actually know "when" it was true, that it was best to err on the side of caution as a matter of fact a LOT of people in the latter stages of this were arguing that point (if I recall correctly), but then he always came back with the "well a man knows the difference" and as I pointed out once (as well as a couple of others) if men could really tell the difference lots of rapes particularly the date rape / husband rape / friend rape category would not happen, he still refuses to accept that a man can't always tell the difference unless they are bent or raping.

The thing is, I think he is just not using language precisely enough. I think a reasonable, non-psycotic, non-rapist person knows how to navigate these situations morally...without having to be blindly led by the all-or-nothing binary of "you either ignore resistance or you abort pursuing a potential partner altogether." I think the idea that some rapes happen because some rapists mistakenly think they can tell when a no is a yes....that many rapes could be some sort of honest misunderstanding because these poor men have been taught to takea no as a yes is a bit problematic. I think rapists know damn well what they're doing.

[Islandmur]

Rapist know what they are doing, but believe me lots of men do not know when a woman is simply not in the mood (for whatever reason) and that leads to coerced sex. Which is why a lot of women also don't think they have been raped. Thing is both parties don't realize this kind of coerced sex is rape.

I think in the case of Vegas, what made people more incline to not give him the benefit of the doubt was several things: the joke about Draco which he kept insisting was about pizza, other jokes or one liners he would throw out during these type of conversation to provoke people that were not appropriate.

In the case of your girlfriend I think that perhaps you need to establish a system like a code or something that will let you know when she is just playing hard to get. Although if you have been with her long enough I agree that you probably can read her signals by now, but as a victim I always say it's best to err on the side of caution, because while 9 instances may be really playing hard to get, 1 single instance can really be not in the mood right now. My ex while having many many qualities was not good at reading people and really didn't know when I wasn't in the mood.

Anyways I think the whole thing with Vegas was just Vegas provoking people and we just fell for it.

[Cassius Clay]

I dunno...I think it's a contradiction to says rapists know what they're doing and to say that lots of rapists don't know when someone isn't in the mood. I think this is one of those well-intentioned sentiments that ironically gives rapists a pass by treating people as if they're idiots that don't know any better...by setting sweeping, rigid rules in regards to how to navigate consent...rules that avoid the core of the issue. Like the conversations about drinking and consent(the well-intentioned sentiment that one should never sleep with someone that has been drinking that leads to absurd conversations and scenarios that circle around the real issue). And because these sweeping rules are unrealistic and don't leave room for the inevitable nuances of human interaction, rapists will take advantage(and potential rapists like vegas will continue to act like you're unreasonable and keep playing dumb by promoting his keen eye bs).

And I think rape victims know they have been violated in some way, but some are hesitant to call it what it is partly because of sentiments that imply that the rapist didn't fully understand what he was doing, so it is their own fault. "I must have led him on"..."I didn't say no strongly enough"...etc.

[Cassius Clay]

And as to the thing about establishing a code for when my girlfriend is playing hard to get....though I never want to disparage things like safewords and pre-established signals(because more communication is generally always better), I feel safewords should be reserved for more extreme interactions(like if there is a dynamic where your partner sometimes wants you to ignore their resistance and move forward ). I mean...you shouldn't really need a safeword just because your partner plays a hard to get....because playing hard to get typically does not mean "keep going". That should be something one can easily navigate if they aren't a complete piece of garbage. That's the mentally I have a problem with...there should never be any risk of coerced sex just because someone is playing hard to get. Consent should not be that difficult to navigate, and any implication that it is so difficult adds to the problem imo....that's my bottom line.

And in regards to Vegas' dishonesty and misbehavior. That's exactly why I didn't get involved. Because of the rape jokes and his disingenuous intentions, even though I felt he wasn't entirely wrong, I didn't want to appear to defend him in any way.

[Gypsy-Vanner]

Mur is right. Many rape victims do not know they are victims. And many rapists don't know they are rapists. It is how our culture has conditioned people to view sex. A college man who gets a woman drunk and then rapes her does not think it was rape because culture dictates that for him to be a man he has to prove his manliness by taking what he wants when he wants it. And the college woman does not believe she was a victim because culture dictates that women who get drunk and are taken advantage of by men are not victims and as such rarely 2nd guess an unwanted sexual encounter.

There's more than enough studies done to support this so you stating "And I think rape victims know they have been violated in some way, but some are hesitant to call it what it is partly because of sentiments that imply that the rapist didn't fully understand what he was doing, so it is their own fault. "I must have led him on"..."I didn't say no strongly enough"...etc. and I think it's a contradiction to says rapists know what they're doing and to say that lots of rapists don't know when someone isn't in the mood" are based in ignorance.

And this " But the conversation with vegas did not make a distinction between that and aborting an encounter altogether..." is completely and utterly wrong. Everyone involved in the beginning agreed to those distinctions, agreed that it's not a "black and white" situation and that no doesn't necessarily mean no. However, Vegas had his head stuck so far up his ass that he completely refused to acknowledge this and was stuck on the "NO MEANS NO" in all situations because Vegas is a douchebag. He screwed up by trying to call us out on our "rigid" no means no stance and when corrected he refused to admit his mistake.

Many rapists know what they did but do no equate it to rape. Again, it's our culture. Men are held to a rigid standard of what manliness is while women are hold to a rigid standard of what womanliness is.

You are right that consent should not be this damn hard to understand but society has made it so. Mur's suggestion of a safeword even within a relationship likes yours is actually pretty reasonable because again rape culture has dictated that even in established relationships it's ok to force a woman to have sex whether she wants it or not. And society dictates that a woman must submit every single time. Maybe your GF is not a victim of society but there are so many women out there that are so safe words and erring on the side of caution is the right thing to do until we can educate people away from sexual dogma.

[Cassius Clay]

I couldn't disagree more for reasons I already stated. Rapists rape because they have no respect for consent and are deeply entitled(so are intentionally/unintentionally disingenuous regarding navigation of consent)....not merely because they honestly don't know what consent is(look up "bad faith" on wki for the mentality I'm getting at). The latter belief is deeply absurd and very problematic...and I believe to be a very insidious aspect of rape culture. I don't think society has made consent difficult to understand, I think society has encouraged people to not respect consent and boundaries. There's a key difference there.

"Criminals thrive on the indulgence of society's understanding. "

- Ross Perot