Home » Blogs » Eric Amaranth's blog

Making Sure That "No" means "No," not "Yes" or "Maybe"

Thu, 03/01/2012 - 10:03
Submitted by Eric Amaranth

A quick blog post today, but an important one. My friend Steve Otero located this article by Roland Hulme.

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.

Sex life coaching and neo-male perspectives.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

I have to say I the meaning

Thu, 03/01/2012 - 13:52
Elin A (not verified)

I have to say I the meaning got lost to me in all that text.

Basically you're saying one shouldn't play with the word NO or invite to [pretend] non-consentual sex without talking about it first? Because if you've clarified it's a game you like, there's nothing wrong with it, right?

If you announce it as play

Eric Amaranth's picture
Thu, 03/01/2012 - 14:23
Eric Amaranth

edited this to clarify:
If you announce it as play beforehand, that's one thing. The people I'm writing about here aren't announcing anything beforehand. Her or him. That's one thing that needs correcting. However, even if it is pre-announced, and you truly are going into the intent I'm talking about, be aware that you're playing with something that, like I said, isn't a toy. I choose in my life to not go there.

Mutual consent rape fantasy

Thu, 03/01/2012 - 15:24
Jake E

Mutual consent rape fantasy is fine. Like any BDSM It needs discapline and trust and safe words but the creative potential is enormous. 

Yeah no means absolutely no unless mutually agreed with a safe word. I liken it to marshal arts or sport boxing as apposed to picking fights in bars to get your kicks.  Suspending disbeleif just needs imagination, we don't need reality.

Eric, You write: "However,

Thu, 03/01/2012 - 15:47
Elin A (not verified)

Eric,

You write: "However, even if it is pre-announced, and you truly are going into the intent I'm talking about, be aware that you're playing with something that, like I said, isn't a toy. I choose in my life to not go there."

You're being very vague. What is this intent you're talking about and why is it dangerous even when pre-announced? Because you certainly portray it as such, whatever it is.

Eric, I really appreciate the

Sat, 03/03/2012 - 00:11
Melisssa (not verified)

Eric, I really appreciate the idea you're trying to convey, though as the other comments have stated, the article seems a bit incomplete. 
The way I read this, I think Eric is essentially saying the fact that women "play hard to get" and often say "no" when they mean "yes, but you have to initiate so I'm not considered a whore" is indicative of a larger social issue where women feel uncomfortable expressing their sexuality and push the responsibility of initiation onto the man.
For those who are more sexually aware/experienced, they may better understand that this scenario is a form of role play and enjoy it as part of their sexual whole, to differing degrees. There's a certain amount of awareness in the nature of the relationship.
For others though, this may be the only way they know how to express their sexuality, and ends up promoting a an unhealthy sexual culture. For a woman, it may mean hoping that a man just goes for it without them explicitly giving consent in order to avoid owning their sexuality while trying to fulfill their needs. For men, I it sounds like it would lead to a lot of confusion about women's sexual desires and promotes the idea that they have to coerce/dominate women in order to have sex with them. For all involved, I imagine all of this leads to missed opportunities for consentual sex.
I would love to hear more about your ideas on ethical sex!

Post new comment

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
By submitting this form, you accept the Mollom privacy policy.