" 'No' means 'no' ", except when it it doesn't, in which case it means "maybe", or maybe it means "yes", or maybe it means "yes, but...", or maybe...
Aw, the hell with it. Who knows what the hell it means?
Always interested in keeping up with what the enemy is thinking and up to, I regularly pick up Cosmo to see what kind of drivel women are being fed about men. In the current issue (today being 3/2/99) there is an article about a couple of things women do to keep men from saying "I Love You", plus some other useful advice to women which explains certain male behaviors that they love to bash. I was pleasantly surprised when the first topic dealt with was a woman asking:
"Even when I am giving him the 'yes' signal, he still won't make a move. Why?"
Instead of the stupid male-bashing gark which is usually dished out in that rag, I found the very realistic response "WHAT SIGNAL" in the male's reply. Hmmmmm? Does this question about "yes" signals and why men don't pick up on them mean what I think it means? Is this even the barest hint that sometimes women do, indeed, "ask for" men to "make a move" on them? Is this a tiny break in the wall of denial that sometimes women do, indeed, "ask for it"?
Horrors! Alert the feminazi thought police! BURN THOSE BOOKS! We CAN'T let that statement go UNPUNISHED!!!!!!
Here, we confront one of the most pervasive, and for men destructive, double messages which they get from women, and the most dangerous example of the double-THINK which our culture is permitting among women. For, in fact, we DO KNOW that women still rely almost entirely on passive strategies to attract male attention, and still absolutely refuse to stick their necks out and be as clear and explicit in their interest as the "Antioch Rules" would require.
It also explains why women are more and more going for the most aggressive and marginalized males: because they are the only ones who will still take the risk to interpret an ambiguous signal as a possible "yes" instead of a possible "no".
Daphne Patai, in her "Heterophobia: Sexual Harassment and the Future of Feminism" tackles the nightmarish atmosphere of academia today. The "sex police", driven to find victims under every rock, "harassers" in every office not occupied by a woman, and make heterosexuality a thing of the past; aided and abetted by a vast army of opportunistic women ready and willing to retire on the several million bucks they can get for having to "suffer" just about any off-color comment; have certainly managed to put men in a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" postion. Or perhaps more accurately: "sued if you do, slammed if you don't."
Do women appreciate the diffculty of men's position when it comes to the runaway abuse of SH law? HA! Dream on, guys. Female enticement and male intiation have been the basic steps of the mating dance since we were on all-fours and sniffing women's butts, instead of looking at their actions, to determine sexual receptivity. (A practice to which I heartily endorse returning.) Giving away the tactical advantage of being able to deny that it IS something SHE WANTS would totally undermine women's traditional power base. Hell, just look at Bill and Monica. How in the world a self-serving power groupie can manage to be seen as everyone's niece "used and abandoned" by a man "old enough to be her father" is beyond me. But, hey, that's why they call it "The Feminine Mystique."
It's a tough choice for guys these days. Either they can act within the socially positive values with which they were brought up, and watch while the scumbags walk away with a girl on each arm, or they can try to ignore all that and just go for it, in which case they will end up having their asses sued off if they have have any ass to sue for. It's enough to turn you into a misogynist.
What pisses me off more than anything else is the number of these little whiners who say "I GAVE him the 'yes signal', why didn't he take me?" and ALSO show up at "Women Take Back The Night" rallies. Coming close in the piss-off hierarchy are the males who are doing their best to continue to let these women have it both ways.
The sooner men start implementing " 'No' REALLY DOES mean 'no', and unless you say a clear, explicit, and unambiguous 'yes', you aren't gonna get the time of day", the sooner we will start striking an effective blow against the runaway abuse of Sexual Harassment and false claims of SH and rape.
Back to Gender War, Sexuality, and Love
Beltway skullduggery wastes blood and treasure
6 hours ago