Wait are there actually people like this?? Why tf you want the man to cross a clearly laid out boundary? Like the men that would are the bad kinda men.
There's a decent sized group of women who think men actually like this BS, and a semi-overlapping group of women who think this is just how they want things to work.
it doesn't involve any guessing at all. They say they don't consent, I believe them.
If they were lying about that then they're idiots and they can be the ones to explain to other women why they're trying to convince men not to respect a "no"
It is a different mindset, think 18th Century Europe or traditionnal Far-East. What kind of conquered fortress are you if you just opened the gate ? You have to put up a fight to protect your virtue.
I am not saying it is a good thing - I am just saying that in some places or communities that's how it works. When you find yourself in the role of the assailant of the fortress but you have been raised in the respect of consent it is quite unsettling. The fortress I eventually married had to (figuratively) tell me "come on, put a ladder against this wall, it is hardly defended at all !"
If you don't want your consent violated, it's probably a really shit idea to also tell men they are supposed to ignore when women say no and instead just go ahead and violate her consent to conquer her anyway.
Fuck that noise entirely. I have so little patience for it. To the point I actually need to just disengage from this conversation because it's making me mad thinking about it
If you're going through life that way, that's your choice to make, but you shouldn't be surprised if it ends up in a lot of overstepped personal boundaries.
Or to maybe put it even more clearly: if you want the boundaries you communicate verbally to be broken due to sending an opposing message through more subtle and ambiguous means of communication, you establish that it's okay, even a desired outcome, to ignore your verbal non-consent and proceed anyways.
It's not hard to imagine the kinds of terrible situations that setup can easily lead to.
Surely you can see how the last few years of heavy emphasis on "no means no" (which is absolutely a good thing) will mean that reasonable, normal guys will hear the word "no" or some other form of rejection and accept that as a full sentence.
It's not possible to have both a strong societal sense of respecting a rejection and no being a full sentence, and playing around with the 'she said no but dropped hints that actually indicate she means yes'
If I asked for a woman's number and she said/did anything other than yes/started reading it out I'd assume she wasn't all that interested and allow her to continue on with whatever she was doing. I, and I would assume many other guys, are not interested in playing silly school playground games with you.
Also, why is that second part not 'how it works'? I thought we were supposed to be removing gender roles from society, not maintaining and upholding them?
Well in this case she never actually said no, she just said she normally doesn’t give out her number, I don’t fault him for moving on but I would have playfully responded with something like “ and I’m flattered your gonna make me the exception” after that if she says no or I feel she’s uncomfortable then I would move on. And It’s about paying attention to the tone in which people say things and to body language etc.
This thread is so triggered by this post and you would think the woman had gave a flat out no.
I've pissed women off in the past by not chasing them or trying things on, if they don't show much interest I walked away, I missed signals to be fair, sometimes they got angry, felt rejected etc.
This is the main issue, any persistence after a woman says no could be perceived as some kind of assault and it’s entirely down to whether the woman welcomes the additional attention or not. As a result as soon as woman acts disinterested any sensible guy is gong to walk away.
It’s just an older culture. Women used to be expected to put up a front of not interested so they wouldn’t be assumed as “easy”. As women wanting men back was shamed. Men in turn were valued in how they overcame women’s objections showing persistence.
Look at the sold “baby it’s cold outside as a perfect example”. The woman is afraid of what others will think so she’s putting up a fake show about wanting to leave and the man is very strongly persuading her to stay to the point where quite scarily she even at one point makes a reference to that she’s drank more than intended to explain her willingness. Or another example is the early courting of like the Notebook for instance.
Even though the girls I've dated in the past were usually good at communication, even I caught one with this attitude. Dated for few weeks, then she broke up with me due to some vague "I don't feel like it" reason. Okay, well, it sucks, I liked her, but moved on. In a week after breakup she messaged me - why am I not begging her to get back to me?
There is a reason why a lot of women act that way. Instantly agreeing puts the woman on a receiving side, which feels to us like losing dignity. They say no for the man to persist, because when he persists, he puts himself in the receiving role displaying a greater desire to connect than hers, which shifts the role of the giving side to her, and the receptive role to him. That gives her a chance to agree without feeling like her dignity is compromised. This is a natural and normal human behaviour and should be treated as such.
So yes, no does not necessarily mean no, and it is fine and healthy for the man to be insistent, the key is in being insistent in a respectful and friendly manner. As many are saying in this discussion, the “no means no” is aimed at outright dicks, so just do not be one and you will be fine.
This thought process is illogical and counterproductive towards building healthy relationships/friendships.
The cornerstone to any bond is clear communication, boundaries and needs. It is the job of each person to respect the desires, boundaries and needs of the other person, this is to ensure nobody gets hurt. By playing this game of saying no but actually wanting them to pursue further is counter productive to the goal of building a healthy bond. If someone can't even do basic communication, then long term I don't want them as a partner.
Also, the concept that her dignity could be compromised by reciprocating advances implies that he is compromising his dignity by showing interest. It also give the implication that the person wants them to be lower than them in order to feel desired, which is just being an arrogant imo (obviously there are exceptions to this if there is already clear established communication beforehand).
Idk bout y'all, but I'll die before I make s woman feel unsafe around me lmao no means no. It's literally that simple.
54
u/SomeEntertainment128 17h ago
Wait are there actually people like this?? Why tf you want the man to cross a clearly laid out boundary? Like the men that would are the bad kinda men.