06/02/2014 08:42 GMT | Updated 07/04/2014 06:59 BST

Only Yes Means Yes

While it is clear to many of us that men are from Mars and women are from Venus, the difficulties in communication between the sexes is a subject that has never really been understood. Both men and women, in fact humans in general, often find difficulty in understanding that, sometimes, when someone says no, that they really mean no.

While it is clear to many of us that men are from Mars and women are from Venus, the difficulties in communication between the sexes is a subject that has never really been understood. Both men and women, in fact humans in general, often find difficulty in understanding that, sometimes, when someone says no, that they really mean no.

The subject is explored in a recent blog post by Vincent Vinturi, titled, "When Her No Means Yes." You can imagine the kind of ludicrous bullshit that is going to be spewed out during this article from the offset. The article has infuriated me since I read it at the beginning of this week, so I'm now going to take some time to respond to it with my own thoughts.

Women say "no" to me in one way or another on a regular basis, e.g. "no, you can't have my number", "no I should go home", "no I'm not coming into your apartment", and of course, the classic, "no, we're not having sex."

Yet somehow, when it's all said and done, that woman is invariably happy that I didn't listen to a single word of protest she uttered; that I barrelled through her resistance nonchalantly and drove the ball to the basket. Women RESPECT this sexual insistence, even if they aren't acutely aware of it.

Personally, I thought that society had somewhat moved on from these backward views. A woman is well within her rights to tell you no at any stage of the evening, be that at the bar, in the taxi home, her front porch or even her bedroom. From my point of view, I would have nothing but contempt for a man who tried to manipulate me and convince me that I hadn't really changed my mind, and would continue to force himself on me. I would definitely not respect him for throwing about his weight and convincing me to change my mind when it was already made it. It is nothing short of coercion and any man who believes that this is a good way to attract a woman is deluded.

The consent crowd, however, would like for men to believe that anything short of a written statement, notarized and signed by the soon to be fornicated party, is rape.

The only way to know that sex is consensual is if there's a freely and clearly given "yes," which, to answer Vinturi's distasteful joke, isn't that difficult to get out of a woman. Either she wants to have sex with you, or she doesn't. Ensuring consent only requires the most basic respect that we all owe to our partners from the offset: paying attention to how they feel, how comfortable they are and asking them if we can't tell.

It's really not that difficult. But, even if it were, it's the only way to ensure a genuinely equal world in which, not just women, but men's bodies aren't presumed to be available to their potential partners until otherwise stated.

Women want to monopolize power in the sexual marketplace so that they can control access to sex and manipulate this most primal, most productive of urges to their benefit. Ultimately, it isn't to their benefit at all but that's another story. Perhaps it's not different from Western men who go to a country where their sexual value is much higher and pussy seems to fall from the sky. We're all looking out for number one and doing whatever we can to pass on those selfish genes.

Ask any guy who's banged a lot of girls and has had a lot of same-night lays, and he will surely regale you with tales of seemingly insurmountable resistance, conquered and slain by his resolve and unwavering horniness. It's the nature of beautiful women to resist, test, protest, sabotage and make your job of ******* them difficult.

It baffles me how Vinturi has any of his own stories to regale. The way he talks about women is demeaning, especially in the last two paragraphs. Women are not objects that are made to be 'conquered and slain by resolve'. This kind of logic just doesn't fly in real life sexual interactions. Are all women really to be considered willing sexual participants unless otherwise stated? If we flirt with someone, or even kiss them, does that give them permission to do whatever else they want to our bodies until we strenuously object? It doesn't, by the way, and I don't want to be in a world where not just women, but sex, is viewed in this kind of way.

With rape laws the way they are in countries like the US and Canada, it's downright scary to be a man and act with natural disinhibition in the company of beautiful women in these countries. We're at a dangerous cultural crossroads, where a woman's need for validation is at an all time high, and the repercussions for accusing men of rape are non-existent.

In the modern context, rape is essentially the act of ultimate validation and a rape accusation is the ultimate act of attention whoring. I'm not supporting it of course, don't be silly. But think about it. If a man finds a woman SO incredibly desirable that he would throw his freedom, reputation, his whole life away to **** her, that shows the woman is on the highest echelon of desirability. And in fact, women have begun to routinely accuse men of rape purely for the ego validation that the onslaught of attention brings them. Even though the night before, they gleefully received the gent's ravishment.

And why not? If a woman can have her cake and eat it, too, she will.

False rape accusations are not to be taken lightly. I will admit that it does happen and that when it does happen, it is very wrong and very dangerous for all involved. But to infer that rape accusation, be it genuine or not, is an act of attention whoring is completely wrong. The very assumption that women say no, not because we don't want to have sex, but so that we can humiliate and have control over any man who approaches us is, frankly, arrogant on the part of the man being rejected. Vinturi is essentially saying that women's objections are a challenge to a man's masculinity that should be overcome.

Secondly, I personally wouldn't feel very flattered in knowing that a man found me so desirable that he would throw his freedom to have sex with me. I can't even believe I have to clarify that.

But I have to issue a serious warning: ploughing through a woman's objections with bemused persistence isn't for newcomers to the game. Especially not in the US. You need to be FLUENT in reading female body language. You need to know exactly what you're doing. The thing to understand is that telling a man "no" is a way to weed out the weaklings from the men who know what they want (her).

Yet again, woman are being dehumanised. Women's wants, desires, boundaries and reasoning's are being totally dismissed. Vinturi sugar coats it; women's objections are a game and that, when it's all over, the woman will thank the man for forcing through her wants and boundaries. According to Vinturi, having sex with a woman isn't about connection, communication or even desire. It's about closing the deal, getting what he wants, regardless of objections, resistance or rejection.

I can't stress strongly enough how dangerous and backwards this way of thinking is. Though Vinturi states later on in his post that he is against rape and that his post is merely about how to persuade a woman, he is effectively buying into rape culture by writing all this nonsense down. What Vinturi fails to understand is the no actually does mean no. It signifies the end of the discussion and is absolutely not an invitation to push harder. Only a clear and direct "yes" can really mean "yes".