does NO really mean YES?

[callmeslick]

how confusing.......or just sick and twisted?
http://mic.com/articles/98938/rush-limb ... or-of-rape

[CUDA]

do you for one second believe that Limbaugh was advocating rape?????


and Media matters??? SERIOUSLY?????

[callmeslick]

do you for one second believe that Limbaugh was advocating rape?????


and Media matters??? SERIOUSLY?????

what did he mean by saying, "all men know that sometimes 'no' means 'yes'", whilst criticizing a college rape prevention scheme(which I'd admit seems rather unrealistic)?

[Spidey]

Sometimes “no” means keep trying.

But one should always wait till they get the affirmative.

I understand what Rush is trying to say, but as usual, he can’t seem to make his point correctly.

At least, that’s what I think…since I don’t have a Rush hate on.

[Tunnelcat]

Ya know, yes or no don't mean squat when a woman is drunk. And in my book of definitions, NO means NO, not "maybe" or "sometimes". Getting a woman drunk to try and coerce her into saying YES is still coercion while under intoxicants and anything said while drunk should be considered an outright NO. Rush can go stuff himself and shame on Ohio State for muddying the waters.

NO, it's so damn simple boys. What part don't you get?

[Sergeant Thorne]

The "No" part...

I think the issue here is that perhaps Rush is projecting a relative degree of innocence, ignorantly. The real problem here is not sex without explicit permission, and so the solution that structurally suggests that it is will be seen by those who may not understand the problem as ridiculous. The problem is emotional manipulation or coercion as a result of a lack of love and respect, and the enabling factor on the part of the "victims" is cowardice or fear, and certainly bad judgement. Society would do well to repent and return to not having sex before marriage as the standard. There are so many reasons to accept it as the right thing to do... This is a society without mooring, and it invites trouble/disaster.

[callmeslick]

I think what Rush is projecting is an outdated, male-centric set of rules that has allowed 'consensual' rape for eons. Just my guess.

[Will Robinson]

I've got almost as many years on this planet as Limbaugh and I don't know of any 'rule', spoken or implied that can be taken as permission for rape!

I think that's a big excuse that's been passed around by friends of rapists. Perhaps that's a bigger group than I'd imagine but that doesn't give them an ounce of cover in my mind.

Every 'rule' on the subject I ever heard was clear as a bell. 'She says she wants to' or you don't go there. No exceptions.

[Sergeant Thorne]

Well, let's get one thing straight, slick: in order for it to be "rape" by any stretch of the imagination, the woman must not want to do it. If you're a feminist, I suspect that may, in reality, shorten your list of offenses. IMO the circumstances for "consensual rape" are properly understood as the woman who is under intimidation doing something that she would otherwise not do. If you ask me, parents who cannot raise young women capable of dealing with such situations are as much at fault to society as parents who cannot raise young men who would never use any kind of intimidation on a woman.

Now I believe that part of this "no means yes" is actually touching on the fact that young people sometimes do not know their own minds, and they'll make a statement which is not entirely representative of their feelings, due to some self-imposed constraint. Now a guy having picked up on a positive indicator can hardly be blamed for being undissuaded. In this case, he just happens to know more about what the girl wants than her present reasoning will allow for (and in a more general sense people do this all of the time). A guy who is of the opinion that "no means yes" because he thinks "yes", on the other hand, should be kicked in the stones repeatedly, and then turned over to Dad.

Along slightly different lines, but relating to the subject I introduced in my last paragraph, my sister was once the object of interest to a guy at her work. The guy was trouble, and she knew it, but I spoke with her to be sure that it was really how she felt, so that there wouldn't be any complications, and so he wouldn't have a reason to be persistent (so I wouldn't have to break him in half).

[Foil]

Now a guy having picked up on a positive indicator can hardly be blamed for being undissuaded.

No.

If a guy thinks he picks up on a "positive indicator", but she says "no"... then it's a "no".
If a guy thinks he picks up on a "negative indicator", but she says "yes"... then it's still a "no".

If a guy gets conflicting messages, he can inquire further... but he should never, ever decide that "she doesn't know her own mind, but I know what she wants".

In this case, he just happens to know more about what the girl wants than her present reasoning will allow for (and in a more general sense people do this all of the time).

Whether or not a guy believes he knows more about what a girl wants than she does, he should never act on that belief in the face of contrary verbal or physical messages.

----------

I have a son who I will start to teach about these things here in a few years, and one thing I will certainly teach him is that the "she's saying one thing, but I know better; I know what she really wants" thought process is psychotic and dangerous.

Frankly, it really disturbs me to see it voiced here in E&C.

[vision]

Frankly, it really disturbs me to see it voiced here in E&C.

Agreed. I was going to reply to Thorne's post earlier but was too disgusted and closed my browser. Sickening.

[CUDA]

No is No

/end discussion

[Sergeant Thorne]

I can't help but feel that you folks are all ignoring context here at best in your hurry to be incensed. And you accuse me of being self-righteous... The point I made is valid. To set you straight, in case you're ignoring other things I've said, it's not wrong to engage in any sort of romantic activity past a protest--a person's word is not the sum total of their will--what's wrong, and what creates problems is engaging in romantic activity when there is no love/care, and no absolute commitment. So maybe your rules should apply to "players", but that's a wrong situation from the get-go so...

[Will Robinson]

I can't help but feel that you folks are all ignoring context here at best in your hurry to be incensed. And you accuse me of being self-righteous... The point I made is valid. To set you straight, in case you're ignoring other things I've said, it's not wrong to engage in any sort of romantic activity past a protest--a person's word is not the sum total of their will--what's wrong, and what creates problems is engaging in romantic activity when there is no love/care, and no absolute commitment. So maybe your rules should apply to "players", but that's a wrong situation from the get-go so...

It sounds like you are saying you can force yourself on someone as long as you are in love with them....committed to them...

That is way wrong in my book. And thankfully for society, in the criminal law books as well.

If a girl is saying yes with her hands but no with her mouth you have to stop because she is not committed and loving sexual activity is a strictly consensual event. Without consent it is wrong.

In simplistic, crude terms you don't get to say you didn't rape a woman because her nipples got hard when you pinched them....

[Sergeant Thorne]

I never implied forcing yourself on another person--if you have to force yourself then I would say there's no argument--she is against it, and by the way no one who cares for another person forces themselves on them, which is part of what I was getting at when I talked about "context" earlier. The topic being discussed is explicit verbal consent--a safe legal/social environment for people who will not necessarily love, care for, and are not necessarily committed to the other person. It's foolishness, but so is "love" without commitment.

[Foil]

To set you straight, in case you're ignoring other things I've said, it's not wrong to engage in any sort of romantic activity past a protest--a person's word is not the sum total of their will--...

Okay, so in the context of romance, you're effectively saying that it's okay for a guy who believes that "she's saying no, but I know better" to pursue a relationship, even past a verbal protest?

Frankly, I'd call that "stalking".

----------

Back in college, my wife was stalked by a guy who wouldn't take a repeated verbal "no" because he thought "she'll realize she's really interested in me". Long story short, it was one of the worst things she had to deal with that year.

I'm sorry, Thorne, the idea that a guy should ever act (romantically, or sexually) past a protest is disturbing. My parents taught me better than that, and I will teach my son better than that.

[Sergeant Thorne]

Okay, so in the context of romance, you're effectively saying that it's okay for a guy who believes that "she's saying no, but I know better" to pursue a relationship, even past a verbal protest?

Frankly, I'd call that "stalking".

It would make it a lot easier to avoid straw-men if this sort of extrapolation were replaced with a request for clarification. There's pursuing a girl, and then there's stalking, and the difference has little to do with the girl's response. I would classify stalking as pursuing a girl contrary to her interest, or purely for selfish reasons--with no regard for her objection in the face of being repulsed. Now if I thought a lot of a girl, and she turned me down, being persistent to understand her objection and overcome it to change her mind is not stalking, now is it? Yet she said "no", and I persisted...

[Foil]

It would make it a lot easier to avoid straw-men if this sort of extrapolation were replaced with a request for clarification.

Okay, I'd like a clarification:

...it's not wrong to engage in any sort of romantic activity past a protest...

I would classify stalking as pursuing a girl contrary to her interest... with no regard for her objection.

In the former, you say "it's not wrong" to pursue past a protest.
In the latter, you define "stalking" as pursuing contrary to an objection.

So which is it? Is it "not wrong", or is it "stalking"?

[Sergeant Thorne]

Gotcha. The clerification would be: "not wrong" is not "never wrong"--"not wrong" is "not by definition wrong", or "not in and of itself morally wrong".

[CUDA]

I can't help but feel that you folks are all ignoring context here at best in your hurry to be incensed. And you accuse me of being self-righteous... The point I made is valid. To set you straight, in case you're ignoring other things I've said, it's not wrong to engage in any sort of romantic activity past a protest--a person's word is not the sum total of their will--what's wrong, and what creates problems is engaging in romantic activity when there is no love/care, and no absolute commitment. So maybe your rules should apply to "players", but that's a wrong situation from the get-go so...

I still call BS. My (FUTURE) wife and I got a little hot and heavy (before we got Married) she said NO. I stopped. Nuf said. we were "romantically" involved, but had not yet crossed that line.

NO is NO

turned around and took a cold shower

[vision]

In this case, he just happens to know more about what the girl wants than her present reasoning will allow for...

[Sergeant Thorne]

I think you're addressing an argument that I'm not making, CUDA. I agree that "No is No" is a good principle to abide by.

[Pumo]

My 5 cents:

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/no

No more, no less...
"NO"

[Tunnelcat]

.....turned around and took a cold shower

I bet things shriveled right quick!

Maybe most college women need to learn the patented groin kick or knee smack better. That will put a stop to any further unwanted "progress". Might not be good for a long term friendship however.

[Foil]

Maybe most college women need to learn the patented groin kick or knee smack better. That will put a stop to any further unwanted "progress". Might not be good for a long term friendship however.

In my experience, if a college guy is making any kind of move that warrants a groin kick or knee smack, odds are they're not going to be long-term friend material.

[CUDA]

.....turned around and took a cold shower

I bet things shriveled right quick!

Maybe most college women need to learn the patented groin kick or knee smack better. That will put a stop to any further unwanted "progress". Might not be good for a long term friendship however.

I guess I just have a different sense of Honor then some

[Tunnelcat]

I don't know CUDA. My hubby told me that a cold shower always caused shriveling down there for him. Isn't that nature's way of protecting the little spermies from getting too cold?

[flip]

Purely to prevent hypothermia I think