These women are presumably being evasive in order to allow the man to save face and spare his feelings.

Don't do that - let him have it with both barrels. Tell him in no uncertain terms exactly how much you wish he'd have jumped out the window twenty minutes ago. Make him cry. Make him whimper and say, "You could have broken it to me more gently!"

A few decades of this and maybe men will be lining up for classes in how to take a hint.

I agree with what you wrote.

However I've also run into situations where I accepted the stop signal or what I believed was the stop signal only to find out later, I upset someone because I didn't continue. ???

Also the woman who does this creates the possibility of mixed signals later.

My father was a Navy officer and more than a little chauvinistic, but his viewpoint was to give the woman the benefit of the doubt always. Old school? Maybe? But there were less problems this way, unless, of course one actually runs into mixed signals situation.

You did the right thing, and you're well out of that one. Do you really want to be with a little girl who doesn't know what she wants?

You did the right thing, and you're well out of that one. Do you really want to be with a little girl who doesn't know what she wants?

Thanks, but sometimes it seems hard to believe that this doesn't describe a majority of women out there. It's not like this was some young bimbo who unconditionally absorbs gender stereotypes - we were both in our mid-twenties and in grad school. If you can't find directness and maturity at that level, where can you?

The thing is that, at some level, I knew that her protestations weren't really sincere from the way they were delivered. But somehow I just couldn't force myself to conceptualize the disconnect between her words and what she actually wanted - it was like my mind/body couldn't conceive of going forward with my advances in the face of a 'no' even if I knew it was insincere.

Some phrases that spring to my mind, as a woman contemplating what you might do in that situation:

"Oh for God's sake grow up. You're what, 26? Do you want to have sex or not?"

"I'm not a rapist."

And for the gentleman whose lady physically shoved him away, and then complained that he didn't want to have sex, there is a phrase tailor-made for that situation: "What the fuck with you, bitch?"

Yeah, none of these phrases is likely to get you laid. But it might shock her into not repeating her bad behavior with the next poor bastard.

First a link to the actual press release with the information about the study would have been nice. People can find it here:

http://www.news.ucdavis.edu/search/news_detail.lasso?id=8598

or here:

http://tinyurl.com/6czo6e

Second, I think it's important to mention to head off some of the sure to come flaming that the researchers in question were very clear about the implications of their findings that the miscommunication is a two-way street. To wit:

Men need to be aware of the many ways that women may say "stop" without using the word "stop."

When a man asks himself during intimacy, "Why did she say that?" he should not try to answer the question by imagining what he would mean if he said the same thing.

When in doubt, ask. "So it's getting late; does that mean we should stop?"

and

Women should use direct messages.

A woman who cannot be direct should at least work a direct message into the indirect one: "It's getting late, so I'd like to stop."

From my reading of the press release, the study seems pretty carefully designed based on sound principles of social psychological and communication theory and a good study to highlight.

That being said, it wouldn't surprise me if the take-away message we see bouncing around some of the darker corners of the blogosphere will be: see, women just aren't being clear enough. That is, this study will get play not because of its evenhandedness but in spite of it - indeed it will get seen because it may appear to confirm the response many men make in those types of circumstances, that the woman should have been clear. Few will notice that the research in no way absolves men of their responsibility in the mistaken judgment that they are making in those circumstances.

achilleselbow -- used to feel like you. Raised by awesome feminist mo and I still feel like my attitude about gender roles is more progressed than women I interact with (and date). Then again, I live in Los Angeles .

But as a divorced 36 year old, I can tell you that it is absolutely NOT most women. There seem to be a few women out there who, for whatever personal reason, wanted aggression from me in a way that made me have to say: "you and I are not sexually compatible."

listen to Allie, she's funny and spot on.

There is a much less generous reading possible.

In any ambiguous situation, people are going to choose the interpretation they like best.

If you're a man who wants to get laid, you're going to hear an ambiguous message in a way that keeps that desirable possibility alive. That doesn't seem particularly creditable, nor an innocent mistake - it's just normal self-centredness at work.

> Just as men are misreading women's indirect resistance, women are miscalculating how men will interpret their cues to slow down or stop.

Thats right ladies! Be clear, be concise, and use the minds you have and the language you know how to speak - say what you mean. Miscommunication by ambiguity is the fault of the speaker, not the listener.

Excellent, balanced, thoughtful post, Ms. Clark-Florie. Very much appreciated.

Couple of thoughts. One: Several posters predicted a rain of sexist slam-downs which, so far haven't happened. I see that as progress. Not to mention a reflection of the essential accuracy of Ms. Clark-Florie's conclusion.

Two: I'm struck by the almost anguished emotions Ms. Clark-Florie's post seems to have elicited from male respondents, myself included. I read all this and think back over my, what, 25 years of romantic/sexual misadventures, and the numerous times I felt desperate for some sort, any sort, of certainty about what the woman I was with wanted. At this moment, reminiscing about those times, I am surprised to find myself disarmed by my own sense of emotional vulnerability toward these memories.

Apparently like many men, judging from the responses here, I've spent a lot of time miserably befuddled, at once yearning to satisfy my own desires of the heart and body and at the same time feeling utterly desolate at the thought that I might transgress against the wishes of the person I was with, whom without exception I liked, respected, cared for or even loved. And yet, despite that most sincere desire to honor the wishes of my companions, there were times when I clearly (in retrospect) underestimated their passions or intent, as well as times when I clearly overestimated them (those misunderstandings made themselves known with far more alacrity). Feelings were hurt, mine and/or theirs, and sometimes badly. I still feel the pain of those moments, even now, just contemplating them.

The reality (I think and hope) that underlies discussions like this is that most of us heterosexual men and women want to connect, so very badly; we desire nothing more fervently than to elicit a true response, if not the positive one we wish for. We may never understand or communicate with each other perfectly, but we will have taken an enormous step toward that ideal if we can manage to keep that commonality in mind, even as we discuss issues and perspectives that sometimes divide us.

Thanks so much for this.