If you're having trouble figuring out how your partner feels, there's a simple remedy - ask! If you communicate, it's not terribly puzzling!

People who have railed against using the term "the Patriarchy" take note: this is it. It's not men and it's not the government. It's this invisible, incorporeal Minitrue that tells us our lives have been terminally improved by feminism at the same time that feminism is blamed for all our ills, tells us that the perpetual war against women is in fact peace, whispers in women's ears that sexual repression is the only healthy sexuality. It's the voice that babbles all over campus newspapers and court rulings and Internet forums and the New York Times and everywhere else in this victim-blaming doublespeak.

Most men out there will agree that no means no. Its simple isn't it? Not exactly. Most men will also tell you that they have met at least one woman to which no has meant yes. Now, this is one of the most frustrating aspects of sexual encounters for men everywhere. We do not want this type of confusion, it does nothing but complicate an already delicate situation. So what do us normal men do? We hear No, we stop.

Fair enough. However, it is my strong belief that body language offers much more communication than the verbal commands of 'yes' or 'no'.

Now, I will be completely honest and will ask the same of the women reading this. I have been in situations where my partner has used the 'no' command and mentality (verbally) as a role-play scenario, all the while fully enjoying and initiating much of the sexual encounter. Not only with girlfriends in relationships, but with women I may have just met or not know that well.

Now, can every woman here tell me that they have never engaged in this type of behavior?

I've also been in situations where a woman said no, and I would find out after time had passed that it actually meant yes.

All this to say, if a girl says no, I'll stop. But please understand why men can get confused at times. There is no blueprint for how a woman is going to behave, and if a man's advances are being met with soft 'no's' and absolutely no physical resistance, is he really a 'rapist' that deserves to be convicted and imprisoned?

Consider natural physical reactions. If you are about to trip, you naturally try to regain balance. If you are about to be struck, you naturally attempt to block it with your arms. These are natural physical reactions.
If a woman, such as in this situation, believes that she is going to be raped, her natural physical reaction would be to physically reject his advances. At the least, pushing him away. Personally, if I were getting raped I think I would go down with a fight to the death before anything else.

Coming back to the main issue, no does mean no. The last thing any normal man wants to do is commit rape and hurt women. We are absolutely not going for that. But women need to understand where men are coming from and show a little bit of sympathy for the confusing escapades that we're constantly put through with regards to sex. Don't be naive and assume that every woman would agree that no always means no.

The fact is, when a crime is being committed against someone, most people (especially women, due to their being socially conditioned not to be aggressive) don't fight back; they freeze up. This is especially common during rape. Yet rape is the only crime in which women are expected to not only fight back, but not do a single thing that might possibly "encourage" a rapist, which can be anything from wearing too little to wearing too much to letting a guy in your house to walking down the street. It's a huge double standard, and it causes more women to be raped.

When you're reporting the crime & going through the judicial process, you get to address challenges at your own pace & you have the support of your lawyers, medical professionals, etc., etc. Granted, that support is clearly not enough because so few victims actually do go through that process.

To compare that with how a person can or should proceed when they are taken by surprise, intoxicated, alone with a hostile person, pinned down, terrified, and/or physically unable to defend themselves forcefully enough to be effective, is completely and totally ludicrous.

What's more, to say that you should have a requirement to resist is not only victim-blaming, it's dangerous--in many cases a victim may very well have a legitimate fear of further physical harm if they resist. If you tell women (or men) that the only resistance that matters is force, you might put someone in the situation where they get beaten to a pulp as well as raped. Furthermore, you've just established a system where a man could rape any woman he wants as long as he offers a convincing enough threat to her physical well-being.

What a shocking and disgusting sentiment.

She's just sexually assaulted him. Frankly, I don't see how that's at all acceptable. Clearly, if a stranger knocks you down in an alley, there's not even a hint of consent. But to be so passive and dispassionate about the whole process is just wrong. The word No, in any context, is completely meaningless.

LOL, great comment Amanda. Seriously, the example of a mother with a nagging child to a rape case is just about the dumbest comparison. A mother can very well deal with a child who won't take no for an answer. Can you fathom putting a 25-year-old man on your knee to spank him? Or sending him to the corner for a timeout? Just because this wasn't a cut-and-dry case of a guy putting a gun to the victim's head and forcing himself on her while her screams for help are silenced with duct tape doesn't mean that it wasn't rape. The victim repeatedly told him no; he never backed off. He even locked the door. There weren't any "mixed messages", it's not as if he let her go and at the last moment she changed her mind and stayed. As for the victim not physically fighting him, that was a case of someone being in a state of shock. She said “[i]t was like a dream was happening or some-thing.” Perfect example of having an out-of-body experience. The kind of mechanism you employ when something traumatic is happening to you. I'm pretty sure there are tons of rape victims that could describe the experience of their assault as it was happening as a dream or an out-of-body experience. You can't quite grasp what really went on until after it's done.

P.S. I do have to admit that I am generally of the opinion that pushing others over the Niagara Falls is behaviour people should try to avoid engaging in and that, if they do attempt it, responsibility should lie largely with the person doing the pushing, no matter what the victim was doing prior to being attacked. I guess I'm just weird that way.

Seriously -- cummon.

Sex gone bad and regretted in hindsight is not rape.

Extremely effective seduction by an otherwise unattractive partner is not rape.

Beer goggles that later clear up, revealing the awful truth -- not rape.

Female boss says "Brock, I have a spot that badly needs filling and I've decided you're the man to fill it" -- and she's not talking about a job position -- then that would be harrassment or rape, depending how far it goes.

A woman displaying a weapon and saying: "Get it out and get it up" would be rape.

A 300# girl sitting on a 150# guy and refusing to get off until she gets off -- that's rape.

Anything else is just lack of judgment self-control or initiative to just get up and walk the fuck out.

Look. I've been in some semi-coercive/stalker situations not unlike what Mojo has described. In one such situation, we went a certain ways and I just wasn't feelin it. I truly do value customer satisfaction so I tried to soldier on. But if the little soldier refuses to follow orders, what do you do? So eventually I had to back out. She became irate, called me names, insulted my manhood, called me insane, called me gay, said I lacked testosterone, etc. You know what I did? I exited the premises. Not complicated.

If I meet a girl who I think looks fun but also might be a little cuckoo for cocoa, I make sure not to disclose exactly where I live. That's just common sense -- there's stranger danger out there.

Then there are those "so wrong but it feels so right" situations. Doubts get swept aside in the torrent of hormones, "what will she say," "what will the Homies say" ... Truth be told, it IS sometimes hard to stop that train once it gets started. Yet I understand this is no exemption from personal responsibility. It was my fault and I will admit it. It was also her fault.

On "no [from a woman] ALWAYS means no" -- sure, and when I say I'll call you I ALWAYS mean I'll call you. Sorry to be un-PC but this is my empirical observation.

SHE: I think we should stop.

ME: I don't want to stop.

SHE: [Long pause] Neither do I.

FWIW. It need not be about women being "loose," just that they don't always know exactly what they want or -- imagine this -- sometimes change their minds. People of either sex are not always sure about what they want. That's a human reality. It's even more true of women.

why is “no means no” a problem, and for whom? and the answer is… um, older ladies, apparently.

That may be because being older, they have experienced more of the ambiguity of their own emotions and signals. Emotions are not black and white. Responsibility and communication are two-way streets, although it's absolutely true that the male, being generally the more powerful and dominant, does carry a greater responsibility no matter how powerful the urge. He should be judged by a higher standard according to the circumstances.

But here's the rub. Often, the only evidence to be had is evidence of resistance or force. Absent such evidence, all you have is she said/he said. How many innocent men do you want to send to prison on that basis? Attributing blanket angelic purity to female motives and demonic motives to males doesn't carry the argument.

SADY: UH HUH. and, like, if you want to play an incredibly hot erotic sexy game of saying “no” to sex every time you want sex, whatever. for me that is like playing a game of Let’s See How Close I Can Stick My Face To This Chainsaw every weekend.

As I said, it happens. And this does set up the problem of "how do you tell the difference?" This looks like a case where some self-policing amongst the sisterhood might be in order. But that runs up against this attitude:

SADY: which, you know. the slut-punishing vigilante squad aside,

See, this is the problem you have. Insisting on blanket victimhood without responsibility does not solve anything. Switching moralities from relative, to absolute, and back to relative again at your whim, doesn't help. "How can we stop rape?" is a totally different project from "how can we as women be free to tease and/or fuck whoever, whenever, whereever, while accepting absolutely zero responsibility for mixed signals or ambiguous situations?" isn't a sincere effort either. There's an element here of having your cake and eating it too. If you want to avoid going over Niagara Falls, you can't help it if somebody pushes you in. You can help that you were in the boat together and you decided to try to get out at the last minute.

LMFAO.

Really? Men pushing themselves on women until they say yes has to do with "procreation" and the "survival of our species?" Right.

And I'm sorry, but how does a woman not physically resist a man trying to put his penis in her mouth if she doesn't want it there? She has to open her mouth or at least her teeth.

I'm inclined to believe her, but her story is a bit suspect. And yes, I realize that women can consent to kissing and even to oral without consenting to sex.

Yes, guys should practically get written consent for sleeping with any woman who isn't their girlfriend, but women also have an obligation to be clear in their responses.

And there's no reason to be alone with a guy you've just met and don't trust, especially not in his room. This is just practical advise, not blaming the victim.

As to those upset that men think about sex and see dating as a way to get laid, are you really serious?

I'm not saying that _all_ American women are like this. I just find if interesting that I've dated rural women (African, Arabic and Asian, and raised to fit the stereotypes of submissiveness) who've let their intentions be known with more force than my ill-met encounters with American women. "Yes" was a definite "Yes", and "No" meant "The sex wouldn't be worth the injuries and embarrassment, so 'No' " So, kudos to all of the women who are strong enough to let your true desires be known, because the ones who are too "afraid" or "ashamed" or "virtuous" (read: secretly libidinous, but worried about their reputations) can drive a guy (who, admittedly, tries his best to be 'nice' and 'respectful') out of his mind.

P.S.-The guy in the case study? Rapist _and_ idiot. If I were in his position, the lack of visible interest _alone_ would have been enough to convince me to leave. As I was (also) lucky enough to learn before I would have been old enough to allow my hormones to get me in trouble-"It's better to be called a 'punk' than to be sent upstate and made into one. Prisoners have wives, mothers, sisters and daughters too."

Calling a man a rapist because he asks a question is evil. EVIL.

Jen...

The main purpose of a relationship between a man and a woman is procreation. Why does this make sense? Oh, I don't know, maybe because the SURVIVAL OF OUR SPECIES depends on it? Hmm... I don't know, that seems like a sensible thought.

Don't call me a "rapist" or "misogynist scumbag" (although I'm sure someone will, that's how feminists work nowadays). I'm not. I'm just a DISILLUSIONED anti-misandrist who wishes to enlighten people to their false assumptions of male HATRED.

That's the smart thing for a guy to do. Women, too, give in to their urges, and regret that decision in a way that guys rarely do. The best way to keep those next day regrets from turning into accusations of impropriety is to get her to own up to her interest in the act in question.

Legal Dictionary

Main Entry: co·er·cion
Pronunciation: kO-'&r-zh&n, -sh&n
Function: noun
: the use of express or implied threats of violence or reprisal (as discharge from employment) or other intimidating behavior that puts a person in immediate fear of the consequences in order to compel that person to act against his or her will.

Now, according to most normal people, if you are using force or the threat of force to get somebody to have sex with you, then that is rape.

Now in the scenario that was related in the post, I am in agreement that the sexual contact was unwanted and this was a definite case of sexual assault. But there was no implication of threat if the girl tried to physically resist, therefore according to the definition, no coercion. What I am trying to say is that there needs to be a reset of language in regards to the term "coercion."

We need to just call rape, rape and be clear of it's definitions in context to the situation required.

SADY: "dude proceeds to initiate sex, to which girl says no. sex continues on apace. which is rape, right?"
- No, it's not. Definitions are central in law, which means that rape and assault have distinct and separate meanings. The former is a subset of the latter, and requires a determination of forcible compulsion. Non-consent alone is insufficient to find guilt, absent of unconsciousness or mental deficiency.

The Supreme and Superior courts found that there was no forcible compulsion, and therefore no rape (in the legal sense). Does that mean Berkowitz did nothing wrong and that "no" is not enough? NO. He was convicted of indecent assault.

AMANDA: "beats me. the really scary thing is the assumption that because these jurors will decide based on their cultural attitudes and NOT the law, it doesn’t matter WHAT the law says rape is"
-How is that different from the both of you whom are convinced that Berkowitz was guilty of rape based on YOUR cultural attitudes and not what the law actually states?

THERE'S your damn rapist.

"but this is about the concept of keep making your gentle moves after hearing the word “no”, as any guy would do on a date"

OH. MY. GOD. is that really what "any guy" would do on a date? cuz if so, then that's our fucking problem, right there: guys obviously seeing every date as a chance to get a piece of ass. how very sad for you. i'm sorry you just can't seem to control yourself. i'm sorry you view every date with a woman as a chance to fuck.

get a life.

A pretty good way to make sure is for both sex partners to say "yes," or at the very least not say "no." If one of the sex partners says "no," that means that her body is not to be violated. If a woman says "No! Don't!," it doesn't mean you need to stop pursuing her, but you gotta get an affirmative out of her before you do whatever action elicited the "no" again. Why? Because neither you nor I know what this mystery woman is thinking. Women, strangely enough, are not all thinking the same thing when you attempt to have sex with them. Perhaps she's scared shitless of you! Perhaps she just didn't like that one thing you did. And maaaaybe she's just offering up token resistance.

Why not try checking instead of concocting arguments as to how you're not "actually" raping someone, because you "assume" that she likes it? This strategy has the benefit of a) preventing rape and b) preventing the pursuer from getting blindsided by a rape case.

This particular case is cut and dry: She said no up to, during, and after the act. When she says no, and then later says NOTHING, some pursuers may assume that means her body is theirs for the taking. Do not ever, ever assume that someone's body is yours for the taking. Sure, sometimes the woman may actually want to have sex with you, and it all works out fine; the one time she doesn't want to have sex with you, you're a rapist.

Sorry for being curt earlier, Ambiance. I do appreciate your voice in the comments. I can just get tired of having to explain again and again why rape victims don't have to "fight back" to be raped. Victims of all crimes use different strategies to respond to and cope with crimes committed against them. Rape victims shouldn't be held to a higher standard than the person who gets held up in their home and doesn't attempt resist when a criminal ties them up and gags them in the corner.

I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt here, Ambiance, by assuming that the woman in your scenario DOES really want it. Persuading someone to have sex with you when they REALLY don't want to is very, very close to as bad as rape. Coercion is also a form of force, and in this situation is preying on the be nice and not confrontational tendency of MANY women, imposed by a lot of the societal influences women are still exposed to.

The situation you're describing reminds me of a situation I found myself in a few years ago. I was out with a guy, we went back to his place, we started making out. I was totally there. He pushed me down, harder than I expected, and I winced. He backed off a little (not completely, because we still had our tongues down each other's throats at this point). And then resumed. I wasn't saying or implying no, I was just a little surprised by the amount of force he used and had a reflexive response to that. I wasn't really opposed to the amount of force or the action, but my body INSTINCTIVELY reacted that way. How is this analogous to your story? You assume that there's a reflexive, instinctive (yes, instinctive, bred by society's training of women to act that way) to say no, even if they do want it. It's not that they don't want it, just that the “proper” thing to do is say no.

In the case above, there was a repeated, clear, negative reaction to what was going on. She most likely didn't fight back because of another training of women: to be polite and non-confrontational. The fact that she was giving the dude a chance and was friendly with him probably enhanced this instinctive reaction not to violently fight back. *I* personally think that, if she had really wanted it to happen, and was just playing the rape card after being caught, she would have first tried to hide her act from her boyfriend and/or others and ONLY pulled the rape card when caught. Not run out of the room crying, immediately tell her boyfriend what happened, immediately report the rape, and follow through with the prosecution completely. While regret might be an immediate reaction, it strikes me that to come up with a devious plan to cover her actions would take at least a few minutes. While *some* women do use this tactic to explain away a sexual act they REGRET, the above analysis is a better standard, IMHO, to determine whether the rape charge is likely bogus than the standard applied: the amount of force used and how much she fought back/tried to prevent the situation. Rape may require force, but it shouldn't have to be a certain AMOUNT of PHYSICAL force. In a robbery, for instance, force can include simply grabbing something. If someone grabs my purse and I'm not quick enough or don't have the reflexive action to try and grab it back, that's STILL force. Just because all he did was pin her down doesn't mean he still didn't have sex with her by FORCE, i.e., rape her.

Ambience, let me help you out here. As long as you make your moves gentle enough that she doesn't bounce off the bed, it's not rape. That's right there in the article.

Amanda: Those were just comparisons. So from your previous comment, would you say the biggest difference between the child hearing "no" and still ask for the money 2 minutes later, vs a guy hearing "no" and still make another move 2 minutes later, is the intimidation behind it? The whole "you're shitting in your pants by now" and "he has a gun" and everything else? As long as the woman understands that she can choose to walk away anytime and not physically scared, would it not be rape?

Logical debate here, no need for personal attacks such as "was a really classy touch". But if attacking commenters that disagree with your point of view is your way of discouraging them from leaving comments on your blog, I can respect that.

Let's say a stranger comes up to you and says "GIVE ME ALL OF YOUR MONEY." You don't know the guy---you don't know if he's armed, dangerous, crazy, or in the mood to have a little fun with you. Still, you take a chance and don't just surrender your wallet. You say "no." The stranger gets closer to you. "GIVE ME ALL YOUR MONEY," he says. Again, you say "no," but you don't try to run or fight back---what if the guy IS crazy? What if he has a gun? Could you overpower him in a fight? The stranger begins to get physical with you. He's touching you now. You are fucking SHITTING YOUR PANTS AT THIS POINT, and as many times as you've imagined yourself the victor in this scenario, you just CAN'T MOVE FOR SOME REASON. "GIVE ME ALL YOUR MONEY," he says. "No," you say, again, somehow, even though you are losing your mind. He takes your money.

Personally, I don't like comparisons between rape and theft, and I find the business of creating analogies in order to make people understand that "no" means "no" extremely tiresome. Still, some people who cannot imagine---or in fact recall---themselves being raped sometimes find the comparisons helpful.

I will say it again: if the woman you are with says "no", and then later, seems insterested in hooking up, say: "You said no earlier, are you sure?"

I think the important thing to take away from this Sexist Beatdown is that even if you think a lady's "no" is just "token resistance," it's essential that you take that "no" seriously and cease and desist. Because what happens if it's not "token resistance"? What happens if she really does mean it? Then it's rape.

But it's so goddamn depressing that apparently it's not rape according to the PASC. :(

Ambiance: if a woman has thrown out some so-called "token resistance" but then hooks up with you later...just ask her! "Hey, you said "no" earlier. Are you sure you want to do this?" Its that easy.

Given that nothing physically forceful is used, is it still "rape" if she's already said "no" before, but didn't say it that specific time you made your advance?

As someone who deals with dude rapists... "Dudes [do] go around [insert-word-here] raping ladies all the time."

"Accidentally" isn't the right word, though. Rape isn't like dropping a plate. More like dudes don't bother to consider that what they're willing to do is rape. And don't respect women as beings (rather than things), so they pay little heed to indicators of an absence of enthusiastic consent.

Y'all were probably just joking, but i think you hit the nail on the head with "no means no except when that is inconvenient for you personally”--that's the non-logic.

The dudes in question ARE "less smart than your dog," but they don't deserve any benefits of doubt or of douche. There is a place for folks who rape, regardless of whether they're a hapless nice boy otherwise--it's called prison.