Tags
[content warning: rape]
It’s the Christmas season. Trees and nativity scenes are going up in houses. Presents are being wrapped. People are watching traditional Christmas movies like Die Hard. And feminists everywhere are practicing our traditional wanky discourse about Baby It’s Cold Outside.
I think it is fucked to try to get people not to listen to Baby It’s Cold Outside. I personally enjoy listening to the Chris Colfer/Darren Criss version, as well as many other songs about behavior I don’t endorse in real life. It is okay for people to enjoy things! At best, I’d suggest that it’s probably inappropriate to play Baby It’s Cold Outside in stores, because rape-culture songs really ought to be opt-in, but there are really many, many more important feminist issues than enthusiastically consenting individuals choosing to listen to Baby It’s Cold Outside of their own free will.
On the other hand, I have also seen people explaining that Baby It’s Cold Outside is not really a rape-culture song. You see– they argue– at the time Baby It’s Cold Outside was written, women couldn’t really say ‘yes’ to sex, because that would mean she wasn’t a good girl; they had to reject men’s advances whether they wanted to or not. So the Mouse is saying token ‘nos’ that she doesn’t expect the man to listen to, and the Wolf is offering her lots of excuses she can tell people. So the song is about her exercising her sexual agency in a culture that didn’t want her to! Feminism!
The problem with this interpretation is that most people– in the early twentieth century and today– don’t say “no! Stop! I don’t want this!” They use soft nos. Think about the last time you turned down something you didn’t want (nonsexually). You might say “this evening has been very nice, but I really must go.” Or “I have to leave, my parents will worry.” Or “I really ought to say no.” For most people who aren’t impaired in social skills, these sentences are still easily parsable as a refusal. Even in ask culture, refusals tend to be fairly soft: we probably wouldn’t say we’d love to do something that we wouldn’t, but we might say “I’m sorry, I just don’t have time.”
The Wolf is blatantly ignoring the Mouse’s soft nos. When a person pushes another person’s boundaries, it’s common for the other person to give in, even if they don’t want to. In this situation, the Mouse is alone with the Wolf. He is probably significantly physically stronger than her. She’s strongly implied to be more innocent than him. If he does hurt her, the general social opinion will be that she asked for it because she was alone with a man. In this situation, a lot of people would give in and do whatever the Wolf says.
So essentially this is a situation where it is very difficult to tell apart a person who’s saying “no” to sex from a person who’s saying “yes” to sex. The technical word for this is “rape culture.”
Now, a lot of people are pretty good at reading other people’s body language and tone of voice. It’s likely that the Wolf actually cares about whether the Mouse wants to be there, and if she sounded scared would help her into her coat and take her home. But that’s dependent on the Wolf’s ability to read body language: if he misreads the Mouse’s signals, he would coerce her into sex.
If the Wolf is a little less scrupulous, the difficulty of distinguishing “yes” and “no” offers him a way to salve his conscience. After all– he might think– women always say “no” when they mean “yes”, so there’s no harm in convincing or even forcing a woman who says “no”. With a little bit of self-deception, he can convince himself that he didn’t notice the signs of her fear, or that those signs were actually eagerness. That means he’s much more likely to commit rape.
Even if the Wolf doesn’t care about whether or not he’s committing rape, his friends might. In that case, “yes” sounding like “no” gives him a way to justify his behavior to others: after all, women always say “no” when they mean “yes”, and she went up to his apartment and took his drinks and didn’t leave, so she definitely wanted it. Many people are not consciously aware of the small signs of anticipation or happiness that they notice in people they’re flirting with; it’d be all too easy for a rapist Wolf to describe his behavior in a way that sounds like what everyone else is doing.
It’s a much better system to assume that when a person says “no” to sex– including soft nos– that they probably actually mean “no” and it is not a good idea to attempt to repeatedly convince them. This system offers no plausible deniability to rapists, either to themselves or to others. And it minimizes risk that someone will misread another person’s signals when by “no” they actually did mean “no”.
In conclusion: depending on how the song is played, it’s very possible the Mouse consented. However, Baby It’s Cold Outside is still a product of a rape culture.
The first time I ever heard the song was on the Muppet show (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-EJ1SBAO1HU) and remains the definitive version in my mind.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Sexual harassment is still sexual harassment.
I’m not going to say it isn’t funny, because obviously a lot of people obviously thought and think it’s funny, but let’s just say my empathy wasn’t tuned in the right way to enjoy it.
LikeLiked by 1 person
The Muppets repeated a lot of sketchy stuff. That business of Miss Piggy hauling off and slugging Kermit like it was funny was always pretty naff.
LikeLiked by 1 person
On the other hand, I have also seen people explaining that Baby It’s Cold Outside is not really a rape-culture song. You see– they argue– at the time Baby It’s Cold Outside was written, women couldn’t really say ‘yes’ to sex, because that would mean she wasn’t a good girl; they had to reject men’s advances whether they wanted to or not. So the Mouse is saying token ‘nos’ that she doesn’t expect the man to listen to, and the Wolf is offering her lots of excuses she can tell people. So the song is about her exercising her sexual agency in a culture that didn’t want her to! Feminism!
This seems a little odd. I’ve seen people citing the culture of the time as reasons it’s not a rape song. I don’t think I’ve seen anyone using this reasoning to claim that it’s not a rape culture song, its original context seems to be pretty unambiguously that. Indeed, a stronger statement can be made: In its original context, it’s not a rape song precisely because it is a rape-culture song. So, y’know, one way or another, not something to go playing in department stores…
LikeLiked by 2 people
“I have also seen people explaining that Baby It’s Cold Outside is not really a rape-culture song. You see– they argue– at the time Baby It’s Cold Outside was written, women couldn’t really say ‘yes’ to sex, because that would mean she wasn’t a good girl; they had to reject men’s advances whether they wanted to or not. So the Mouse is saying token ‘nos’ that she doesn’t expect the man to listen to, and the Wolf is offering her lots of excuses she can tell people. So the song is about her exercising her sexual agency in a culture that didn’t want her to! Feminism!”
I swear I read Scott Alexander making exactly this argument at some point in the distant past. Can’t find the link. Anyone?
LikeLike
I can’t find it with a quick google of slate star codex.
You’d be surprised how little people listen to actual lyrics of songs.
I remember pointing out to someone that the song “Jenny was a friend of mine” was basically a guy in a police interview who’s murdered Jenny with the song cutting back and forth between the interview and the murder.
LikeLike
Sounds a bit like his Russian Spy Theory of romance, from the squid314 days?
That was less about “plausible deniability for staying” as “plausible deniability for whether you’re asking“, though.
LikeLike
My response to the “it was just how sex was negotiated back in the day” argument is to ask people to watch the original film version: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7MFJ7ie_yGU
There’s both a male and a female Wolf scene, so yay for equality I guess, but neither one is a scene that screams “two consenting adults dealing with necessary social fictions.” They’ve both got a *lot* of arm-grabbing and physically blocking someone from leaving, and the female-Wolf scene ends with the Mouse being tackled onto a sofa.
Obviously it’s not shot as a rape scene, but it is shot as a “sometimes you gotta convince ’em, am I right fellas/ladies” scene, not a mutual flirtation.
LikeLike
Yeah, if the song is the lyrics + a bunch of physical contact, that would totally change the meaning for me.
Having only heard the song, I’d always imagined the conversation happening where Mouse was perfectly able to leave.
If Mouse is free to leave, then Mouse doesn’t need to convince wolf of anything. And the conversation is about ways to sleep over without being judged by a spinster aunt.
If Wolf is blocking the door, then Mouses lines are about why Wolf should let mouse go. And the whole thing gets a lot darker.
LikeLiked by 3 people
Unfortunately, physical resistance can also become “just how it was negotiated”.
As long as the taboo on saying “yes” to sex exists, it keeps catching up with “clever” ways of getting around it. When everyone knows that only saying “no”, but not doing anything, means “yes”, then that becomes taboo as well. To have consensual sex without seeming “slutty” (less worthy of respect and less desirable) to your partner, you have to use negative body language. In the next cultural iteration, you have to try to leave. Then you have to seem scared or angry. Then, fight back a bit.
My grandmother said she slapped the first boy who kissed her, solely because she felt completely certain that it would be improper (i.e., “slutty”) not to.
Eventually, every stage of negotiating and having consensual sex can become indistinguishable from rape to anyone but mind-readers, and then the only way to clearly and effectively say “no” requires never, ever being alone with a man.
LikeLiked by 5 people
Don’t even have to go to your grandmothers day, the first kiss with my, now, fiancee was preceded by a whispered, slightly breathless “we shouldn’t” and I got slapped a few times along the way in the years following before we got together for good.
Taking soft no’s very seriously has also had a girl angrily banging on my chest growling “you’re. not. supposed. to.take. that. literally.” punctuated with banging and getting terribly insulted at, from her point of view, suddenly being rejected without warning.
LikeLiked by 1 person
It’s not just arm-grabbing and door-blocking, he keeps taking her coat and hat away. And he says “look outside” and then he pulls the curtains closed. That’s halfway through the song and I’m not watching the rest.
LikeLike
I feel like I’m reading a different song.
Mouse wants to stay. The problem is that they also want to avoid getting slut shamed by their relatives.
So, the debate isn’t, “stay because I badgered you,” or “stay because otherwise you’ll crash your car on black ice,” but rather “the weather gives you a socially acceptable excuse for staying; you can achieve both your goals.”
I’d feel differently if Mouse stated a personal desire to leave. But mouse is explicitly enjoying the back and forth. (“I wish I knew how to break this spell”) Mouse even offers to continue the conversation several times, “maybe just a half a drink more” and “maybe just a cigarette more”
I’ll agree that I can imagine body language or non-textual things that would make this creepy. But that’s true of conversations generally.
Similarly, I agree that there’s merit to Ozzys general point that people should respect soft no answers.
But it seems like the coercive element need to be imported here. If they’re present, the interaction is bad. But without them (/with charitable assumptions about non verbal communication) you have two people enthusiastically consenting to a negotiation that they both seem to enjoy.
LikeLike
That sounds like… the opposite of enjoyment? I mean, sometimes people do use that kind of language hyperbolically (e.g., “oh God, stop! your jokes are KILLING me!”), but that’s not the primary meaning.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I’m not sure I’ve ever seen “enspelled” used this way. Could you give me an example?
—-
But, as I’ve stared at it more, I think the core difference is that Ozzy is assuming that Wolf drove and is needed to drive back.
I’d figured that Mouse took a cab or drove herself. And that really does make all the difference.
Since I’d assumed that Mouse took a cab, Mouse is free to leave. So, the actual negotiation is Wolf trying to convince Mouse to stay longer.
That’s probably giving me a bias towards reading Mouse’s part as happy. If she wasn’t enjoying herself, she’d just stop the duet and leave.
If Mouse can leave, then Mouse’s nos aren’t directed at Wolf. Wolf isn’t asking to do anything. He’s just providing a voice to Mouse’s id in an argument it’s having with Mouse’s super-ego.
Since the relevant decision is Mouse’s, the whole question of consent pretty much dissolves.
In contrast, Ozzy’s reading is that Mouse is asking Wolf for a ride.
In this case, the song is about Mouse’s attempts to convince Wolf to let her leave. In that case, he is making a decision. So, he is ignoring her no, and being all kinds of creepy.
—-
So, I’d propose that all you need to do to fix the song is to change line 2 from:
“I’ve got to go away” to “I’ve got to drive away.”
You can keep pretty much everything else* as is and have a song about fully-consenting banter.
*The “what’s in this drink” line might also need an edit, depending on how much we expect the audience to be aware of jokes from 1940s movies.
LikeLike
I don’t know, maybe we’re using different concepts of “enjoying”? To me, “I wish I knew how to break this spell” literally says, “I wish I had a way to get out of this dynamic / mental state”.
E.g., if someone said, “Oh dear, I’m too drunk to think straight — I wish I could sober up,” would you respond with, “But you’ve admitted to being drunk, which is known to be a pleasurable state, therefore you are actually enjoying it, no matter what you say”?
It’s not clear to me that this is an ethical thing to do. Everyone’s id already has a voice inside their head, and amplifying it when their judgment is impaired is questionable, especially when it would cause you to benefit at the expense of their long-term interests.
LikeLike
I have much easier time enjoying songs about behaviors that I don’t endorse when it’s sufficiently obvious that the author doesn’t endorse them either. Like when Ensemble of Christ the Saviour and Crude Mother Earth sings “kill the cosmonauts – they’re climbing to the sky, and doing what the god has prohibited” it’s really darn obvious that it’s a satire on the skyrocketing Christian fundamentalism in Russia, and not the actual endorsement of such actions. When Rammstein sings about immurement, it’s obvious that they’re just telling horror stories. And you don’t even need to have scary music to have this obviousness. There’s this cheerful song about nuclear apocalypse – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wpW848KdTio – and I also think it’s obvious that the author doesn’t endorse killing everyone on the planet. But when Robin Thicke sings about bulldozing through soft “no”s, it’s also really darn obvious that neither he, nor anyone in a position to tell him “WTF are singing about?” saw anything problematic about this behavior. And neither did the authors of Baby It’s Cold Outside.
Now, I’m all for the freedom of speech, and not restricting what kind of media people consume, but I also think it would be a quite decent social norm to not play dubcon songs whose authors clearly didn’t see it as anything problematic in public venues, whose visitors didn’t specifically consent to hearing it. Like, everyone certainly should have the right to see “Triumph of the Will”, but it is not a good idea to show it on a huge screen on a town square, not even during a special event, but just as a random piece of the usual stream of ads. And neither it is a good idea to play Baby It’s Cold Outside in the context of publicly playing random Christmas songs.
Also, people who say that it’s not about rape culture should just go and see how the proponents of rape culture react to the attempts to make it not about rape culture: [cw: rape apologism] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZSf6DughV3A. People do very much perceive this song as being about disrespecting boundaries and consent, and they defend this behavior furiously.
LikeLiked by 2 people
When you linked to the “cheerful song about the nuclear apocalypse”, I thought the link might be to this one, also clearly satirical.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I thought it would be “99 Luftballons.”
LikeLiked by 4 people
I expected “It’s the end of the world as we know it (and I feel fine)”. Although I guess it’s not specifically about *nuclear* apocalypse.
LikeLike
Thanks for the link to the rewritten version. It’s amusing and upsetting how upset the commenters are.
LikeLike
this is the first i’m hearing that it’s about not being a rape culture song. the point is it’s not a RAPE song, because at the time a woman being enthusiastic and staying over to someone she’s not married to would be scandalous. So women say no when they mean yes AND when they mean no, and you have to distinguish between them based on how soft of a no it is, body language etc.
it’s sort of like the thing with offering someone a gift, them refusing, reoffering, rerefusing, rerereoffering and then finally accepting. accepting after they offer it the first time is seen as rude in the cultures where that happens. but reoffering three times is probably rude in cultures where that isn’t normal.
since people say no even when they mean yes, saying no is not enough of an excuse against being called a slut/ proof against ‘wanting it’ and people assume you were asking for it if e.g. you are wearing revealing clothes or are alone with a strange man even if you said no and meant it (i.e. rape culture etc.).
The argument i’ve seen is about whether she was saying no but meant yes or was saying no and meant no, i don’t think anyone disagrees that the norms that your options are ‘no that means yes or no that means no’ are fucked up and rape culture-y.
The impression from just the song (since there’s no body language) i got was that the mouse is worried mostly about what people will say rather than not actually wanting to have sex, and the wolf is giving her excuses she can use to deflect what other people would say.
Now is the first time i saw the video though and the body language in that makes it seem more like she did actually want to leave (and the male mouse in that version too) rather than being into it but just worried about what people would think.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I think this is a response to a very popular Tumblr post, which does say the song illustrates rape culture, but also that:
…and that seems to miss the point of why rape culture is bad. It sounds like, “Look, she fooled rape culture by using NO to mean YES! It’s so awesome!” Whereas, in reality, this “solution” is not awesome, but terrible, for the reasons Ozy described, and being reminded that it used to be (and in many places still is) normal is probably not most people’s idea of a sweet, heartwarming winter song.
If you fail to refuse a gift effectively enough, you might end up owning a thing you don’t really want, and you might owe someone a small favor. If you fail to refuse sex effectively, the consequences can be a lot more distressing than that.
(And by the way, “people will talk” used to be a real risk, something that could actually ruin a woman’s life. Even if that’s literally the only reason she doesn’t want to have sex, it’s a perfectly valid reason, not something she obviously needs to be talked out of.)
LikeLiked by 3 people
Hi! I wrote the tumblr post you’re talking to, and it explicitly ends with saying that while the song is not literally depicting a rape, it is definitely depicting an example of rape culture. So I’m not sure why you think Ozy’s disagreeing with anything I said; I 100% endorse everything they said, and I also 100% endorse my original post.
LikeLiked by 3 people
(Apologies, Ozy – I think I used the wrong pronoun and didn’t mean to.)
LikeLike
Side note – where do the terms “mouse” and “wolf” here come from?
LikeLiked by 2 people
IDK. They’re the traditional words for the two parts, I think.
LikeLike
This is clearly all wrong, wolves canonically eat rabbits and mice are canonically eaten by cats! Somebody got their animal metaphors all mixed up.
LikeLiked by 2 people
I don’t think I’d ever heard of “Baby It’s Cold Outside” until I was an adult and had moved north of where I grew up. I wonder if it’s only played in certain regions of the US. I’m curious as to whether other Americans here grew up with the song.
I also had no idea of it featuring a wolf and a mouse until today.
LikeLike
I grew up with the song. Your reference to moving north makes me think you grew up somewhere it’s not cold? I grew up in New York and heard it plenty – we even sang it in my high school chorus.
LikeLike
I honestly have never heard of it until this week’s discourse.
LikeLike
I first remember hearing it in Houston, where snow is a pretty exceptional event – saw it twice in most of five winters there, and it was nowhere near “up to your knees” and stayed on the ground less than 24 hours both times. Only after moving back to Winnipeg did I start to hear the song regularly. I can only assume it’s had a recent-ish surge in popularity after being dormant for a few decades – I never remember hearing it growing up.
LikeLike
What about the line “Say what’s in this drink?”? Even if you decide not to take it as a date rape drug, it still seems like he’s trying to get her drunk.
LikeLike
According to a recent Tumblr post, at that point in history “what’s in this drink?” was a joke understood to mean “there’s nothing in this drink, not even alcohol, but I’ll pretend I’m drunk to excuse my behavior” – precisely the kind of thing one would expect from someone trying to do something socially stigmatized.
LikeLiked by 2 people
In the movie the answer was “alcohol”. I guess you could kind of take it as a roofie, but then the rest of the song doesn’t make a lot of sense if Mouse is about to collapse.
LikeLike
This song still creeps the heck out of me, and I’m a) a man, and b) listen to Black Metal a lot. Incidentally, it might have played a part in convincing Sayyid Qutb of how thoroughly corrupt western society was (and the rest, as they say, is history):
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Power_of_Nightmares
I definitely prefer Ozy’s vision of a society, but I fear we’re not quite there yet. Right now, we seem to be stuck in some kind of limbo between that and ye olden days, and all the poor non-psychics out there have absolutely no clue what someone actually means or wants, unless we know each other so well that we might as well be married already.
I just take people literally unless they’re *really* obvious about it, but I’m well aware that this is a suboptimal strategy – and the results seem to confirm that.
LikeLike
It is a stretch to call it rape, but the bottom line is that the guy isn’t being a gentleman, and is putting his selfish interests ahead of the girl and her concerns with her reputation and possibility of getting pregnant in the 1940’s.
LikeLike
This doesn’t make sense to me.
If the girl wants to have sex and is just going through the motions to false-reject him before ultimately accepting, it’s not rape and not selfish.
If the girl doesn’t want to have sex, and the guy is trying to get her to do it anyway, that’s at least approaching rape.
Do you mean that she might want to but is trying to make a wise decision not to?
LikeLiked by 2 people
You can celebrate people finding creative ways of achieving their goals in a restrictive culture without celebrating that culture. It’s awesome that the woman in the song gets to have sex, and managed to find a way to do so within the restrictions placed upon her. That doesn’t mean the restrictions are good, it just means its admirable when people manage to find a way to overcome them.
I hate that America has a complex tax code that can be used to entrap innocent people in a bureaucratic nightmare. But I still think it was pretty awesome when Ness nabbed Capone for tax evasion.
LikeLiked by 1 person
No, it’s not awesome, because the next time a woman tries to use a “soft no” while communicating with this man about sex, he will take it as a “yes”.
Personally, I never say “no” if I don’t mean it. But I had to resort to violence to “prove” that I meant it, once. That was not a pleasant experience. And if I had been just a little more averse to hurting another person, or a little more afraid of the consequences, or even if it had taken me a little longer to switch modes (processing this unprecedented situation already seemed to leave me frozen for several seconds!), it could have been much worse.
LikeLiked by 1 person
In a world where you can make everyone suddenly do what you want, yes.
In actual reality, not so much.
Right now, assuming that most people follow the traditional dating model, there are two categories of men:
M1. Those who will accept soft nos as no
M2. Those who will keep trying after a soft no, to various extent (some so much that it becomes assault/rape)
and two categories of women:
W1. Those who only say no if they mean no
W2. Those who use a soft no when do want sex
Men who are in M1, will fail with W2 women, while M2 men can succeed with W1 & W2. Given that most men care highly about having sex, they will only be willing to be M1, if this strategy doesn’t reduce their chances too much.
Now lets assume that you are highly effective at convincing men to adopt M1 strategy. Those men will only have a chance with W1, so you’ll get a huge mismatch between ‘W1 supply and W1 demand.’ At the same time, it will be much easier for M2 men to have sex, as W2 women only get to have sex with M2. Due to your success at convincing men to become M1, there will be a huge mismatch between ‘M2 supply and M2 demand.’
The end result is that you’ll have a ton of frustrated M1 men who will:
– Go back to M2 strategy
– Blame feminism
In fact, this dynamic is already playing out.
LikeLike
I suppose if you are fine with running a significantly higher risk of raping people in order to increase your chance of getting laid, there is probably not much I can do to convince you otherwise and I simply must avoid ever being alone with you instead.
LikeLiked by 4 people
Ozy, I mean this in the nicest way possible, but you realize that this is just naked emotional ransom, right?
So, in your narrative you’ve set up “Soft no’s” are a-ok, because they’re parseable “For most people who aren’t impaired in social skills”, while condemning that same standard of knowing when a ‘soft no’ is being used as a yes (Again, parsable by most people who aren’t impaired in social skills) as “Rape culture”.
The trouble is, these are both either rape culture or they aren’t. Both of these are the way people “in the early twentieth century and today” operate, and this doesn’t selectively give a pass to the behaviours that you find helpful yourself.
What Aapje is pointing out is that your statement that a soft no “Probably actually mean no”, falls flat in reality. And again here you’re setting up a problem by arguing for your right to be ambiguous because it serves your interest, and then demanding that a group you don’t belong to err on the side against their interest, and if they don’t they’re terrible pro rape people who need to be avoided.
The trouble here is that they’re right. And for what you’re saying to work you either need to ditch the soft no’s, or come up with a mechanism that socially sanctions people who use “Soft no’s that mean yes”. Because as long people are still in the habit of using no-means-yes tactics, your assessment of probability is incorrect. Nothing ruins good assessments of probability like frequent false positives.
I agree with your later paragraphs about how dangerous a situation it sets up when both sides push their interests with Mice trying to avoid social costs with soft no’s and wolves having the incentive to be oblivious to them. But aside from the fact that you personally like the ‘soft no’ side more, if one of the two has to go, I see no reason here why the ‘soft no’s should be privileged as the behaviour that everyone has to accommodate.
The mirror image of your comment is:
“And if you care so little about the possibility of being raped that you would rather maintain the ability to defuse small bits of social pressure than keep yourself safe, then there isn’t much I could say to convince you. That would make you a danger to yourself and your partners and I need to make a point never to be alone around you.” It would be a completely asinine thing to say, but no less correct than its inverse.
LikeLiked by 2 people
@ozymandias
Sigh. I was hoping for a rational discussion, not shaming.
Your response is really the worst behavior of SJ:
Me: Your solution to put (nearly all) responsibility on men doesn’t work because…
You: You are fine with (potentially) raping people
You didn’t actually argue that I’m incorrect, just that it is immoral for people to optimize their life differently than the extreme that you suggest (which conveniently requires very little sacrifice from people who present as women, but puts almost all the burden on people who present as men). I never actually argued morality, just that your solution almost certainly cannot work in practice (this distinction is important!!!).
Of course, the entire problem could theoretically also be solved if no one would use soft nos anymore. Yet you didn’t argue for that. Does that make you fine with women getting raped due to sending misunderstood messages? Your attack on me would logically lead to you believing that as well, if you are consistent in your beliefs.
It’s also rather offensive to assume that I use strategy M2. Perhaps I use M1, even while realizing that it is sub-optimal (people can choose to sacrifice for the greater good). Perhaps I opt out of casual sex entirely. Perhaps I am asexual. Perhaps I am gay.
You don’t know, but choose to judge me as a lesser human being, in a way that you would surely find completely beyond the pale if I assumed (nasty) things about you and publicly shamed you for it.
PS. This kind of assumption that unpleasant truths cannot be true is exactly why SJ theory is so often compromised.
LikeLike
Aapje: “Of course, the entire problem could theoretically also be solved if no one would use soft nos anymore. Yet you didn’t argue for that. Does that make you fine with women getting raped due to sending misunderstood messages? Your attack on me would logically lead to you believing that as well, if you are consistent in your beliefs.”
Part of the situation is that there are men who react badly– including violence– to a hard no. I don’t have a feeling for how common this is, but it’s common enough to go into some women’s calculations.
As for strategy to make matters better,, I think the slow grind of social pressure to both get men to be more careful about consent and women to be clearer about what they want is the best bet. All the work isn’t going be on one side.
Note: Actually, these situations come up for all combinations of genders.
LikeLike
@Nancy
Like I said, there are also women who react badly – including violence – to men who treat soft nos as hard nos. I don’t have a feeling for how common this is, but it’s common enough to go into some men’s calculations.
I agree, but I often see people only pressuring one (usually the ‘other’) side. When a lot of people in a group A put most blame/responsibility on group B, which people in group B often consider unfair, the group A gets a reputation for having bias against group B. That reputation will make some of people in group B stop listening to group A.
My experience is that people in group A often seem confused why they have that reputation, so I’m just trying to be helpful here.
True, but the gender norms do make some scenario’s much more likely than others, which is why this is often gendered in practice, even if there is no reason why this ought to be the case.
LikeLike
Nancy:
Fully agreed that wolves reacting violently is a big problem. That’s why I’d propose to sanction that behaviour, like say, by having a phone number you can call to have those people carted off to jail, by socially ostracizing offenders, by having employers stigmatize them for the rest of their lives and, if witnessed, forming groups to repay them in kind (This last one is more a ‘state of the current situation’, rather than anything I’d specifically advocate). Y’know, making it known that engaging in violence over being told ‘no’ is liable to really ruin your life as a disincentive.
This is what we do to combat that side of the bad dynamic, in part because without doing so, people don’t have the latitude to speak.
I further agree wholeheartedly that change comes from work on both sides. This is all I’m hoping to get across summed up into a single sentence.
LikeLike
Correct me if I’m wrong, but I’d assume that this category is a subset of the men who would react badly to a soft no. So you can’t really improve your safety by avoiding a hard no whenever you mean “no” (unless you’re mostly fine with non-consensual sex as long as it isn’t violent – which is a valid choice, even though it sucks that anyone has to make it).
LikeLike
No, that’s not right. There are men who interpret a soft no as “no”, but a hard “no” as an insult (and then they get threatening/violent to “restore their honor”).
That’s a big part of the problem — most men do not want to rape or abuse anyone, but there’s no way to guess the right level of “hardness” that will clearly convey refusal instead of something else to any particular man in any particular situation (unless you already know him quite well).
LikeLiked by 1 person
No one: I completely and 100% support your right to choose to interact with whomever you like, including people who never use soft nos.
There is, however, a crucial difference between using soft nos and not listening to other people’s soft nos, which is that the latter hurts other people.
LikeLike
Ozy:
Correction, soft nos don’t *Directly* hurt anyone. They do however muddy the waters making everyone else incrementally more likely to suffer failures of communication leading to harm, and create the very situation we are discussing. Which is nice,because the harm is sufficiently diffuse that you can still feel like your hands are clean.
Incidentally, doesn’t this dynamic piss you off when people on the other side do it? Like when Pro lifers try to outlaw and block birth control and sex education, and you just want to scream “Fuck you guys, you can’t create a situation and then blame other people for the results when they don’t follow to your unrealistic abstinence practices to the letter!”, and they respond by telling you it’s either their way, or you’re terrible for ruining lives?
Strictly speaking, opposing birth control, sexual education, and abortion doesn’t hurt anyone either. Though I certainly doubt we’ll find too many people who are thrilled about that tactic here.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Men who ignore “no” will obviously have more sex than men who take it seriously. This is because most women aren’t going to want to have sex with a given man, and will therefore be saying “no” (hard or soft) because they mean “no”.
LikeLiked by 2 people
@apprenticebard
You are missing all the nuance there. Many men don’t ignore ‘no’ in general, but make a judgement call whether the no is hard or soft.
This type of mating ritual has advantages and disadvantages for both men and women. For example, it is possible that women who use soft nos are better at selecting men who are pleasant in bed, because a soft no allows the woman to let the mating ritual escalate, without committing to go all the way, early on. So if she was unsure at first, she can give the man more time to prove himself and it is easier to abort the ritual if he doesn’t behave to her liking.
But of course, there are downsides too, like the risk of a hard no not being understood or a soft no being understood as a hard no.
The ‘affirmative consent’ narrative just tells people to give up these advantages that many desire (or they wouldn’t use this type of ritual). In itself this is fine (we also expect people to give up other desires in modern society). The issue I have is the denial that there are advantages to this kind of ritual and the usually unilateral demand that men stop doing this, while not demanding the same of women.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Terminology thing: I don’t think ‘Many men don’t ignore ‘no’ in general, but make a judgement call whether the no is hard or soft’ conforms with the normal usage of hard and soft no, and perhaps that’s causing people to talk past each other a little.
AFAIK, a ‘hard’ no is something that cannot be interpreted as anything else but ‘no’. Examples: ‘no’, ‘get away from me’, ‘step any closer and I’ll scream’.
A ‘soft’ no is something that can grammatically both mean ‘no’ and something else. Examples: ‘I’m really busy this week’, ‘this really isn’t a good idea, people will talk’, basically all the things in the OP’s 4th paragraph. People usually intend these things as ‘no’ (and not just in the context of men/women/sex) but they could also mean an invitation to creative problem solving.
A ‘hard’ no is NOT ‘a no that’s intended to be read as a no’ and a soft ‘no’ is NOT ‘a no that is intended to be read as a yes’. As such, it’s not MEN (or people in general) who get to make a judgement call whether a no is hard or soft. People can make judgement calls whether a no is intended as a no or as a yes, but even hard nos can be intended as yeses or interpreted as such. (See elsewhere in this thread about slapping people whose advances were actually welcome, and the classic idea that it’s only no if she doesn’t just SAY no (one-word, hard-as-can-be NO) but actively fights you off.)
LikeLike
@Mircea
I see ‘hard’ and ‘soft’ as referring to the intent of the person making the statement, not an objective meaning of words. I don’t believe that the latter exists, as people don’t have a truly shared vocabulary and use language in a very sloppy way. If a man goes for a kiss, then the woman saying ‘no’ can just as easily mean ‘never’ as ‘not now’ as ‘not yet’ as ‘not in that way.’ In many cases, the actual meaning is heavily dependent on the context, but that doesn’t always make it clear.
Sometimes people clarify what they actually mean by body language (which can suffer from similar issues with lack of clarity). Sometimes they assume that the other person is from a subculture with a similar understanding (which can be a wrong assumption). Often, people are preoccupied with their own thoughts and lack the empathy to understand that other people can interpret their words differently from what was meant to be conveyed.
Note that none of this is specific to dating, it is a general problem with human communication.
The people who are addressed do get to make a judgement call. That is what ‘listening’ is. You cannot expect people to act on what you say and not to judge. The latter is a prerequisite for the former.
A man who is in doubt has three options:
1. assume a hard no
2. ask
3. assume a soft no
Of course, the most logical choice would seem to be 2, in most cases. However, the problem here is that quite a few women seem to consider that a major turnoff. So choosing 2 can turn a soft no into a hard no. Anyway, how and why people do this is more advanced dating theory, where we actually get more nuance than just hard and soft nos.
My point is more that to solve this problem, it’s important to (also) listen to men who tend to have the ‘active role,’ as well as women who prefer soft nos* and figure out something that actually works for them. This works better than give advice that makes men fail, based on very simplistic and incorrect ideas about how communication happens and how people actually behave.
* Note that research shows that this group of women tend to be non-feminist, which is a complicating factor.
LikeLike
Aapje: You are using “hard” and “soft” no differently than how I used it in the post. Mircea accurately described the way I used it in the post. In the interests of clarity, I would suggest you use different terminology.
LikeLike
@Aapje
Yeah, it was a bad comment. I had written a longer response and ended up deleting it because I thought the tone was too obviously distressed; I probably shouldn’t have replied at all.
I’m coming from a very different subcultural background than the one you describe, and have no personal interest in casual sex. I therefore have very little stake in how the model for negotiating casual sex works; my only personal concern is being able to easily communicate to people who use the model that I am not the sort of person they are looking for. I definitely don’t want my “no” to be interpreted as “maybe; convince me”. I also tend to be paranoid about this, since I know other people come from different cultural backgrounds, and have been known to blurt things like “I don’t want to date you” out of the blue to men who are nice to me, on the off chance that they’re trying to communicate something else. I think I come across as pretty annoying and conceited because of this, but I don’t actually know how to stop. So. I don’t really think I’m part of the problem you’re describing, I guess. (Thinking on it, most of my female friends are either already in W1 or disinterested in having casual sex with men, so I doubt I could have much influence on the W2 group anyway.)
My understanding of hard vs soft no is the same as Mircea’s. I agree that the line between them is not always clear, but it’s about the amount of directness, not the intent behind it. There isn’t really a difference between “assuming a hard no” and “assuming a soft no”, because both of those are “no”; the thing that needs to be interpreted is whether a soft no is actually a “no”, or, as Mircea says, an invitation to problem solve. Or, I suppose, whether any sort of “no” is actually meant to convey “yes” or “maybe; convince me”, but that’s a different question than whether the “no” was hard or soft.
LikeLiked by 1 person
OK, but then we still have the problem that the exact same female behavior/statements, can mean:
– I mean no, but I try to be nice about it
– I mean perhaps, but…you have to work harder for it or go slower or convince me more or….
You cannot realistically address this issue unless you accept that there is going to be an overlap here. If more men choose to interpret all these statements as ‘no,’ you get the exact same scenario that I described, where men with less scruples are going to have way more success and the men with a lot of scruples, will ‘be stuck’ with the relatively small group of women who do communicate clearly.
LikeLike
BTW. I think that Ozy’s singular focus on the issue that mostly bother people who are passive in dating, while my focus was mostly on the active side of the equation, was mostly to blame for the communication failures.
As I said before, we need to consider the situation from both sides of the equation, not just try to fix the failure modes that most effect women. If such a one-sided solution greatly increases the failure modes for men, many will get resentful, especially if this burden is ignored or downplayed.
LikeLike
@Aapje
Sigh. Please believe that I didn’t come here to write a book.
When two people are talking past each other, it’s good for them to restate one another’s positions, so that any misunderstandings can be identified and cleared up.
As I understand it, you are making (at least) three claims:
1) Some women use a form of “no”, either hard or soft, to mean “maybe, convince me”. They do this because they are trying to select for the sort of people who won’t give up when presented with an obstacle, and sometimes for other reasons.
2) Men (who, we assume, want sex) therefore have an incentive to continue trying after a woman has said “no”. This is because many women say “no” but mean “maybe; convince me”, and taking a “no” at face value would mean giving up prematurely, when sex is still a possibility.
3) If we want to convince men to take “no” seriously, we must create an environment where backing off after “no” does not significantly disadvantage them; people who take “no” seriously should not end up with fewer partners.
I will reluctantly agree with claim #1, though I have no idea how common these women are. I did have a friend in high school who argued that boys shouldn’t ask permission before kissing people, because asking permission wasn’t “romantic”. I don’t think she was in the habit of saying “I do not want to kiss you” to people who she wanted to kiss, but it seems plausible that such women exist.
I agree with #2, but with the caveat that I think men would have an incentive to ignore “no” even if they were sure that every “no” meant “no, I will not want sex with you under any circumstances”. This is because there exists a not-insignificant percentage of women who are unwilling to resort to violent conflict in order to defend themselves from unwanted sexual advances. They don’t want sex, but it’s possible to force sex on them without triggering a violent conflict. Ignoring morals and outside enforcement of the rule against forcing sex on unwilling persons, these women, like the women who say “no” and mean “maybe”, are only available to men who continue pursuit after some form of “no”. Call this group W3, women who are disinterested in sex but unwilling to resort to violence to defend themselves; there is no way to ethically have casual sex with them, but they are possible sexual partners for sufficiently unscrupulous M2 men. For completeness’s sake, I guess we should also have group W4, women who say “no” and are able to successfully defend themselves. They will generally be unavailable to everyone.
I should note that your groups W1 and W2 seem to be referring to general communication styles, whereas I’m using the W-groups to refer to possible women who a hypothetical man might meet, and individual women will shift between them depending on whether they want to have sex with him or not. (Your analysis didn’t account for women who were wholly disinterested in casual sex, and as a disinterested person, I therefore find it unsatisfactory.)
So, for clarity, I’m using:
W1 – Interested women who value clear communication and therefore say “yes”. Available to M1 and M2.
W2 – Interested women who say “no” but mean “convince me”. Available to M2.
W3 – Disinterested women who say “no” (often with a soft “no”), but will not or cannot back it up with violence. Available to M2.
W4 – Disinterested women who give a hard “no” and will do physical harm to people who ignore that “no”. Available to no one, unless the person has, like, a gun or something.
There are other groups, in theory, but we don’t want the model to become unwieldy. There’s also a spectrum between W3 and W4 (just as there’s a spectrum within M2), because different people will resort to different amounts of violence or hardness in their “no”; some women may feel unable to even say the word “no”, while others may be able to defend themselves from any assault, but most will fall somewhere in the middle–willing to say “no”, but not willing to scream, or willing to scream, but not wiling to kick, etc. We’re momentarily pretending this isn’t the case, because if we don’t we can’t divide people neatly anymore.
I think group W3 tends to be bigger than group W2, and that there will therefore always be an imbalance in favor of sufficiently unscrupulous M2 men. Possible ways to combat this imbalance include making women more willing to use violence to defend themselves (I think this is something feminists do, in fact, encourage), such that unscrupulous M2 men will meet more resistance and will therefore need to think more carefully about the consequences of their actions. But we should remember that many women will not feel safe opposing men, and will lose any fight that they get into, so this isn’t a very good thing to rely on.
Demands for women to be more clear are unavoidably demands on both groups W2 and W3.
The situation is also complicated because men are almost never saying “do you want to have sex with me?” Men often claim that they are very clear and hate indirectness, but in my experience men are almost never clear about their intentions. Sometimes they will say “I’m not interested in dating you, but we can be friends”, which is cause for much rejoicing. Most of the time, though, you can’t actually know whether a given man is looking for casual sex, chaste dating (again, different subculture! I know many men who are!), platonic friendship, or absolutely nothing (they’re talking to you because they’re bored, or for some other non-relationship reason). Men tend to get annoyed if you make the wrong assumption in any direction, but will also get annoyed if you don’t shut down pursuit quickly enough, because then you’ve “led them on” and wasted their time. Therefore, as a woman, you sort of have to account for all those possibilities in every single early interaction.
If you have no idea whether someone is implicitly attempting to negotiate sex with you (and I never, ever do), the only way to be sufficiently clear is to assume that they are and preemptively tell them “no”. But, realistically speaking, most interactions are not actually attempts to negotiate sex! If you assume they are, you’ll end up like me, saying “I don’t want to date you” in random conversations where men aren’t even pursuing you! This is embarrassing and makes you look conceited (why would you assume that someone is interested in you?), so people try to avoid it.
IME, a soft “no” is frequently given so that the woman can deny that it’s a no–that is, so that she can deny that she assumed an interaction was a negotiation for sex (or a date, or whatever). Assuming that you are wanted is vain, and must therefore be avoided.
So! To review, using the song as an example:
Wolf is interested in sex (we assume; you’ll note that he isn’t direct). Wolf doesn’t know whether Mouse is in group W1, W2, W3, or W4, and he doesn’t want to be excessively direct (partly because that could be taken as an insult), so he doesn’t just ask Mouse whether she’d be OK with having sex with him. Instead, he tries to signal his intention without outright saying it. If Mouse is in W1, she’ll at some point say something that can be interpreted as “I’d like to have sex with you”. If Mouse is in W2 or W3, the interactions will escalate, and Mouse will fail to stop the escalation, either intentionally (if W2) or not (if W3). If Mouse is in W4, Wolf maintains plausible deniability by never stating his intentions directly, so if Mouse does resort to a hard “no”, Wolf can say that she is behaving unfairly towards him and misreading his intent. This is assuming that Wolf is unscrupulous; if he only wants to have sex if Mouse genuinely wants to have sex with him, then he has to either be more direct (giving an oblivious Mouse the opportunity to say “no” in a way that he can more easily interpret) or hope that Mouse isn’t in W3, which isn’t a safe assumption, since lots of women are in W3.
Mouse doesn’t know whether Wolf is interested in sex. She suspects he is, but taking him at face value would lead her to the conclusion that it is cold and/or dangerous outside, and he is offering her shelter from the weather. She can’t be entirely sure that he’s negotiating for sex, and she can’t be entirely sure of how he’ll react to a hard “no”, so if we assume she doesn’t want sex, she’s giving soft “no” answers for multiple reasons–one, it’s an attempt to get Wolf to be more direct, so that she can save herself from embarrassingly assuming that he wants sex when he doesn’t, and two, it’s an attempt to avoid possible backlash to a hard “no”, especially a hard “no” given too early in the interaction (as that could be insulting). But it’s also possible that Mouse does want sex, in which case Mouse is giving soft “no” answers either to give herself plausible deniability (“I didn’t mean to, but he just wouldn’t leave me alone”), or to be sure that Wolf is really committed to sleeping with her, or… something, whatever reasons W2 women have for initially saying “no”. We as listeners don’t know what Mouse’s intention is, and unfortunately (if he happens to be a relatively decent man), neither does Wolf. Mouse could say “listen, I really don’t want to have sex with you, please let me leave”, but this is risky, as Wolf could either take it as an insult and react angrily, or could be not looking for sex and would then see Mouse as vain (or possibly be hurt by her apparently very low opinion of him). So until Wolf is more direct, she’s going to keep giving soft “no” answers.
Again, Wolf isn’t being direct.
You’ve been asking for a solution to these problems that 1) allows people to avoid accidentally raping one another, and 2) doesn’t disadvantage M1 men. There are two ways to accomplish goal #1–we can assume “no” unless given an explicit “yes” answer, OR we can destigmatize and use clear communication, such that “would you be interested in having sex with me?” “no, I don’t have casual sex” “oh, cool” sounds like a normal interaction and not something from an alternate dimension. These don’t conflict, so for maximum protection, we should probably do both.
For goal #2, we’d need to both destigmatize clear communication and stigmatize unclear communication, such that W2 are unable to have the amount of sex that they desire without changing their behavior (you point out that most W2 are not feminist, which I see as evidence that feminism already encourages women to communicate clearly), and simultaneously present more resistance to M2 men who ignore boundaries (ie, encourage women to be W1 when interested and W4 when disinterested), thereby making sure that being willing to have sex with unwilling persons doesn’t give them an advantage. I see the second aspect as very difficult even when the first is in play (I really don’t want to have to beat people up, and I’m not sure I’m physically capable of it) and extremely difficult when people are not being clear (how do I know when to say “no” if men are unwilling to unambiguously ask a yes/no question that I can respond to, and will expect a “no” long before they get to that question, otherwise I’ve led them on? Particularly if I’m interacting with men from outside my own subculture(s), who will likely have different expectations for the possible outcomes of simple friendly conversation?)
So as I see it, it’s not reasonable to expect women to be more clear when men are being super unclear about whether a negotiation for sex is even happening, AND will judge women for responding incorrectly to their unclear signals. I will continue trying to be clear and will probably continue looking like an idiot, but I don’t think it’ll work very well on a societal level until men stop expecting women to read their minds and preemptively respond to their telepathic signals. Obviously this, too, must be a joint effort on the part of both men and women, as it won’t work if women punish direct men for being “unromantic”. (Though if women as a group are simply less interested in casual sex than men are–and this seems very likely–then IDK, dudes’ options are pretty much resort to force or accept that they’re going to have to invest more time in order to get sex.)
In conclusion, the casual dating system currently looks super terrible from over here, and I am really, really glad that I am not dependent on it.
Please let me know if I’ve misinterpreted you.
LikeLiked by 3 people
@apprenticebard
I believe that there are more reasons why women say no when they don’t mean that. In scientific literature, this is called token resistance and this study had 39% of undergraduate women admitting to having used that tactic. Research actually also shows that many men engage in it as well.
My comment was not intended to be exhaustive, but rather, to point out a forgotten factor (just like you, I try to be brief, despite my tendency to be expansive).
You are conflating the strategy that women use to communicate their ‘no’ with their behavior if they are misunderstood. These are different things. In fact, further on, you seem to advocate that women who use W3 strategy immediately escalate to violence if the man continues, rather than resort to W4 first. This is extremely problematic.
This is not a very meaningful comparison, IMO.
Men who encounter a vague no don’t toss a coin to decide whether they should interpret it as a case of W2 or W3. One can assume that W2 and W3 ‘nos’ fall along a spectrum, where W2 women tend to use more ‘flirty nos’ on average and W3 women tend to use more ‘stand-offish nos’. One can assume that men are reasonably capable of separating the two, so that they will correctly judge an intended W2 as W2 and an intended W3 as W3 far more than a random guess, although they will fail sometimes (especially as there is an overlap in the messages that W2 and W3 women send & because lots of dating involves alcohol).
The problem with that solution is that it conflates the men who simply misjudge W3 as W2 and thereby also encourages violence against well-meaning men who honestly believe that they are behaving as the woman wants.
This is my main issue with the common feminist rhetoric on this topic: problematic female behavior that negatively affects the ability for men to act as the woman wants (W2 behavior) tends to be ignored, while male behavior tends to be forced into a black/white framework, where there is little room for honest misunderstandings. Either the man is an angel or he is a villain.
This is actually a patriarchal view and one that pushes women into overly protective behavior (including choosing W3 strategy over W4). As such, it perpetuates the problem.
If I were to gender swap your rhetoric, I might suggest that men get angry or even slap women who use vague nos, so that they ‘will therefore need to think more carefully about the consequences of their actions.’ I’m sure that you can see the absurdity of seeing that as a solution.
That’s because men know that this almost never works. People have actually done experiments with men asking that question to random women and women to random men. The difference is spectacular.
This is far different in the gay scene, where gay men are quite often very direct (and way more likely to engage in casual sex), which suggests that women are dictating to men that they cannot be open about their desires.
The ‘pursued role’ clearly has specific responsibilities and so does the ‘pursuer role.’ I agree that the ‘female’ role has aspects that greatly suck, but it also has strong advantages. The same goes for the ‘male’ role.
My point is that it is not exactly fair if you simply make the male role worse to make the female role better (if it even works, because such attempts can easily backfire against women). Shouldn’t we go for a win-win improvement?
It seems more likely to me that it is an attempt to protect the pursuer from being turned down for his inadequacies, which damages the ego and thus is considered very rude. Other types of rejection are also often framed as not being the fault of the person who is rejected (‘you don’t fit the profile’ when trying to get a job, for example).
In a public setting, a rejection often effectively becomes social shaming, which the recipient often regards as very aggressive behavior.
This normally doesn’t work, because for the pursuer, assuming a no tends to simply stall the situation indefinitely. A man who doesn’t make any further moves, often doesn’t get any better signals than the ones that he had before. So he can escalate a bit again and hope for a clear response, keep talking until the woman walks away or give up completely. This is different for the pursued role, where not signaling a (clear) no allows the pursuer to continue. The pursuer will often make a move that tells the pursued more about the intentions of the pursuer. This is a fundamental difference between the roles.
This is actually a very good example of why feminist advice to men is so often misguided, because the advice is based on what works for the pursued, but that often doesn’t translate to the pursuer role.
The problem is that there are a ton of psychological reasons why most people greatly prefer unclear communication (again, not limited to just dating). Asking people to change, without addressing the reasons for their behavior tends to fail. It’s like when communists asked people to give up personal property or when they stopped rewarding people for taking risks. They completely ignored that people have really strong needs that interfere with communist ideals. When they decided to force people into their ideals, despite reality not cooperating, the result was rather disastrous.
Now, I’m not claiming to have a magic solution here, but right now am merely asking for a more open mind. IMO, Social Justice frequently assumes that they understand reality and start (very aggressively) to implement solutions, while they merely understand a fraction of the truth. Without understanding, one cannot hope to be successful and sometimes, the cure makes things worse.
My perception is that feminists often advocate/defend W3 strategy, for women’s safety, so I’m not sure about this. They may be encouraging different forms of unclear communication.
Furthermore, if feminists encourage more sexually aggression, but do not teach about male consent issues, we may see an increase in sexual abuse of men. So we may start replacing abuse of women with abuse of men. I’m not sure that counts as a win.
Or men can find alternatives to sex, like porn or (in the future) sex robots. Feminists considered vibrators a big win in the past, by improving the ability for women to get sexual gratification independently of their ability or desire to share their life with a man. Improvements on this front for men might decrease frustration among some men (especially young men, where the mismatch between male and female desires seems maximized) and thus transgressive behavior.
Although the resulting reduction in willingness by men to ‘invest’ may decrease benevolent sexism in a way that some women may not appreciate.
Anyway, thanks for the thoughtful comment.
LikeLike
@Aapje
I’m sorry this is so long. I gave up on being concise. I also don’t know how to format quotes on wordpress, so this might be a little hard to read. Hopefully Ozy will tell me if this conversation gets to be too involved or annoying.
“You are conflating the strategy that women use to communicate their ‘no’ with their behavior if they are misunderstood. These are different things. In fact, further on, you seem to advocate that women who use W3 strategy immediately escalate to violence if the man continues, rather than resort to W4 first. This is extremely problematic.”
You’re right that this is messy, but it makes more sense if you consider giving a hard “no” and providing violent resistance to be not fundamentally different activities, but a spectrum of resistance. This isn’t literally true–there’s a very important difference between screaming at someone to leave you alone (giving the hardest “no” possible) and lightly pushing someone away (the weakest possible physical resistance), which is that one involves contact and the other doesn’t. Despite this, I think a lot of women would mentally group both activities as “ways to get a man to leave you alone”–they teach you to say “no” loudly and clearly in self-defense workshops, and I think a lot of people strongly associate it with a situation that is likely to become violent. Likewise, some women have (unfortunately) been taught that violence is an acceptable form of communication if it comes from a woman, and may view punching someone as simply giving a very hard “no”. This is especially evident if you consider Nita’s observations from above:
“As long as the taboo on saying “yes” to sex exists, it keeps catching up with “clever” ways of getting around it. When everyone knows that only saying “no”, but not doing anything, means “yes”, then that becomes taboo as well. To have consensual sex without seeming “slutty” (less worthy of respect and less desirable) to your partner, you have to use negative body language. In the next cultural iteration, you have to try to leave. Then you have to seem scared or angry. Then, fight back a bit.
My grandmother said she slapped the first boy who kissed her, solely because she felt completely certain that it would be improper (i.e., “slutty”) not to.
Eventually, every stage of negotiating and having consensual sex can become indistinguishable from rape to anyone but mind-readers, and then the only way to clearly and effectively say “no” requires never, ever being alone with a man.”
This cycle encourages people to view violence as an acceptable (and, indeed, necessary) form of communication, and so there are some unfortunate people in this world who won’t consider a “no” sufficiently unambiguous unless it’s accompanied by a slap or a punch. And sometimes, apparently, you can’t be sure even then. So as you noted, hard vs soft no is very much a spectrum, and they’re not necessarily distinct styles of communication.
The idea with the classifications is that you can’t tell whether someone is W2/W3 or W4 until after the initial “no” is ignored–a W2 will stop resisting because she wants sex, a W3 will stop resisting for other reasons, and a W4 will resist no matter what. There are also spectrums within W2 and W3 with regard to how much resistance is put up before giving in, and any of the three groups can start with a hard or soft no (indeed, a W2 can start by slapping you).
I think the most relevant defining factor is the amount of resistance given before giving up, so technically, someone who gave a soft “no” and then immediately punched you in the face and refused to stop resisting should be counted as W4. They would also be behaving very badly, and we should not encourage such behavior. Unnecessary violence is bad no matter how weak the person resorting to it is, and we should encourage women to be aware of their physical power and use it responsibly.
“This is not a very meaningful comparison, IMO.
Men who encounter a vague no don’t toss a coin to decide whether they should interpret it as a case of W2 or W3. One can assume that W2 and W3 ‘nos’ fall along a spectrum, where W2 women tend to use more ‘flirty nos’ on average and W3 women tend to use more ‘stand-offish nos’. One can assume that men are reasonably capable of separating the two, so that they will correctly judge an intended W2 as W2 and an intended W3 as W3 far more than a random guess, although they will fail sometimes (especially as there is an overlap in the messages that W2 and W3 women send & because lots of dating involves alcohol).”
With respect, I don’t think men are very good at this (this is not their fault; I think people in general are bad at communicating, and worse at it when not using words). Yes, it’s true that the softer (or “flirtier”, however that’s measured) a “no” is, the more likely it is to be insincere, but this is not reliable. And even if men are actually very good at it, unscrupulous M2 are still at an advantage, because they can ignore boundaries and then claim that they misread the signals and therefore assumed the woman was a W2. If pursuing W2 is considered socially acceptable, this will be a strong defense and will prevent society from effectively penalizing them. So either way, I think the prevalence of W3 women gives M2 a decisive advantage over M1.
I suppose if we’re only talking about M2 who are explicitly not looking to become rapists (though you included rapists in your initial definition of M2), and we assume that M2 are generally very good at reading women’s signals, then W3 don’t give them that same decisive advantage. But I don’t think rapists are a special class of people–a sufficiently motivated man may convince even himself that his target wants him, despite contrary evidence, and he is therefore in danger of becoming a rapist even if he does not intend to rape anyone. And I don’t think people read each others’ signals very reliably. Because of this, I’m not inclined to discount this as a factor.
It’s also important to remember that a woman might not know whether she’s a W2 or a W3 until later in an interaction, as W2 consent is frequently conditional on other factors. And unfortunately, W3 or W4 may act more like W2 if they enjoy being pursued and by men, but don’t actually want to have sex with them (this is bad behavior if intentional, though obviously not justification for rape), which further muddies the waters. In any case, if a man forces himself on a woman who was 90% but not 100% sure that she wasn’t going to be interested in him, that is still rape and is still not a thing that should be happening. And it’s still rape if she’s more on the fence about it, though those are really confusing situations for everyone.
“The problem with that solution is that it conflates the men who simply misjudge W3 as W2 and thereby also encourages violence against well-meaning men who honestly believe that they are behaving as the woman wants.”
Sincerely, this is terrible. Unfortunately, though, a M2 man’s good intentions don’t prevent him from pushing sex onto someone who does not, in fact, want to have sex with him. As W2 and W3 cannot be reliably told apart from one another–there is, IMO, no way to be entirely certain that your partner is consenting unless she has at some point said “yes” or an equivalent–I am at a loss as to what else disinterested women can do, after a clear “no” has been ignored and escalation has continued. If M2 as a group decided to stop after encountering a certain amount of resistance, and W2 likewise decided as a group that they would only put up so much resistance before giving in, then W3 could put up exactly the right amount of resistance to communicate that they are W3 and not W2. But they can’t, because the whole point of being a W2 is that someone can’t be 100% sure that you’re not a W3, and W2 will copy whatever disinterested women do in order to make their resistance more convincing. The only way to be positive you won’t be overruled is to be willing and able to offer so much resistance that the man isn’t capable of overruling you.
This seems like a good time to point out that rape culture (as defined in Ozy’s post above) is super inconvenient for well-meaning men, and that if it didn’t exist, we wouldn’t have this problem.
“This is my main issue with the common feminist rhetoric on this topic: problematic female behavior that negatively affects the ability for men to act as the woman wants (W2 behavior) tends to be ignored, while male behavior tends to be forced into a black/white framework, where there is little room for honest misunderstandings. Either the man is an angel or he is a villain.
This is actually a patriarchal view and one that pushes women into overly protective behavior (including choosing W3 strategy over W4). As such, it perpetuates the problem.
If I were to gender swap your rhetoric, I might suggest that men get angry or even slap women who use vague nos, so that they ‘will therefore need to think more carefully about the consequences of their actions.’ I’m sure that you can see the absurdity of seeing that as a solution.”
I apologize if I appeared to be endorsing unnecessary violence. Violence should only be deployed in defense of oneself or others. I also apologize if I appeared to be saying that W2 are not part of the problem–they absolutely are, and their refusal to be clear is harmful to others. I agree that current feminist rhetoric is far too willing to demonize men, amplifying rather than combatting the patriarchal idea that men are monsters that women must be protected from. This causes women to overestimate the amount of danger that they are in, which is bad for everyone.
However, if a man ignores a clearly stated “no” and continues escalation to the point where he begins touching a woman and will not stop, I believe that she is justified in deploying the necessary amount of force to get away from him. This will sometimes include violence. I wasn’t sufficiently clear, but this is the specific set of actions that I think it is necessary to discourage via possibly-violent resistance, and if all or most women were willing to resort to it, unscrupulous M2 men would have a strong disincentive to touch women sexually without their express permission. Now that I’ve made that more clear, I hope you’ll agree that the amount of harm done by physical sexual escalation is not equivalent to the amount of harm done by unclear verbal communication, and that using violence makes much more sense in the former situation than in the latter.
Also, I don’t necessarily consider myself a feminist. I’m not anti-feminist, I’m just… not entirely convinced that the most common forms of feminism are decisively making society better.
“That’s because men know that this almost never works.”
Well, yes. I think we should change this. Not in the sense that I think women should be more willing to consent to casual sex with men–I think casual sex is bad, that women as a group are less interested in it than men, and that everyone is always justified in refusing it–but in the sense that it would be better if people who received direct proposals would more clearly communicate the sort of relationships or sexual encounters that they are looking for. That way, if two people are willing to compromise, they can explicitly inform one another of this–“No, I’m not interested in having sex with people I’ve just met, but I might not be opposed to it if I got to know you better. Are you interested in going on a date instead, with the understanding that it might lead to sex in the future?” Etc.
Obviously this is very far from how we do things now, but we’re discussing ways to make interactions less ambiguous and more likely to lead to the participants’ desired outcomes, and I think explicit verbal communication is a much better method than encouraging widespread violence. If you want a norm to promote in order to negate the negative effects of rape culture, this is what I propose. In a group where men are direct about their intentions and will accept “no”, disinterested women (disinterested people of any gender, I suppose) can feel comfortable and safe, because they won’t have to assume that men have ulterior motives whenever they talk to them, and can know that their “no” will be respected. Likewise, if everyone can learn not to take direct propositions as an insult, then people can feel safer making offers, and don’t need to worry so much about the potential consequences of approaching someone who isn’t interested.
Basically, I think we could negate many of these problems if society as a whole were more Tell Culture. It will take some getting used to, certainly, as the Guess Culture way of interpreting such proposals is as an insult (ie, the man is asking because he thinks it is likely that you will accept, therefore he is calling you promiscuous, and it is necessary to vehemently deny this accusation). But if we could successfully transition to it, I think it’d be a way better system than the mess we have now.
As a side note, it’d be cool if we could apply this to other interactions, too–if someone is specifically interested in hanging out with me to see if they’d like to be friends, I would like to know about this, too.
“It seems more likely to me that it is an attempt to protect the pursuer from being turned down for his inadequacies, which damages the ego and thus is considered very rude. Other types of rejection are also often framed as not being the fault of the person who is rejected (‘you don’t fit the profile’ when trying to get a job, for example).”
Both of these are elements, along with concern for personal safety (people sometimes react violently to perceived insults). Often all three considerations are in play simultaneously. I think when I give soft “no”s to people, it’s mostly about saving face for both of us. It’s a way of not admitting that I considered the possibility that the other person might be the sort of man who would expect some form of sexual contact after mere friendly conversation. If he’s a member of my subculture, that would be extremely rude of him, and it’s rude to assume that he’s being rude, so… you see where this leads us.
These are always preemptive soft no’s, signals deployed not because negotiations are thought to be taking place, but to alert the person being spoken to that he shouldn’t bother negotiating in the first place, because the target is disinterested. If it appears that the man is already actively attempting pursuit, you do have to be really clear, even if it means explicitly saying in front of a crowd that you’re not interested.
“This normally doesn’t work, because for the pursuer, assuming a no tends to simply stall the situation indefinitely. A man who doesn’t make any further moves, often doesn’t get any better signals than the ones that he had before. So he can escalate a bit again and hope for a clear response, keep talking until the woman walks away or give up completely. This is different for the pursued role, where not signaling a (clear) no allows the pursuer to continue. The pursuer will often make a move that tells the pursued more about the intentions of the pursuer. This is a fundamental difference between the roles.
This is actually a very good example of why feminist advice to men is so often misguided, because the advice is based on what works for the pursued, but that often doesn’t translate to the pursuer role.”
If I haven’t made this clear yet, I think the male/female active/passive model is a bad model that should be done away with, especially when coupled with unclear communication. If a man isn’t getting a “yes” answer, ideally, he should state his intentions directly and ask permission. If a woman isn’t hearing the offers she wants, she should approach her desired partners and make her own.
Look, if you’re asking me what I think we should do–last week, I asked a guy if he wanted to go see a movie with me. He said yes. A couple days later, we had a text conversation, where he alerted me that he had assumed I was inviting him to go with a group of friends; he did want to see a movie and did think that spending more time with me sounded fun, but he wanted to let me know that he wasn’t looking for a romantic relationship. I assured him that friendship is good (it is), and that although I didn’t have other friends to invite, we could still go to a movie without it being romantic. Details are to be decided after we both finish finals. I’m considering inviting another friend who will be down for Christmas, if the guy says he’d still prefer for it to be a group thing.
This could still go horribly in some way that I am unable to foresee, but my goal was to see a movie and talk to this person more, and it looks like I’m going to get to do that. I get that this isn’t directly comparable to someone asking for casual sex, or for a romantic relationship, or whatever, but it’s the closest comparison I have. I think, in general, that people who desire some sort of social interaction ought to make offers.
I should note that I could have made it clear from the outset that the offer didn’t imply anything beyond the fact that I very much enjoy this person’s company and would like to get to know him better. The clear communication thing is still a work in progress, as is using it without sounding insulting. But ideally, expectations should be clearly stated, and people should avoid expecting things from a relationship that have not actually been discussed.
I think other people are making themselves unnecessarily miserable by trying to navigate social and romantic interactions by interpreting variations of this weird non-explicit script that everyone’s been given a different copy of.
“The problem is that there are a ton of psychological reasons why most people greatly prefer unclear communication (again, not limited to just dating).”
This is almost definitely true, but my empathy is failing me and I am unable to see them, apart from concerns about insults. If you want solutions, I’m afraid you’ll have to point out the other problems yourself, because I legitimately do not see downsides after we get past the part where everybody has been conditioned to see direct communication as an insult. In the interest of caution, though, we should try small-scale uses of open communication and see what problems we run into, then come up with possible responses before we attempt to make anyone else adhere to the new system.
Conveniently, the rationalists seem to be trying this, at least to a much greater extent than most other groups I’ve encountered.
“Furthermore, if feminists encourage more sexually aggression, but do not teach about male consent issues, we may see an increase in sexual abuse of men. So we may start replacing abuse of women with abuse of men. I’m not sure that counts as a win.”
I’m Catholic. I think the proper context of sex is marriage and mutual self-giving, a relationship so deep that both partners have promised to place the needs of their spouse above their own for the rest of their lives. I sincerely do not think my goals or tactics are aligned with those of any feminist who would encourage women to ignore male consent.
I can’t tell if you’re implying anything about my goals or views with the above statement, but I wanted to make that clear.
“Or men can find alternatives to sex, like porn or (in the future) sex robots.”
Porn already exists, and men seem to be dissatisfied with the arrangement, so I don’t think this will lead to a situation where partnered sex is no longer in demand. I suppose the robots could be a different story, but faking human interaction seems harder than automating just about anything else, so I doubt it will happen in the near future.
“Anyway, thanks for the thoughtful comment.”
Likewise.
LikeLiked by 3 people
Your analysis is quite strong, but I’d like to focus on this bit:
The problem is that I think many people’s egos are not capable of dealing with the bluntness of a real Tell Culture. I am personally not very good at Guess culture, so theoretically I should be happy with Tell Culture, but I also have experience with naked rejection and it is no fun either. In fact, strong rejection can feel equally painful as physical violence (and psychological research shows that the human body reacts similarly to psychical as psychological pain). Much of social justice seems to believe that rejection is very psychologically damaging (even relatively mild variants called ‘micro-aggressions’), so I don’t see how these things can be reconciled.
You argued that W2 strategy is dependent on having overlap with W3 behavior (and/or vice versa), but I’m not sure that this is true. There is a decent amount of human communication where the recipient is fully aware that the communication is dishonest and still prefers that over bluntness. An example is that most people prefer very friendly service staff, but they are generally also aware that this person is not seeking friendship or a sexual relationship with the customer. As such, they deceive their ego into being flattered, but they don’t actually fundamentally believe it is or treat it as being honest.
So, a solution may be to more clearly separate W2 and W3 messages, where those W3 messages are sufficiently ambiguous to allow for self-affirmative semi-denial of the truth, but are also non-ambiguously an end to the dating scenario. Messages in the style of ‘mañana’ or ‘it’s not you, it’s me’ may work well here.
Personally, I would like to see an experiment in a community with relatively much intra-community sex (like a liberal college), where sex education classes are set up to explicitly teach pursuers to always interpret certain messages as W3 and for the pursued to use those message to indicate W3. My theory is that this would improve the dating experience and reduce sexual violence somewhat. This could then be verified with surveys at these colleges about people’s dating experiences and at other colleges with traditional sex ed which form the control group.
The percentage of one person households has been increasing for many decades. Among more recent generations, there is a substantial decrease in sexual activity, including fairly large groups who remain virgins.
Of course, there is no solid evidence for the cause of these trends and articles about it tends to offer up different speculative theories (and my arguments about this are just as speculative), but the facts allow for my theory to be true. It can both be true that one part of society keeps desiring a (real) partner, but that a substantial other part will prefer an alternative (as they already seem to be doing).
Anthropomorphism seems to be a core feature of human psychology and there has been extensive research into anthropomorphization of robots, which suggests that it is in fact quite easy to fake the social elements that are emotionally important to people, even as they rationally still recognize that the robot is non-human.
We also know that both real and stuffed animals have therapeutic value and are used by people to get the benefits of physical intimacy (and for other reasons, like to have someone to talk to who is not judgmental and such).
PS. I should have said ‘companionship & physical comforting’ robots, rather than sex robots, as I see the former as the key benefits that these robots could bring to otherwise lonely people. Most likely, they will first be made for the elderly.
LikeLike
It seems to me that it would be a lot easier to legalize prostitution than to create cheap and realistic sex robots. New Zealand did the former, and there a typical hourly rate in a brothel is 250 New Zealand dollars, equivalent to 174 US dollars. Whereas even an inanimate Real Doll costs thousands of dollars.
Of course, prostitution won’t help people who are looking for “real love,” but sex robots would be even less helpful for that.
LikeLike
From documentaries about prostitutes, I’ve gathered that many men seek companionship at least as much as sex. A robot can be a permanent companion, which is probably extremely valuable for people (imagine having a permanent helper to delegate tasks to, to give emotional support, to cuddle with when desired, etc).
When I still had dial-up internet, I’d save up things to do when going online. My usage drastically changed when I got a permanent connection. It improved the experience a great deal. So I think that they is huge value in having permanent access, rather than seeking out a prostitute now and then.
As for Real Dolls, AFAIK they are made by hand and to spec. Artisan products tend to be very more expensive compared to mass production. I see no reason why future robots cannot achieve a price of a couple of thousands of dollars, with proper movement and AI (not tomorrow, but further in the future).
Once upon a time practically no one could afford a car, mobile phone, computer, etc. They all became drastically cheaper over time.
LikeLike
> From documentaries about prostitutes, I’ve gathered that many men seek companionship at least as much as sex. A robot can be a permanent companion, which is probably extremely valuable for people (imagine having a permanent helper to delegate tasks to, to give emotional support, to cuddle with when desired, etc).
I agree that a robot buddy like that does sound very useful to a lot of people. But that’s a very different thing from a sex robot (or even a robot buddy with sexual capabilities), and based on the track record of things like sex dolls and fleshlights, I highly doubt the latter will ever be anything more than a niche product. It seems like a lot of effort and expense to make something that, demonstrably, not that many people are actually interested in.
> As for Real Dolls, AFAIK they are made by hand and to spec. Artisan products tend to be very more expensive compared to mass production.
That begs the question of why they aren’t already mass produced. The most likely reason is that the market isn’t big enough for that to be cost effective.
Incidentally, Real Doll recently announced a talking version of their dolls with a projected price of $15,000. Which is already within the cost range of paying a real woman to date you for a year (from what I’ve read, typical sugar baby allowances range from $1000 to $5000 per month).
Maybe things will change in the distant future, but for the foreseeable future I don’t see any way to make the economics of sex bots work out. Anyone who could afford one can already afford to regularly pay for sex with a real person in some form or another.
And this isn’t even bringing up that that the fact that camgirls can make a living despite the abundance of free porn on the internet demonstrates that people will pay a premium for interaction with a real human even if the experiences are exactly the same.
LikeLike
@Aapje
What Ozy said, but also, women can also adjust their behavior, not just men. If a “W2” in your terminology finds that men start taking her soft nos literally, and therefore she no longer gets the sex she wants that way, she will surely adjust her behavior to start getting sex again.
(Myself, I find it really hard to express if I want any kind of physical contact, including sex, but if someone tries to initiate something that I want and make it clear they won’t proceed until they get a clear yes, I will eventually get around my mental block and give them that yes. Sex that someone actually wants is quite a powerful motivator!)
LikeLiked by 3 people
@tcheasdfjkl
That is true, but surely it is way more effective if you get men and women to simultaneously abandon X2 strategy, rather than just men? Especially as some women actually shame or even use violence to pressure men into M2 strategy.
In fact, as men appear to have a (much) larger gap between their libido and sexual fulfillment, and the cultural narrative is that women get raped more, it would seem easier to get women to change than men.
It’s really unfortunate that feminists tend to believe so strongly in female hypoagency, because without that, it would seem that they would often come to much better conclusions.
I assume that you are a woman, based on this comment. Imagine how hard it is for men who have a similar issue, but are expected to be the one to keep trying with women, most of whom turn them down. These rejections just add to that mental block.
Now imagine that the man is (not yet) very good at wooing and women generally only want to give him a soft no at best. It’s not surprising that many resort to alcohol to reduce their sensitivity to ‘no,’ which pushes them into M2. Unfortunately, there is little guidance for men to teach them how to woo so well that M1 has good results. Shaming men for using M2 doesn’t actually teach them to be so good that M1 works well.
The difficulty is that many people focus on addressing some detail of the mating ritual, rather than a holistic view where people seek a replacement ritual that addresses most requirements that people (consciously or unconsciously) have for it and/or set up some kind of ‘school’ where people get taught what to do (rather than what not to do).
LikeLike
Aapje, I wonder whether treating a soft no as something to be honetly investigated rather than as a hard no would help with some of the social difficulties.
Might it work to say something like “I take consent very seriously, and I’m not sure what you have in mind”?
LikeLiked by 3 people
I addressed this a bit in my other response to you, although this threatens to go very deep into the rabbit hole of debating how unclear communication can be a selection tool. That isn’t really what I want to get into too much…
Basically, I believe that many women prefer partners with masculine traits, good skills at communicating, a high willingness to please, etc, etc. The dating ritual is often used to (subconsciously) determine these traits, which severely complicates things. The passive/female role is also very protective of the ego, so it also tends to allow a large amount of (semi) plausible deniability. Then you have the issue that many women seem to be convinced that the mating ritual should be ‘romantic,’ which often boils down to the very destructive notion that sexual escalation should happen ‘naturally’. Without all these complications, people could resort to a simple ‘do you want sex?’ ‘sure/nope’ exchange (which seems to be relatively common in the gay community, which suggests that men are less bothered with such things).
Anyway, I’m not looking to convince anyone of my detailed theories or claiming to be some sort of expert, but rather, want to point out that that this is much more complex than just an issue of consent or treating the soft no as a hard no.
This destroys plausible deniability. It’s not romantic. Furthermore, many people are not able/willing to say something like ‘I’m OK with you placing your hand on my butt and if it feels good, I may want to kiss you on the mouth.’ So there is a good chance that they’ll respond with indignation.
Anyway, I don’t actually have a great solution to this. I am sympathetic to pushing people to change their norms surrounding soft nos, as long as there is equal pressure on men and women to reduce this practice. However, I don’t see it as a complete solution.
My point is more that we must be aware that it is not a full solution and that reality is very complex. That also means that well-meaning interventions can be counterproductive.
LikeLike
Honestly, I doubt that adopting an affirmative-consent standard will really harm your chances all that much– especially once you learn how to frame the explicit communication more erotically and escalate your requests gradually– asking “do you want to have sex?” in daylight while the two of you are sitting a couple feet apart isn’t terribly appealing, but whispering: “Tell me: do you want me to fuck you?” in somebody’s ear after making them gasp with a bite on the neck during a steamy makeout session when you’re both already half-undressed is hot.
To the extent that explicit communication actually does screen people out, it’s a feature, not a bug, especially if you care about the quality of sex you’re having. People who can’t communicate about their desires tend to be bad sex partners.
LikeLike
Any thoughts the way *he’s* maintaining a degree of plausible deniability? Upthread, I mentioned that he keeps taking her coat and hat away. The thing is, he doesn’t forcibibly take the coat and hat and hang on to them. Instead, he takes them very lightly (one at a time) and gives them back when she takes them.
He never lets the situation become an absolutely clear threat.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Which makes the whole situation a lot more creepy in my view. It’s like the monster in a horror film that you’ll never quite get to see, even though you know it’s lurking somewhere in the shadows.
It would be way less scary if the monster was just standing there in plain sight and attacking.
LikeLike
That’s why Invasion of the Body Snatchers is a classic.
LikeLike
The male-Wolf scene ended with him gently guiding a smiling female Mouse back into her seat, while the female-Wolf scene ended with her forcibly flipping onto the couch a much more frightened-looking male Mouse and holding him down with the two of them wrapped in his coat. So if anything, “Baby It’s Cold Outside” is a song that promotes *female-on-male* rape.
LikeLike
The obvious solution is to to portray the Wolf as the literal devil.
LikeLike
Pingback: Open Thread and Link Farm, Goodbye to 2016 We Won’t Miss Ya Edition | Alas, a Blog