At first I was puzzled by your reply to my post. I read back over my post and I see that I did not communicate clearly. I absolutely believe that you said no. I am not questioning that at all. Also, I make no judgment about your resistance because you were there and I was not.

All I am merely saying is that if a man is determined to rape, he will attempt to do so whether a woman says no or not.

THis is just a manifestation of the general female trait: poor communication, followed by resentment when you are unable to read their minds.

And it's not just that men can't understand, because WOMEN DO THE SAME THING TO EACH OTHER.

Who the fuck still listens to Portishead?

You are correct that in the case of a persistant pursuit that looks like it could turn into a case of stalking or worse, non-response is best. This is because stalkers respond to rejection by upping the ante, feeling that they just aren't being persuasive enough. Any contact increases their eagerness and affirms their shaky sense of self.

However, not all stalkers are rapists and not all rapists are stalkers.

Power and control rapists described by Groth will keep pushing until they get resistance -- whether it comes late or early -- because they want the resistance to feed their anger. They get off on humiliation. It is unlikey that that particular type of rapist could be appeased. Tricked maybe in to putting down his guard, but rarely ever appeased.

As to men who abuse over the internet, you cannot stop them. It is their sport. That is why having one's own ignore list is so good. It means that I can just skim past their posts. Who cares what they are saying? I no longer read most of the uglier trolls.

I'm not the best person to talk about communication methods; some of my best friends are Aspies and they are easier to understand than everyone else ...

It doesn't help that people tell women that men who are interested aren't interested. Dan Savage made that mistake and told one letter-writer that if a man was interested, that man would have said so. Don't be ridiculous.

We, both men and women, are supposed to judge people by their character, their personality, etc. instead of their looks alone. We discover that through friendship. In some cases, the two friends may discover they are interested sexually as well as in other ways. In some cases, they might not. Where I come from, to move without a solid friendship is just plain wrong; to wait and see how you get along is what people should do.

Now some people are telling both sexes to ignore everyone who is doing the right thing, and waiting, and only pay attention to those who are doing the wrong thing, and trying to get sex and cajoling, and manipulating, and possibly even raping.

Maybe direct communication might help. Maybe ignoring the manipulators and paying attention to everyone else would help too.

I once dated a woman who said exactly that to me(i.e. "I am NOT going to have sex with you tonight") when she agreed to come back to my place after our(first) date date for coffee. "Fine - I said can I have that in writing" was my (unconvincing I thought) attempt at levity. She came back with me and changed her mind immediately about her resolve not have sex - I wasn't suprised by thenm because although I has used a throwaway line (...can i have it in writing..)this mild verbal spar was all it took even though I was fully prepared to take her at her first word!

What I'm suggesting is that both men and women communicate as they do for good reasons. From a biological standpoint, men seem to have a tougher time dealing with emotional arousal. Their heart rates rise faster and sooner under stress, and take longer to calm down. Once the heart rate goes above a certain point, rationality flies out the window, in both sexes. Sexual arousal increases heart rate as it is. Why risk pushing someone past their limit when there's another alternative available?

Because that alternative operating widely in society is what contributes to the confusion and frustration that, in the case of some fucked up individuals, results in hatred for women and a need to assert dominance over them, and in the case of everyone else results in a lot of broken hearts and missed opportunities. I realize this is a chicken or the egg question, but I refuse to believe that women are from Venus and men are from Mars, and this is how it's got to be. I think you give rationality short shrift to the point that emotional/sexual arousal almost becomes an excuse for that kind of behavior. We are all rational beings, and we should always want to make communication as unambiguous and effective as possible, especially regarding important matters like this.

It's not like I have a clear idea of how to resolve this problem. It seems to me to stem from the fact that we are caught somewhere between traditional sexual mores and the new 'liberated' ones. Perhaps when feminism achieves its social and economic goals, sexual politics will undergo a drastic change and women will either have to pursue men as much as the reverse is true now, or no one will have to pursue anyone at all. Until then, those of us who are not rapists would prefer to at least strive for clarity.

"...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..."

How about us men doing NOTHING AT ALL unless you women make it perfecty clear what you want? How about it be WOMEN that do all the asking out? That will be the day I see pigs fly because women simply aren't prepared to risk having their very delicate ego's bruised by being rejected by a man! That's more likely the real reason women are 'tactful' - it is the guilt of the emotional coward!!