Last week, a friend of mine who lives in London, England, posted the above image. The friend is someone I’ve known for some 30 years, maybe longer, though we’ve never met face to face. She works as a “lay therapist,” which is someone who tries to help when medical help is lacking due to there being too many mental health emergencies and not enough mental health providers. If you think it’s bad in America, try Britain. Oy. She’s a GOOD person, though she is fully Left. She walks her talk, which is more than I can say about a lot of people. I respect her. But last week, I wanted to beat my head against a wall, I was so frustrated.
I saw the image, and immediately wrote the following:
“See… I do have a problem with this. No most definitely means no. Stop means stop. But all the rest of that? I’ve had plenty of times when I said something hurt, and it just meant changing position or whatever. Putting out stuff like this to vulnerable teens and others tends to make them think that whatever they say, it somehow means no. I want people to learn to SAY NO. Stop is okay, because it’s definitive. The rest are mitigating. Don’t mitigate! Say no!!!”
She then spent a couple of hours telling me all sorts of things that justified the idea that all of the above statements mean no. I am flabbergasted. I could maybe see “stop” as being the same as “no” because it’s a firm and complete statement. But the rest of them? They don’t mean no.
When I tell my partner, “Wait…” I’m not telling him no. I’m telling him… oh yeah, WAIT. Give me a minute. The word has a meaning, and the meaning is to delay an action. Nothing in there about no.
When I tell someone that I hurt, it doesn’t mean no. It means that I have a pain, and that pain could be physical, spiritual, emotional, or mental. None of that means no.
If I tell someone, “Not now,” that’s a very clear message that maybe later we will do whatever. That’s most definitely NOT NO.
I went on to say:
“Sorry, this is one of those big bugaboos for me. Mitigating language is so horribly destructive of relationships as a whole. It gets us into really bad places. It’s fine to tell someone you’re hurting; that’s how they learn not to hurt you. But if you say NO, that should be that. Period, end of statement. Think of it as a ‘safeword,’ if you like. Ow is not a safeword but it is an indication that something might need to change. NO is a safeword – all activity stops. There’s no mitigating with ‘no.’ I firmly believe that all this mitigating language has been brought in by people who don’t want to hear or use the word ‘no.’ The problem is, ‘no’ is the correct word to use. And we must teach people how to use it, and to use it when they need.”
I think I was being pretty clear. She insisted that the meme was clear. I gave clear examples that the meme was not clear. I don’t understand at all.
I suspect that this is a (very mild) example of the Leftist speech you all sometimes talk about. Words don’t mean what they meant, the meanings change daily, you can never know what something means. That’s just wrong. And this is someone who is perceived as a professional (and IS a professional, as she underwent an awful lot of intensive training for the position, and as near as I can tell, she’s generally very helpful and good at her job), telling broken people how to communicate. How is this helpful? What’s wrong with using the clear language?
How are young people supposed to go about their lives, when they’re taught that all these things mean no? Especially women! I’m sorry, but women MUST learn how to say no, firmly. Mitigating language is not going to help any woman, ever. The only thing mitigating language is good for, is when you’re letting someone down gently when you’re firing or laying them off, or something of that kind. Or telling them that the dress really does make their ass look big. THOSE are moments when mitigating language is acceptable. But when you’re expecting clear and concise communication, like during a sexual act? My gawd!
Yes, I’m being all horrified over here. I don’t understand how this is even a discussion, never mind an argument. We’ve been pushing the “no means no” thing for ages, and we don’t need all this mitigating language messing up a lesson that’s already apparently horrendously difficult to learn.
Good grief.
Comments
12 responses to “No Means No”
later on in life women who think things like this language will wonder why they are alone… communication is a lost art.
when my wife says she is tired it means to me she won’t put up much resistance, heh heh.. her sex excuse coffee mug is a 35 gallon barrel…. (to make room for all the excuses)…liberals pervert language… sad.
Not quite sure what you meant, but that came across pretty negative…
However, I agree that there’s a perversion of language going on.
That kind of meme totally ruins the flirting aspect of a physical relationship. This “ask for clear permission before moving to the next phase, otherwise it is rape” attitude is destroying sex for everyone.
A guy is kissing a girl, and it is obvious to both that moving to a new level is desired by both of them. But, nope… he has to stop and ask if it is OK for him to move his hands north or south of her waist. Not happening. There are alternatives.
As to definitive language, I ABSOLUTLY agree. And, not just when it comes to sex/relationships. I cannot tell you the number of misunderstandings, leading to arguments, that could have been avoided if one party just said “I want…” instead of “Well, if everyone else thinks…”
When it comes to physical flirting, I think asking for clear intentions is absolutely a good thing, for both partners. Hell, for ALL partners, on the chance there are more than two. Coercion can happen way too easily, and open and honest communication solves that. What’s wrong with discussing things as you go along?
I had this discussion with a friend with benefits a few years ago. I spent about 45 minutes kissing each part of her body, going *very* slowly, and asking consent at each juncture. I turned it into play. I made absolutely certain that there was no miscommunication, while still having a *fantastic* time, and so did she.
You can also discuss intentions beforehand. “I’d like to engage in A, B, and D, but not C. I am open to moving to E and F, but I’d like to take that as it happens. I will not be moving beyond F under any circumstances.” Leaves you a ton of playing room, and no one gets hurt. Consent is king. The other thing that talking prior to sexual encounters helps with, is losing control in a bad way. I’m sorry, but if you think it’s a bad idea to have intercourse before dessert, but after you’ve finished your second glass of wine at his place you’ve changed your mind, you should be listening to your BEFORE dinner thoughts. Making decisions when you’re clear headed is absolutely important, and if both people know, then there can’t be any miscommunications.
I don’t disagree, and when you are with a partner that understands and supports, it works out just fine. Those are far and few inbetween.
Human nature is such that a guy getting the “ask before every movement” vibe will go visit Rosie Palm and her five sisters rather than risk it. Like it or not, but humans are programmed to NOT talk about sex. Especially when the relationship is new. (Which is when positive consent is most needed.)
Sorry, but I am not going to discuss with my date where I want to go sexually before it starts. And, the majority of people out there are in my corner.
That does not mean, in any way, that I support people breaking through the line, and going from fun to assault. No, it is not OK to force yourself on someone, ever.
Which is EXACTLY why I am so glad to hear you say definitive language is so important. It is. Too many people are too terrified of offending that they weasel word their statements, and are misunderstood, or worse, they provide the opposite statement than what they mean.
You actions and body language can provide more than enough consent. But, when that language, or that action is misread, SAY NO! Stop! And, say it immediately, and without fear of offense. That I can support. Not these “positive consent” programs/laws.
If someone is OK with kissing, I am going to say they would be OK with a bit further. Blocking a touch, or moving a hand away from a body part is enough to prevent escalation. And, if it is not, odds are, the person you are with does not care about getting your consent.
I tend to agree with that. But I’m still teaching everyone around me that “no means no” and that if they want to say no, SAY NO. I’m also trying to teach them (all of them, girls too, sometimes girls especially) that you can’t get offended when someone says no. You can be hurt, disappointed, and even upset… but not offended. The person is communicating, and they’re doing it clearly. It’s miles better than the alternative.
Does that mean you might have to go home and take care of business yourself? Sure. Women (sorry, so true here) are used to that, and I’m sure men probably are too. Does it mean you might never date that person again? Sure, that’s okay, too. You didn’t click, it didn’t work. That’s okay. Lots of other fish in the sea, and all that. Go find someone who does click with you. 🙂
Good!
Not kidding. Teach them, be a mentor. The more people who start using definitive language, the better.
But, that is the way the world should be, and you are working toward that goal. Whereas, I am talking about the way the world is. And, the reality is the world is not going to stop acting in stupid ways suddenly, just because there is an alternative. (Even when that alternative makes more sense.)
Back in the 90’s , a sexual abuse training was mandated in my unit. The instructor flat out said that if the woman does not initiate it, it is rape. That was pretty much the tone of the entire ‘training’.
No meant No but Yes could just as easily turn into a No weeks later and you ,as a guy, were screwed because it wasn’t uncommon for the male to be automatically assumed to be guilty.
There was serious talk about the only way for a guy to be ‘safe’ was w/ a signed contract.
A few years back, I was assisting a HS class when a trainer came in. She was reasonable and realistic. She told the guys in the class that if they’re at a party and hooked up w/ a girl, if she had been drinking, by law, she could not consent. Even if BOTH had been drinking, the male would be considered the aggressor by the authorities.
At the same time, the extreme type ‘feminists’ oppose alternative types of release for males. Then blame said males when sexual aggression increases.
Consent happens when both parties are sober and thinking clearly. Works for me. If there’s a concern that consent may not be there, even a hint of the idea… then you stop. That’s just how it works.
And it does work in the other direction, I might add (and should *always* do so). Years ago, I was at a bar and ran into a guy I’d had a long standing crush on. I was single at the time, hungry for attention, and he was frankly quite drunk. I could probably have had him if I’d wanted him. Instead, I took him home, put him to bed with a hot tea, towels, and a bucket (just in case), and I took care of him. Found out the next day, when he sobered up, that his mom had died earlier the day before. He appreciated that I’d taken care, rather than taken advantage.
Question… you say: “At the same time, the extreme type ‘feminists’ oppose alternative types of release for males. Then blame said males when sexual aggression increases.”
What do you mean? If a woman teases a man (or vice versa) and then doesn’t have sex with that person, that’s supposed to be a problem? I mean, it might be the type of problem that leads you not to date that person again, for sure… but that’s not something you can then point to and say it’s her fault for “male sexual aggression.”
She doesn’t owe him sex. He doesn’t owe her sex. No one owes anyone sex. Not even if they flirt. Not even if one of them was naked.
Am I misunderstanding??
“Am I misunderstanding??”
I didn’t make myself clear. I’m not saying anyone ‘owes’ anything to another.
My point was that the extremists want to do away w/ things like porn, male oriented toys, professional services, etc. as ‘demeaning to women’ leading to even less ability to release those urges. Then don’t see the connection when people lose control and commit violence. Not excusing the act or the actor itself but the fact that combining the difficulty for social interaction and any other release will inevitably create situations where assault happens.
So in this one I’m definitely disagreeing, Tantiv. I’m not an extremist, and I love porn personally. I think it has a wonderful place in people’s lives. I write it, read it, watch it.
But I deny that not having access to sex workers and porn connects to men assaulting women. That’s a very dangerous slippery slope and I refuse to get on it. For thousands upon thousands of years, men didn’t have access to porn or toys. That’s what hands and imaginations are for.
What creates situations where assault happens is that people (not just men, though the facts indicate it’s mostly men) are of a mindset that things are somehow owed to them. They aren’t taught or somehow don’t have the ability to regulate their own sexuality. They take it out in assault. Has nothing to do with lack of access to porn and sex workers. Sorry, this IS a hill I’ll die on.
we have to sit thru videos of this “training” at work. all it does is make you not want to interact with ANYONE, he, she or it. and women will be in thier 40s wondering why the are alone….. theres zero “common sense” unless you are talking gun control..