5 ms·

I wouldn't say that it usually means, but rather that it could mean "Yes, but later". Usually, "No" means "No".

by mekoka 14y ago

shawnz 14y ago
To generalize the point a little bit, I'd say that "no" can sometimes mean "maybe, but you'll need to increase my confidence first". This seems to apply to OP's original dilemma too.
einhverfr 14y ago
I think the fundamental problem is that everyone (men and women) use mixed signals to create sexual tension. There is simply nothing wrong with that. It's partly about keeping the other person guessing as to what you will be doing next and this is what it is about. People drink as part of courtship. People use no to mean maybe as part of courtship. "No means no" means "everyone gets veto power over actual contact." It does not mean "no" applies to anything more than the present moment. Otherwise every aspect of courtship on both sides (men and women) goes out the window.
- masterzora 14y ago
  No, no, no. If you are told "no" by someone who actually means it and decide that this really means "I should keep trying" it means you are being totally creepy by disrespecting their clearly-stated wishes and may well be crossing the line into sexual harassment. "No means no" does not apply strictly to contact only.
  - einhverfr 14y ago
    "No, no, no. If you are told "no" by someone who actually means it" That suggests that it is not actually meant that way at least a significant portion of the time, correct? The problem of sexual harassment though is that it is usually something that is going to hit the employer (or public accommodations provider) before it hits the individual engaging in the offending behavior (because of standards like "severe" and "pervasive" which often involve multiple actors to prove). So it is not usually a personal cause of action although that may vary in some states.
    - masterzora 14y ago
      > That suggests that it is not actually meant that way at least a significant portion of the time, correct? No, it merely suggests that it is sometimes not actually meant that way, anywhere between a single occurrence and always. Extrapolation into actual numbers is both difficult and meaningless. Even if 99/100 people never actually mean "no" it would not make it okay to harass the 1/100. > The problem of sexual harassment [...] This entire paragraph seems to be written from the perspective that harassment is only a problem if you are actually held legally liable which is both wrong and a dangerously horrific place to come from so I hope I am misinterpreting what you say.
      - einhverfr 14y ago
        No, it merely suggests that it is sometimes not actually meant that way, anywhere between a single occurrence and always. So you think that sometimes but not a significant portion? Not enough to pay attention to? This entire paragraph seems to be written from the perspective that harassment is only a problem if you are actually held legally liable which is both wrong and a dangerously horrific place to come from so I hope I am misinterpreting what you say. Well, you have a problem. Yes, harassment generally is a bad thing. Most people you would hope wouldn't keep asking someone out on a date after getting shot down a bunch of times. That's not necessarily harassment though. It could be socially clueless or stupid, or whatever. Moreover at a bare minimum such behavior smacks of the sort of failure that builds on itself. But being afraid of committing harassment is as big a danger (or perhaps even larger) as actually harassing someone. You can't have the confidence that people find attractive if you are always afraid of crossing lines. Sexy men are unafraid of sexual harassment lines. They don't need to be. It will never become sufficiently severe or pervasive because there are always greener pastures and one isn't going to waste time with the uninterested. If "no means no" means you don't get to ask again for a date even if it is not made crystal clear that no means never, then if you are ever turned down by your spouse for sex, I guess you have to get a divorce if sex is important to the marriage. Nobody believes that. And between those extremes it is impossible to draw articulable lines. It's like these recent cybercrime laws that makes it a crime to knowingly cause offence or embarrassment. Sometimes people should be offended or embarrassed. As Eugene Volokh has pointed out these on their face criminalize on-line complaining about cheating significant others.....
- deleted 14y ago
  [deleted]

I wouldn't say that it usually means, but rather that it could mean "Yes, but later". Usually, "No" means "No".

by mekoka 14y ago

I wouldn't say that it usually means, but rather that it could mean "Yes, but later". Usually, "No" means "No".

To generalize the point a little bit, I'd say that "no" can sometimes mean "maybe, but you'll need to increase my confidence first". This seems to apply to OP's original dilemma too.

einhverfr 14y ago

I think the fundamental problem is that everyone (men and women) use mixed signals to create sexual tension. There is simply nothing wrong with that. It's partly about keeping the other person guessing as to what you will be doing next and this is what it is about. People drink as part of courtship. People use no to mean maybe as part of courtship. "No means no" means "everyone gets veto power over actual contact." It does not mean "no" applies to anything more than the present moment. Otherwise every aspect of courtship on both sides (men and women) goes out the window.

masterzora 14y ago
No, no, no. If you are told "no" by someone who actually means it and decide that this really means "I should keep trying" it means you are being totally creepy by disrespecting their clearly-stated wishes and may well be crossing the line into sexual harassment. "No means no" does not apply strictly to contact only.
- einhverfr 14y ago
  "No, no, no. If you are told "no" by someone who actually means it" That suggests that it is not actually meant that way at least a significant portion of the time, correct? The problem of sexual harassment though is that it is usually something that is going to hit the employer (or public accommodations provider) before it hits the individual engaging in the offending behavior (because of standards like "severe" and "pervasive" which often involve multiple actors to prove). So it is not usually a personal cause of action although that may vary in some states.
  - masterzora 14y ago
    > That suggests that it is not actually meant that way at least a significant portion of the time, correct? No, it merely suggests that it is sometimes not actually meant that way, anywhere between a single occurrence and always. Extrapolation into actual numbers is both difficult and meaningless. Even if 99/100 people never actually mean "no" it would not make it okay to harass the 1/100. > The problem of sexual harassment [...] This entire paragraph seems to be written from the perspective that harassment is only a problem if you are actually held legally liable which is both wrong and a dangerously horrific place to come from so I hope I am misinterpreting what you say.
    - einhverfr 14y ago
      No, it merely suggests that it is sometimes not actually meant that way, anywhere between a single occurrence and always. So you think that sometimes but not a significant portion? Not enough to pay attention to? This entire paragraph seems to be written from the perspective that harassment is only a problem if you are actually held legally liable which is both wrong and a dangerously horrific place to come from so I hope I am misinterpreting what you say. Well, you have a problem. Yes, harassment generally is a bad thing. Most people you would hope wouldn't keep asking someone out on a date after getting shot down a bunch of times. That's not necessarily harassment though. It could be socially clueless or stupid, or whatever. Moreover at a bare minimum such behavior smacks of the sort of failure that builds on itself. But being afraid of committing harassment is as big a danger (or perhaps even larger) as actually harassing someone. You can't have the confidence that people find attractive if you are always afraid of crossing lines. Sexy men are unafraid of sexual harassment lines. They don't need to be. It will never become sufficiently severe or pervasive because there are always greener pastures and one isn't going to waste time with the uninterested. If "no means no" means you don't get to ask again for a date even if it is not made crystal clear that no means never, then if you are ever turned down by your spouse for sex, I guess you have to get a divorce if sex is important to the marriage. Nobody believes that. And between those extremes it is impossible to draw articulable lines. It's like these recent cybercrime laws that makes it a crime to knowingly cause offence or embarrassment. Sometimes people should be offended or embarrassed. As Eugene Volokh has pointed out these on their face criminalize on-line complaining about cheating significant others.....
deleted 14y ago
[deleted]