Yes, I definitely am a member of the movement to encourage women to be more direct with what they want. I think we'd all be better off for it, particularly when it comes to sex and sexuality. Not only should women learn to say no more effectively, but I believe they should learn to say yes with more forcefulness, too; Don't make it a game or a maze with delicious cheese at the end. Men would be less sexualy frustrated and then perhaps Broadsheet and Salon wouldn't have quite so many angry men screaming about the machinations of women.

But women do not hold a monopoly on vague communication. When, in the course of heteronormative romantic relationships, it is time for the girl to ask if she can start keeping some clothes over at his house and he BEGRUDGINGLY gives her a space under his dresser, why is it that he becomes more distant, easier to anger? Suddenly his territory is encroached upon, but rather than saying, "That is just not the relationship I want with you," he builds a campaign of passive aggressive behavior that would shame the graduate of any old fashion finishing school.

I think the article sends a great message. But men need to meet us halfway on the road to honest communication.

this is a good piece by TC-F. It's consistently amazing how academia relishes bashing men. Does the study find miscommunication between the sexes? Yes, so it's the men's fault. Standard stuff. So thanks to TC-F for skewering this nonsense.

As for me, I've been married for 19 years, so my dating experience is not exactly fresh, but I fairly quickly discovered that it was a lot easier and more sensible to just let the woman give the signal when she wanted to have sex. That is, just don't try to push things beyond where they go naturally. My experience is that women are quite clear when they want to be, and when they clearly want to have sex, it's a lot freer and more fun than if they're unsure. If you have to work too hard to figure out what the message is, it's either "no" or ambiguous, so just wait til it's clear. That may get you laid about 5% less often, but that's OK.

"When I try to counter that with the idea if you can hold off for months and months you can't really like sex that much you get some sort of argument about not wanting the mother of your children being easy."

There are core biological reasons for this response in men. A man has no way of judging the paternity of a woman's off-spring. So you can reinterpret "mother of my children" to be "mother of children she claims are mine."

If a woman is easy, it's a good genetic decision for the man to have sex with her. Maybe you pass on your genes.

But it's an unwise use of the male's resources to care for her and her offspring of questionable paternity. Those resources could be used to care for offspring produced by women that seem likely to have sex with only one male.

So easy for me means probably easy for everyone else. Good for a night, but bad for a relationship.

> "Men need to learn that they are under no obligation

>to try to second-guess what a woman says."

Brilliant! And how refreshingly unusual an interpretation. Instead of seeing the woman's No as a challenge to overcome, it's deemed a simplifying fact. It frees the man, stops him from wasting time.

Why should a guy have to "change" a woman's mind? Is she a car being sold to a reluctant buyer or a human who needs sex just as much a man does?

I think walter_map is onto something, a perception that empowers men. It's subtle, but critical.

Women are free to say No, just like they can cry “Wolf!” What they can't do is avoid the consequences. If a woman is routinely dishonest she risks being preyed upon, just like the person facing a wolf alone because no one believes her any more. I’m not talking about being physically abused. I’m talking about driving good guys away and attracting users.

Trying to figure out which No a woman means makes the guy a supplicant. It puts her above him. It lets her stay vague and avoid responsibility. She can always blame the guy for “misunderstandings.”

If a guy takes every No literally, though, then HE decides what to do. Instead of overcoming "last minute resistance," he can leave. Why stay and put himself down, putting her on a pedestal? If he offered her food and she refused would he try to feed her? If she doesn't know if she's hungry or not, that’s her problem. If she starves, her choice. Don’t become a lapdog doing tricks for table scraps. Find a woman who knows what she wants!

A guy who manipulates a woman for sex makes HER the prize. He assumes the burden of making her happy. Why do it? Better to be alone for a while than humiliate yourself for poonani. It ain’t like there’s a shortage.

I read a forum once where guys talked about what to do when other men intrude on an ongoing conversation with a woman. Each guys offered a way to neutralize the "poachers." One man refused do anything. He said he just whispered in the woman's ear, "I think that's the ONE!" and walked away. He refused to his waste time trying to "win over" a reluctant woman. If she wasn't into him...he walked. He valued himself. He didn't put the woman down, just treated her like ice cream he didn't like. Next!

The odd thing, he found out, was that about 60% of the time the woman sought him out later. That's not why he whispered into to her ear, though. He sincerely meant that if she wasn't into him another woman would be...and he was off to meet HER. He suspected the reluctant woman was intrigued by his refusal to jump through hoops to get her attention.

So guys actually benefit from the simplistic feminist edict to treat No as No. It frees them, saves them time. It also forces women to know what they want or suffer the fools that stick around.

In the end, game-playing women and PUA "players" deserve each other.

I agree with this, too: "Don't you pursue her. Let her figure out what she wants. Don't try making up her mind for her." Too few guys ask if women are worthy of them. They will, as a rule, "eat a mile of her poop to see where it comes from." They don't see women as equals…with equal volition and sexual needs. Guys don’t “get” that women who complain about meeting only "jerks" CHOOSE that scenario. By making guys come to them, by not being direct or honest, they limit their choices. They chase good guys way, attracting ones who play games.

Maybe there is rough justice after all. Maybe for every guy who suffers from being "too nice," there's a woman used/abused by guys who learned to play her game and trumped her. After all, women DO teach men how they want to be treated.