Several months ago, I remember
participating in a friendly online debate in a forum with some friends and
acquaintances about communication in sexual interactions. The debate started
because my friend asked if anyone ever had any difficulty with saying no to
unwanted sexual advances. Somehow this conversation devolved into a debate
about soft refusals (refusals that try to placate the other person) and hard
refusals (saying “No”) and women’s use of them in particular. It was said that
soft refusals were a disservice to everyone involved because the refusal is not
clear enough, leads to confusion and is a waste of time. Statements like “I can
say 'no', why can’t they?” were being said and I felt like we were only ten
seconds away from someone saying, “If only women would just be blunt about
their feelings, then men would finally be able to understand them.” The
whole discussion started to disturb me. The conversation went from discussing
how difficult it was for people in general to refuse unwanted sexual advances
to pretty much chastising women for not refusing ‘properly’.
I have not forgotten about this
discussion/debate and to this day, it still makes me uncomfortable. The only
difference between now and then is that I am able to describe why I feel this
way. I feel uncomfortable because this discussion reminds me of the
miscommunication theory. Hannah Frith and Celia Kitzinger describe the
miscommunication theory, in their article “Talk About Sexual Miscommunication,” as a theory “used to argue
that rape and other forms of sexual abuse are often the outcome of
"miscommunication" between partners: he misinterprets her verbal and
nonverbal communication, falsely believing that she wants sex; she fails to say
"no" clearly and effectively” (518). According to the
miscommunication theory, a woman’s use of a soft refusal could lead to a
potential misunderstanding and this misunderstanding could then lead to sexual
harassment, assault and/or rape. The theory was created by Deborah Tannen who
claimed that because men and women are raised differently in society, they
develop different methods of communication and are therefore unable to
understand each other all the time (Firth and Kitzinger, 517-518). There are
“benefits” to this theory. Men who are accused of sexual harassment or other
forms of sexual abuse can always say that the woman simply was not clear enough
and “that she gave off mixed messages, and that even if she did say
"no," she didn't say it as if she meant it” (521). Her response was
far too ambiguous to be understood and therefore the blame should be placed on
her and not him. Before I continue, I should say that any individual of any
gender or sexual orientation can be a harasser/abuser/rapist and anyone can be
the person who is harassed/abused/raped. However, this specific theory and its
criticisms focus on the gender and sexual relations between men and women, where
women are the ones being abused, specifically. The miscommunication theory does
not just apply to instances of rape. The theory could also be applied to ‘persistent
suitors’. Imagine a situation in which a man approaches a woman and asks her
out on a date. The woman declines, saying, “Um, no sorry, I can’t. I have to go
do xyz.” However, in spite of this refusal, the guy persists: “Oh well, what
about next Tuesday? Or Thursday? I know a little about xyz. Maybe I could help
you…” and continues to pursue her despite the refusal. A miscommunication
theorist would argue that if only the woman said, “No.” bluntly. This would
have hypothetically made it clear to the man that she was not interested in him
at all and he would have gracefully walked away and left her alone. Another
“benefit” is the false sense of control this theory gives women, the same way
carrying keys in their hands while walking home at night would. A woman could
always say, “Oh, it would never happen to me if I just did xyz.” “I’m not like
her. I do this and that.” However, on
the flip side, the theory also makes a woman feel guilty if she is sexually
abused: “Oh, if I only communicated clearer…”
It should be obvious by now that
I do not agree with the miscommunication theory. There is something inherently
wrong with a theory that blames the victim for the abuse they suffered, gives
the abusers an easy out and provides others with a false sense of control instead of
actually dealing with the problem of abuse. And honestly, I do not agree that
instances of sexual harassment, sexual assault, rape and other sexual consent
violations are the result of innocent miscommunication. Humans are social
creatures and we have developed very sensitive and sophisticated methods of
communication and communication analysis. We are able to determine an
individual’s mood through quick analysis of verbal and non-verbal cues,
including body language. It just does not make sense that suddenly our methods
of communication can be so utterly deficit in this one aspect of life.
This miscommunication ‘debate’
boils down to one question: Are the communication styles of men and women
different?” Two recent articles have looked into this question using
conversation analysis tools and data from focus groups and have come to the
conclusion that the miscommunication theory is a hoax. In the first article, “Just say no? The use of conversation
analysis in developing a feminist perspective on sexual refusal,” Celia
Kitzinger and Hannah Frith analyze the effectiveness of the “Just say no”
refusal strategies that many date rape prevention programs teach women through
the use of conversation analysis. According to many rape prevention programs,
if women were taught to say “no” clearly and resolutely, then men won’t be
confused by ‘mixed signals’. According to miscommunication theory and, to a
large extent, the “Just say no” date rape prevention programs, women seem to be
predisposed to having an almost abnormal difficulty in saying “no” to refusals,
sexual ones in particular. The reasons for this supposedly female problem have
been cited to be due to society teaching young girls to be meek and mild, evolutionary
pressures that apparently cause women to lack aggression and become submissive or
low self-esteem (Kitzinger et al., 297). These refusal strategies also play
into the miscommunication theory by implying that it is up to women to be clear
and to avoid the consequences of being misunderstood (i.e. sexually
assaulted/harassed/raped). In their article, Kitzinger et al. brings up a very good
point. The difficulty that women seem to face in bluntly refusing unwanted
sexual advances is not a phenomenon exclusive to women. The authors state, “However,
what these explanations leave out is the simple fact that saying no is
difficult in any context…It is common for people to experience
difficulty in refusing invitations or declining offers, at whatever age, and
across a wide variety of situations”(297). In our society, we are taught that a
plain “no” in response to an offer is rude. If someone offered to give me a
sandwich that I did not want, the polite thing to do would be to say “No, thank
you.” Or “No, thank you. I already ate.” Kitzinger et al. continue saying, “Saying
no ‘nicely’ has always been a key question of etiquette and therapists and counselors
also often find themselves giving advice on how to say no. Such advice would
not be so widely available if most people experienced saying no as
unproblematic” (297). When one analyzes general conversations in which individuals
accept or refusal an invitation or offer, patterns can be recognized. When one
is accepting an invitation or request, the answer is immediate. There are no
delays and a simple “yes” is given. This is true in sexual and non-sexual situations
(Kitzinger et al., 300). However, refusals are very different. Usually, when
someone is refusing an invitation or request (sexual or non-sexual), there is a
pause before the refusal. Also words like “um” and “uh” and “ah” are used and
then “a palliative remark, and some kind of account aimed at
softening, explaining, justifying, excusing, or redefining the rejection” are
also used (Kitzinger et al., 302). An example of a palliative remark and an
account being used in a refusal would be: “Well, that sounds nice, but I have a
doctor’s appointment that morning.” Weak agreements (“Um, well, I guess…) prefaced
and followed by delays and pauses are also shown to be seen as refusals. The
apparent lack of enthusiasm is obvious and would normally put a damper on one’s
request. Pauses, palliative remarks and weak agreements are used in everyday
conversations as nicer, more polite ways to reject someone. In this example
from the article, an individual offers something to another individual:
“C: Well you can both stay.
(0.4) [pause]
Got plenty a’ room.” (308)
In this example, Person C offers
their place for this individual to sleep over. There is a pause in the
conversation because the individual is silent and does not respond to the
offer. Person C takes this pause as a refusal or as a potential refusal and
tries to sweeten the deal by saying they have plenty of room. The individual
hearing the invitation never had to say “no” or anything for that matter for
their intentions to be relatively clear. Kitzinger et al. conclude that women
should not be blamed for refusing advances unclearly or be taught to say “no”
bluntly because they are simply following the standardized and commonly used methods
of refusals that everyone uses on a daily basis and they state, “it is not the
adequacy of their communication that should be questioned, but rather their
male partners’ claims not to understand that these women are refusing sex” (309-310).
The second article that I would
like to discuss is in many ways a sequel to the Kitzinger et al. article. The
Kitzinger et al. article used conversation analysis to argue the point that
women are not the only ones who experience difficulty in just saying “no” and
that, in actuality, women should not be required to do so because that is not
how most people normally refuse invitations and offers in everyday non-sexual
scenarios. Expecting women to just say “no” is placing an unrealistic burden on
them that is not placed on anyone else in any other situation. The second article,
“‘You Couldn’t Say “No”, Could You?’: Young Men’s Understandings of Sexual
Refusal” by Rachael O’Byrne, Mark Rapley and Susan Hansen, collects data from two
focus groups of young heterosexual men between the ages of 19 and 34 years old
and uses conversation analysis to study men’s abilities to perform and
understand refusals in both sexual and non-sexual situations. Using the data
from this study, O’Byrne et al. have concluded that men are perfectly able to
perform refusals and understand societal rules clearly. The men in the study
agree that a simple “no” is not how refusals are done. They also add palliative
remarks and make excuses to gently couch the refusals, as shown in this
example:
“You might come up with something
to say
some other way you’re feeling at
that time
that night “I’m sick so I’ll be
in bed”
or “I’m going out with someone
else” or
“I’m having dinner with my
grandparents” that kind of thing…” (138).
Not only were the men in the
study able to show they could perform a refusal, but they also were able to
show they could understand refusals as well, and, in particular, sexual
refusals:
“Mhmm great okay so are there
ways of knowing when it’s not on the cards [pause] how would a guy pick up that
sex is not on the cards that way
John: Body language
George: The conversation gets
shorter
John: …you know there’s always
little hints like letting you know that “I’ve just uh changed my mind” [pause]
yeah there’s always little hints” (144).
Here, it is clear that the men do
not need to hear the word “no” to understand that a woman is not sexually
interested in them. They pick up on things like body language, the shortening
of a conversation and excuses/hints and clearly recognize them as refusals.
Even absolute silence is interpreted as a refusal. As O’Byrne et al., state, “The
men claim that simply getting ‘no reaction’ from a woman […] that, although
extremely indirect, successfully accomplish a clear refusal” (148). One of the
men even says that if a woman “doesn’t respond in the same way then you know
it’s a pretty good sign and you’re not on the same level” (148). One of the
most striking comments made by the men in the study was the idea that giving
and receiving consent is not a one-time act. According to the men, sex is not
something that just happens. Instead, “sex is constructed…as a sequential, with
a beginning and an end, which requires a great deal of interactional work in
between” (143). Within this frame of thought, consensual sex is an act that
requires effort from both parties in order to take place and this effort
throughout the entire act is how each party reinforces the consent they had given in
the beginning. And, as a result of this necessary interaction, “by ‘not putting
effort into it’ or not ‘really playing up the whole sex thing’ is, effectively,
to produce a refusal” (143). So therefore, one vague/weak agreement or even
silence should not be considered to be enough consent to sexual activity.
Without this interaction and effort performed by both parties, the sexual act
is not consensual. It is harassment. It is assault. And it is rape.
So the O’Byrne et al. article
clearly shows that use of the word “no” is not necessary in order to
successfully conduct a refusal. Men are able to properly perform and understand
sexual refusals even when the word “no” is not used. This fact makes
miscommunication theory impossible and unrealistic. Kitzinger et al. agrees,
saying, “If there is an organized and normative way of doing indirect refusal…then
men who claim not to have understood an indirect refusal (as in, ‘she didn’t
actually say no’) are claiming to be cultural dopes, and playing rather
disingenuously on how refusals are usually done and understood to be done. They
are claiming not to understand perfectly normal conversational interaction and
to be ignorant of ways of expressing refusal which they themselves routinely
use in other areas of their lives” (310). This miscommunication theory, if
true, basically considers men to be wholly unintelligent and unable to remember
and understand basic communication skills. I personally would find this
extremely insulting if I were a man. So if misunderstanding is not the problem
then what is? It is my assertion that sexual harassment, sexual assault and
rape occur not because men are unable to understand the refusals of women, but
because they do not like what they are hearing and choose to ignore it. Our
culture has taught men that they are entitled to the bodies of women and has encouraged
the idea that their refusals mean nothing. When someone feels entitled to something, not getting what they
want feels like a robbery. Women’s bodies (and the bodies of others who are harassed,
abused and raped) become objects to be seized and/or pried from fingers as a
result. When it comes to ‘persistent suitors’ (aka harassers), abusers or
rapists, it is not that they don’t understand. They just do not consider willingness
to be as much of a priority in relation to their own desires. The refusals are
not taken seriously and consent is not made a priority and this is wrong.
Ensuring that you have the consent of your partner and avoiding a situation in
which you become the harasser (or worse) is actually quite simple. Make your
feelings known once and if you don’t receive a definite affirmative answer,
back off. Do not try again later. Do not offer the person more drinks or try to
persuade them. Do not touch them or try to otherwise seduce them. They are not
interested. If you try again and continue to push, you are a harasser at best.
Open and honest communication makes for the best interactions and the best sex.
And gracefully accepting a refusal and moving on makes for the best kind of person.
