It's about the occurrence where women say no to sexual exchange, but are waiting for the man to continue anyway as part of the game. The reason they do it, according to Hulme and his sources, is because it shows the woman isn't a slut before continuing with the sex. The implication is the man kept going and "made her do it," so to speak, so she can let go of her socially-induced phobia.
I've dealt with those I consider to be unethical self-proclaimed sex educators who supported this phenominon in their presentations without labelling it as a problem as Hulme rightly does. His words echo mine, as do some of the comments to it below his article. One in particular makes it clear that if a woman has to play this game, then she is not mature enough to be having sex with anyone. I couldn't have said it better, but there may be more to it than that. Another commenter said it was a buzzkill to stop and talk about whether no means no. This kind of twisted logic is what forms much of our problems today particularly in the teen and young adult dating world. It is also used against condom use if a young woman brings it up as well.
I submit that the statement that clarification of "no" is a buzzkill is a tactic to get around ethical sexual consent so those interested parties can have their preferred forms of sexual high, which is unethical to ethically-muddy sex. It has a mindset, an intent, and an energy to it that some people really go for-- become addicted to. Hulme didn't mention this in his article. There is a side to some people that don't want ethical sex or don't want it all the time. Ultimately, it has at its core an essence of not caring about the other person being consumed in the slightest and on the receiving end, not caring for one's self; for safety, consequences, etc. This feeling, this mindset, is one I personally consider unhealthy. Other people will play with this intention, but make it clear that's what they're doing and get consent to the game. However, breaking the "No" boundary makes it more real and more potent a high.
Detractors of my position would say I'm overreacting. That it's just a game and a woman who really didn't want to do it would make it very clear by pushing him way and leaving, for example. That doesn't change my mind at all. This stuff is not a toy and I believe it can change people the more they play with it. Hulme's wife replied to him that, quote, The reason he didn't score... that night was because 'he lacked the killer instinct,' end quote. Frankly, I'm surprised he didn't say more about that since his wife seemed to be on board with the behavior instead of agreeing with his position.
I can imagine 99% of men being told that by a woman and going straight to re-examining if he's a real manly man, then deciding instantly to go with this practice.The women in these settings who go there are complicit and enjoy this, shall we say, different form of sexual energy. Perhaps it's because that is what sex has always been for them. What sex is. This is the stuff that conservatives point at and call down from on high against; making accusations that all of sexual expression is of this ilk. This is not true, but I understand their alarm. A hallmark of the conservative mind is seeing a problem and throwing out the baby with the bath water.
Everyone has to make their own choices about what pleasures they will indulge in life. I'm fully aware that not all pleasure is healthy or ethical. It's the kind of treatment of women, or anyone for that matter, that would instantly inspire a loving parent or sibiling to take care of business if the woman was their daughter or sister. My advice to people who support this "killer instinct" is to think long and broad about what it is and what it may mean to bring it into your life. It is not the same thing as being a sexually in-charge male, which has healthy and different forms of intent, mindset, and energy.