There are a lot of guys out there who don’t seem to understand that “no means no.” It’s a dangerous and threatening problem, and it absolutely needs to be rectified.
No woman I’ve ever known or encountered would say that I’m not receptive to the idea of “no.” In fact, it’s often been said to be true of me to a fault. It is, by far, the single most frequent criticism I ever received. There are a lot of guys like me, too.
Then there are the men on the fence due to uncertainty, and there are the young men who still need to develop into one type or the other.
In most general conversations about sexual consent as an abstract, we agree that it is best for men to be receptive to “no”. We feel the same when discussing specific, individual situations involving assault and harassment. So why do we discourage or criticize guys who take this on as their own personal philosophy?
When a man first approaches a woman in a romantic way and is rejected — regardless of whether the rejection is kind or gruff, explicit or clearly implied — he is faced with the choice of accepting that answer as being final or pressing for a different answer. We all should prefer the former option, but we don’t always indicate that we do.
During the times in my life in which I was trying to meet women (some relatively recently, although I am in a relationship now), I was never criticized for being aggressive or for pressuring or assaulting a woman. I cannot tell you how often I was directly criticized for not being “more persistent.”
I’ve heard this same complaint from female friends over the years about other men as well. Upon facing initial rejection, disinterest, or uncertainty, these guys immediately, quietly, and finally retreated in an effort to respect the woman’s wishes.
Not every time, but sometimes, these female friends and interests have expressed displeasure that the man in question (often me) never made a second attempt. And when we’re not explicitly saying it, we’re applauding post-rejection persistence in other ways.
Last night my partner and I saw A Star is Born, which we both thought was a fantastic movie. One of the elements that concerned us both, though, was that a male character persists (rather aggressively, but not physically) in pursuing a female character who has already expressed her desire that he not escalate things, at least so intensely or so quickly.
He does anyway, though, and… let’s just say that it works out (that shouldn’t be giving too much away) in accordance with his interests and not with her original opposition. He persuades her. This is one of the most common mechanisms in classic romantic films, and we’re obviously still inserting it into new ones.
In this movie, she does not appear to feel seriously threatened by his persistence, but it doesn’t go totally unacknowledged, either. She does joke about the possibility that she might have been, but her tone and actions seem to imply an overall positive response.
“When we encourage men to ‘be persistent,’ we’re telling them to do the opposite of taking ‘no’ for an answer the first time.”
This is where things are going awry, folks. I’m not exclusively blaming women for this inconsistency; there were men who were involved in and responsible for the making of that movie. The idea that “persistence pays off” in romantic pursuits is perpetuated by all genders.
It’s part of our culture that needs to be addressed and corrected. We need to stop giving males the idea that they may be rewarded for pushing through the initial rejection. We have to stop romanticizing, supporting, and promoting that dynamic.
We can’t say “no means no” with unflinching authority and then continually glorify situations in which the woman gives in because it was “what she secretly wanted all along” and the man just kept chipping away despite her protests.
The “be persistent” mantra has been passed down to young men from at least their male forebears in reference to the romantic pursuit of women for generations untold. Most of us are comfortable with calling a stop to that tradition now. Are we comfortable not passing that message on ourselves through other means, though?
Ideally, it would be great if every man just instinctively knew the appropriate way to respond to every woman. Barring that, though, perhaps we should map out some sort of guideline for how men should behave in rejection situations.
Considering the possible, and apparently appallingly realistic possibilities of encouraging men to dismiss the first “no” and to persist to see if the woman can be persuaded, it seems obvious that the best (though not perfect) answer is for everyone to wholeheartedly accept “no means no” unconditionally and at face value.
However, if we want that advice to be taken seriously, we have to stop supporting the idea that sometimes it is not true. Essentially, if we want to curb male aggression, we have to stop telling guys to “be more aggressive”.
We also have to stop couching that same idea in more positive-sounding words like “assertive” and “confident.” If I don’t make a second attempt at a woman who’s not displayed an interest in me, it’s not because I “lack confidence”; it’s (surprise) because she didn’t show interest in me. We shouldn’t be discouraging men from being sensitive to that.
When we encourage men to “be persistent”; we’re telling them to do the opposite of taking “no” for an answer the first time. When we reward the male character in a movie for continuing “the chase” after he’s been turned down, we’re sending that same message championing persistence.
Finally, we have to stop mocking men who point out this discrepancy. We have to stop pretending like “no means no” is a simple guideline to follow (and men are stupid for having questions) as long as we’re still encouraging men to push through the rejection and keep trying.
It’s not that most men can’t understand or accept “no means no” (some probably can’t, but most of us can); it’s that too often we’re encouraging them not to.