9/20/2015

No means no? | Neoheresy

Home
John on YouTube
Search this site...

GO

No means no?
February 4, 2013
Quite obviously, no doesnt always mean no.
Take this excerpt from my favourite movie, The Empire Strikes Back:
Han Solo: Hey, Your Worship, Im only trying to help.
Princess Leia: Would you please stop calling me that?
Han Solo: Sure, Leia.
Princess Leia: You make it so difficult sometimes.
Han Solo: I do, I really do. You could be a little nicer, though. Come on, admit it. Sometimes you think Im all right.
Princess Leia: Occasionally, maybe when you arent acting like a scoundrel.
Han Solo: Scoundrel? Scoundrel? I like the sound of that.[Han starts to massage Leia's hand]
Princess Leia: Stop that.
Han Solo: Stop what?
Princess Leia: [timidly] Stop that. My hands are dirty.
Han Solo: My hands are dirty, too. What are you afraid of?
Princess Leia: Afraid?
Han Solo: Youre trembling.
Princess Leia: Im not trembling.[Han moves in closer]
Han Solo: You like me because Im a scoundrel. There arent enough scoundrels in your life.
Princess Leia: I happen to like nice men.
Han Solo: Im nice men.
Princess Leia: No, youre not. Youre[they kiss]
The only excuse for not having seen this scene is being very young. If you really cant be bothered to watch the original Star Wars movies, at
least go to YouTube and find this scene.
Clearly, Leia wanted Han not to stop. She wanted him to be assertive. No meant yes.
Now take this infamous excerpt from myfavoritenovel, The Fountainhead by Ayn Rand:
She fought like an animal. But she made no sound. She did not call for help. She heard the echoes of her blows in a gasp of his breath, and
she knew that it was a gasp of pleasure. She reached for the lamp on the dressing table. He knocked the lamp out of her hand. The crystal
burst to pieces in the darkness.
[...]
It was an act that could be performed in tenderness, as a seal of love, or in contempt, as a symbol of humiliation and conquest. It could be
the act of a lover or the act of a soldier violating an enemy woman. He did it as an act of scorn. Not as love, but as defilement. And this
made her lie still and submit. One gesture of tenderness from himand she would have remained cold, untouched by the thing done to her
body. But the act of a master taking shameful, contemptuous possession of her was the kind of rapture she had wanted. Then she felt him
shaking with the agony of a pleasure unbearable even to him, she knew that she had given that to him, that it came from her, from her body,
and she bit her lips and she knew what he had wanted her to know.
[...]
They had been united in an understanding beyond the violence, beyond the deliberate obscenity of his action; had she meant less to him, he
would not have taken her as he did; had he meant less to her, she would not have fought so desperately. The unrepeatable exultation was in
knowing that they both understood this.
She fought Roarkbecause she wanted it. Rand later claimed if this was rape, it was rape by engraved invitation, because Dominique did
indeed ask for it.
Another example is Margaret Mitchells novel Gone with the Wind. Here, Scarlett,who has no eyes for her suitor Rhett, finally feels love for
him after he violently drags her up the stairs. You can have a look at the relevant passageshere.
Both novels were written by women. Indeed its very easy to find novels with a distinctly D/s theme that have female authorship, so Occams
razor demands assuming also a sizable female audience even if rumors about this cliche alone dont convince you. The same goes for short
stories on the internet, and, of course, the bdsm porn industry.
So what does no means no actually mean? Does it mean that a woman, who says no, means no, or does it mean that you should take it to mean
noeven if she means yes. In other words, did Leia or Dominique wanted theirsuitorsto stop, or should those have stopped in any case?
http://www.neoheresy.com/no-means-no/

1/3

9/20/2015

No means no? | Neoheresy

The first meaning is the literal one and is a descriptive statement. The second one is prescriptive; it tells us what to do.
You might think that this is irrelevant nit-picking, but I dont think so and here is why. Today, you have to be quite out of touch with the
developments of modern technology to live under the delusion that no actually always means no in the descriptive sense. We covered this.
So when today you are told that no means no you could argue that it has to take the prescriptive meaning, as clearly the other one is absurd.
From the perspective of finding a code of conduct, the prescription doesnt sound too bad. Since one cant know for sure what anybody really
wants one should act only on consent they give explicitly.
However, the times have changed. When my sexuality was awakening and I began to ponder the fundamental questions about sexual dynamics,
there was no internet. But there was, among other things, the mantra that no means no that everybody was convinced was true. And I didnt
take it to have a prescriptive meaning, even though I understood there to be a prescriptivecorollary. I took it literally. I actually believed that
women dont want their resistance to be overcome. In other words, I believed Hans masculine assertiveness being desired by women to be
unrealistic.
There were also, frequently, stories about rape and sexual molestation in the media being under discussion. The suspicion that the woman might
have invited the transgression was considered a tool of sexism. The problem that is so obvious today, that both men and women enjoy dynamics
that can be hard to tell from abuse, was wiped off societys radar.
So, when I think back to my childhood sexual education, I cant help thinking that I have been lied to. Indoctrinated. No means no can, and
often will have been, when stated unqualified, taken to be a description of female sexuality, rather than a code of conduct. And as such
itsblatantlywrong.
The feminist sex-education by my parents and my government-funded teachers was wrong, I should rather have believed Star Wars.
Obviously this matters. A code of conduct can always be negotiated, and its importance is clear even to a young child. If both men and women
desire the chase, clear rules can ensure that such chases can beindulgedunder a framework that balances risks for both genders. But if women
dont ever desire the chase, there is no need for a discussion. Every assertive man is then a bully or worse.
Furthermore, Ive been largely raised by women. The men were, as far as I can tell, not particularly masculine and in hindsight probably not
particularly active in forming the narratives under which my views on sexuality formed as well as the rest of my world-view. They merely
went along.
What kind of a woman tells young men in their care something that will impair their sexuality? Things that they know to be wrong, first handed?
Things that are likely to be contradicted by the pornographic literature they themselves consume, as is today visible to everyone, when they are
not busy lying to those they pretend to care for?
This applies to mothers, other family members serving as role models, teachers, and the adult generation of that time in general. Its an important
question because society is often thought of under collectivist premises. This is called the social contract: The older generation teaches the young
generation skills and values, how life works, and for that the new generation honors the older generation, and provides for them in their age.
Since most people are too dumb to understand why social contract theory is nonsensical, its sometimes beneficial to just assume this irrational
framework and ask:
How does hypocrisy fit into this scheme?
In particular, what does a generation owe to another when they have been told not how life works, but lies that make them become sexually
frustrated nice guys wondering why women often reward a guy that didnt take no for an answer. Didnt no mean no?
And of course the lies about sexuality are only the tip of the ice berg. In order to become a man as confident as Han Solo or Howard Roark (in
other words, in order to become a man at all) one needs much more. Liberal indoctrination doesnt help here, as you can easily see by looking at
all the effeminate neurotics today, especially in the US and the UK, and compare them to their Christians ancestors. People whotraveledacross
the Atlantic towards an uncertain future, to homestead in an unknown country. All that without any college education or social security. Real
men.
Compared to the modern progressive mainstream, many of those Christians were sane and honest. Their God might not exist, but sexually, their
only lie is that this God wants you to wait until marriage and be monogamous. The abuse-dramatizing, progressive generation of baby-boomers
deceive under the guise of being sensitive, educated and full of love, whereas in fact they are merely anti-masculinity and anti-capitalism
in a way Christian societies had not predominantly been since the Protestant Reformation. Im pretty sure that historically for many progressives,
this was their problem with Christians to begin with.
The woman desiring to be dominated and not advertising the fact is as innocent as it gets. But if such women became mothers (or educators)
who, in the internetless 70ties, 80ties and 90ties, claimed no means no, which they knew to be a lie, and jeopardized the sexual health of their
child for the benefit of potential rape victims (and their own self-flattery), they did that in the same way that some Islamic parents employ female
genital mutilation to trade the sexual health of their daughters for the benefit of Allah. The relative absurdity of the delusion in question does not
affect the scope of their betrayal. Parents should be on the side of their children for their own, selfish benefit: The saved potential rape victim
will thank them as little as the Muslims fictional deity, but the love and resentment of their offspring is going to be proportional to their loyalty
and treachery.
A short introduction to Browsers minions
Permanent Link

First time youre here?

I'm John Tyson, a German mathematician and software developer.
The primary purpose of this blog is to host ideas about the Protestant Reformation and its parallels to the contemporary American cultural
http://www.neoheresy.com/no-means-no/

2/3

9/20/2015

No means no? | Neoheresy

conflict. The most concise articulation of my theory is the article linked in the box below. I also explain random bits on my YouTube
channel, although I regard my channel more of an advertisement for ideas properly laid out here rather than the other way round.
Wishing you a thought-provocing read, John

Theories
Objectivism as a new Calvinism

Neoheresy Feed
No means no?
Quite obviously, no doesnt always mean no. Take this excerpt from my favourite movie, The Empire Strikes Back: Han Solo: Hey,
Your Worship, Im only trying to help. Princess Leia: Would you please stop calling me that? Han Solo: Sure, Leia. Princess Leia:
You make it so difficult sometimes. Han Solo: I do, I really []
A short introduction to Browsers minions
I have argued for objective morality by comparing life to Super Mario in my last post (which is not prerequisite read for this one).
However, a better analogy might be a massive-multiplayer game.Obviouslythere are other players. Or maybe those are NPCs? Its
a side issue that I will leave to the readers idle contemplation. We []
The objective morality of Super Mario and rabbits
Although many people are influenced by Rand, theres few who take her actual philosophy seriously. Among those who are trying
todefendit there are many who dont get it, thereby defending it badly. So even people who are pretty smart, have to some extent
argued with self-identified Objectivists and maybe even read one of her novels []
On the Jewish Question
I have atheory that might tell someone who is not anti-Semitic about where Antisemitismcomes from and convince someone who
in fact is anti-Semitic that he might be barking up the wrong tree and why. I call it the PAMF setup. There are two basic cliches
about the Jews. The first is that they are ideological []
New Blog
First post in my new blog. Its about ideologies and a companion of the YouTube channel. So far, theres no additional content on
this blog, but I plan to put scripts and additional material here. Regards, John []
Powered by WordPress & Web Design Company
[ Back to top ]

http://www.neoheresy.com/no-means-no/

3/3