Second, while the authors of the paper say that this makes all rape prevention advice about communicating a clear "no" pointless, I have a different take. Clear communication of "no" isn't primarily going to avoid miscommunication - rather, it's a meta-message. Clear communication against the undercurrent that "no" is rude and should be softened is a sign of the willingness to fight, to yell, to report.
He's on to something in disagreeing with the authors of the paper about this tangetial point, but I think he's not taking it far enough. "No" is more useful than he paints it to be.
First, many people who have been raped by the usual ambiguity-seeking predator end up doubting themselves afterward, feeling like they did wrong and let it happen; this kind of predator is deliberately trying to create those feelings. This is particularly effective against women, who have more trouble saying no. Knowing that she did in fact clearly say "no" makes things clearer, especially if she talks it over with a friend or counselor, so it mitigates the aftermath somewhat.
Second, these serial predators seem to develop and tune their skill of getting away with it, in part by creating and promoting exactly that ambiguity. Leaving their target with a sense of "was it my fault? was I not clear enough?" is part of their protection. My theory is that while they may be perfecting willing to (or even deliberately wanting to) have sex with someone who they know does not want to, some of them may still decide not to have sex with someone who explicitly says "no", because it increases the risk that they'll be accused later.
no subject
Second, while the authors of the paper say that this makes all rape prevention advice about communicating a clear "no" pointless, I have a different take. Clear communication of "no" isn't primarily going to avoid miscommunication - rather, it's a meta-message. Clear communication against the undercurrent that "no" is rude and should be softened is a sign of the willingness to fight, to yell, to report.
He's on to something in disagreeing with the authors of the paper about this tangetial point, but I think he's not taking it far enough. "No" is more useful than he paints it to be.
First, many people who have been raped by the usual ambiguity-seeking predator end up doubting themselves afterward, feeling like they did wrong and let it happen; this kind of predator is deliberately trying to create those feelings. This is particularly effective against women, who have more trouble saying no. Knowing that she did in fact clearly say "no" makes things clearer, especially if she talks it over with a friend or counselor, so it mitigates the aftermath somewhat.
Second, these serial predators seem to develop and tune their skill of getting away with it, in part by creating and promoting exactly that ambiguity. Leaving their target with a sense of "was it my fault? was I not clear enough?" is part of their protection. My theory is that while they may be perfecting willing to (or even deliberately wanting to) have sex with someone who they know does not want to, some of them may still decide not to have sex with someone who explicitly says "no", because it increases the risk that they'll be accused later.