My Photo
Location: British Columbia, Canada

Yeah. I got nothin.

Wednesday, March 08, 2006

Guilted Into Submission

Ho ho (again)! Hey hey (again)! It's International Women's Day (still, but later)!

So for your merry perusal, I've come to help with a couple of questions that have been befuddling and confuselling a proportion of the less-fair sex for some time now. These questions being:
1) What does no mean?
2) What, exactly means no?
Yes boys, I feel your pain. I realize that no means no is a vague concept, lacking the specificity and simplicity that the mind can easily embrace. But answers I do have! And with you, I will share. So get your pencils and notepads, and take a few notes.
First: What does no mean?
Well, no means:

  • I do not want to fuck you.
But it's so much more than that! You thought I'd stop there, did you? Well, no. It goes on:

  • Just because I said I wouldn't fuck you does not mean you should aim for a blow job.
  • Or a hummer.
  • Or tit fucking.
  • Or a hand job.
Damn, these rules just keep on getting harder, don't they? Well, fasten your seat belts, cause it gets can extend to beyond sexual acts. Oh dear. See, no may also mean:

  • Although I'm sure your charm and chivalry are lovely, I'm actually enjoying dinner with my friends, and am not here to pick up.
  • Why yes, my tits are lovely, but as I don't know you, I'm not sure I see how that's your problem, and would suggest you back off.
  • The fact that we are temporarily forced to share a table due to common acquaintances does not give you the privilege of playing pretend, as a means of tricking your peers into thinking I am, in fact, your property.
  • If my friend turns to me for conversation as a means of avoiding you, you do not have the right to interrupt our conversation to switch to hitting on me.
Well, I've successfully bored myself with those little examples, so to keep things simple, lets just say that no means You, man, have no rights to enforce yourself on Me, woman, simply because you feel you ought to fuck me. If you wish to mark your territory, head outside and piss on a tree. Otherwise, assume that if a woman does not wish for your company, she is not obligated to endure your company, inside or outside of the bedroom.

So, on to question two:
What means no?

  • No (This should be a good place to start.)
  • Back off.
  • I don't like you.
  • I'm a lesbian.
  • What the fuck is wrong with you? Go away.
  • Don't talk to me.
  • Get the fuck away from me.
  • Fuck off. Fuck right off. Fuck off right now. Fuck off you fucking prick. Don't fucking touch me.
Easy, isn't it? Well, you would think so. Unfortunately if there's anything my little circle of friends learned this week, it's that such concepts are, in fact, unfamiliar to some.

So you had a run in with a couple of drunken losers who wouldn't lay off. This isn't the patriarchy, this is three idiots who don't know when to stop the whiskey flow, you say? I could buy that. After all, I'm pretty sure my known readers don't need the above lists to figure out the meaning of no. I don't trust you lurkers, though. Sneaky little buggers. (No, I'm not serious. Please don't leave. Don't go. I need the attention. Please?)
As I was saying, not patriarchal, just drunkery, right? Well, let's look at two situations here, then you decide:

Two men, one large, one small. The larger man has just threatened to kill an acquaintance of the smaller man. Larger man is now well within the personal space of smaller man, in a face to face confrontation. Larger man will not back off of smaller man, and will not allow room for smaller man to back away.

Who's in the wrong here? I'd say the big, violent guy who's forcing himself on others, wouldn't you?

A large man has just threatened to kill the acquaitance of a woman. The man is now well within the personal space of the woman, and refuses to back off, or leave her alone.

So you restrain the woman on the grounds that she's obviously PMSing if she doesn't want his attentions. She don't know her own mind, ya'll. What kinda fucked up bitch would complain about a perfectly nice, well employed man hitting on her?

Oh, you so know where I'm going with this, don't you? That's right! It just doesn't work that way. There's a point where if a guy is backed into a corner by someone else, that man will fight. And the same applies to a woman.


Blogger Maine said...

This is all fair and good, but here's the problem...

There's a subset of women out there that are seeking to undermine your cause. You see... they say no, and if the guy backs off, they get pissed off because they still wanted attention, they just didn't want to seem like they did. To a guy who doesn't read minds, this sort of behavior is really fucking confusing.

And that's not to say this is all women, or even the lion's share - it's just a handful out of every hundred. But that small minority dilutes the hell out of your message, because, while we wish we could tell y'all apart, these crazy women look just like you guys.

Any suggestions? How does a non-psychic young man tell y'all apart?

3/09/2006 5:39 AM  
Blogger Impulsivecompulsive said...

Well that there's almost a post unto itself. Heck, I'll post it unto itself. Just give me five. Or an hour. Something like that.

3/09/2006 3:21 PM  
Blogger Matt said...

"There's a point where if a guy is backed into a corner by someone else, that man will fight. And the same applies to a woman."

I say that this should be legally changed. Women should not be allowed to fight in this instance...they should be allowed to kill. Let's just go ahead and let women end the life of these drooling cavemen, remove them permanently from the gene pool. That would have to be a good thing.

Maine: "You see... they say no, and if the guy backs off, they get pissed off because they still wanted attention"

But doesn't this imply that sometimes no DOESN'T mean no? I'm pretty sure that just because you've found a womans behavior to be confusing, it doesn't mean you are allowed to brush aside what they are saying. Ever. The correct play? Be confused. Nothing wrong with confusion.

3/09/2006 8:54 PM  
Blogger Boo! said...

Matt: He also pointed out it's coming from a certain type of woman who wants to undermine "no means no."

Amazingly, there really are women out there who do not believe feminism is right, that the gender's are not equal, and that no doesn't always mean no. They actually seem to think that saying no is the correct way to establish their "respectability" and honestly expect men to pursue them. Crazy, eh?

However, I still think you're right that the correct thing to do is play confused. Trying to explain otherwise to these chicks is frustrating and ultimately pointless.

3/09/2006 9:50 PM  
Blogger Maine said...

Yup. "Confused" is way safer than "under arrest."

3/10/2006 5:42 AM  
Blogger Matt said...

Erica: He also pointed out it's coming from a certain type of woman who wants to undermine "no means no."

Hi Erica. It's sad but you and Maine are right, such people exist. I just think their stupidity should be thought of as a human trait and not a gender trait. Women do stupid things, men do stupid things, but this shouldn't effect certain basic rules. Anyway, take care!

3/10/2006 6:42 AM  
Blogger Impulsivecompulsive said...

Matt: Right.
Erica: Right.
Maine: Right.
Matt: You are wise beyond your years. You do this blog proud.

3/10/2006 5:49 PM  
Blogger shadow of a doubt said...

Can we clone Matt so that he may over take the gene pool, cause we can do that in Canada ya know.

3/11/2006 12:21 AM  
Blogger Impulsivecompulsive said...

Shadow: Technically, we could clone him, but that would put a bit of a damper on my "variety is the spice of life" philosophy. We may be better off sponsoring Matt lecture tours, and stand in the background to aid him deal with dissidents and the generally disagreable...we'd have baseball bats, of course. Baseball bats are always good policy.

3/11/2006 12:19 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home