No Means No, So Stop Asking: How Consent, Permission, and Volunteering Actually Work

             Learning to hear “no” as “no” can be one of the most difficult impediments to successful communication. “No” is among the most difficult concepts for a person who is new to socialization and civility, to master.

            Don’t feel bad, though; the meaning of the word “no” has baffled anthropologists, linguists, and other scientists, since the beginning of time.

Due to the word’s “negativity” – and its tendency to negate things - most people actually doubt its existence. “No” may not be a physical thing, and we can’t find it or mine it anywhere.

But “no” is a powerful force, because of the power contained in people who say “no”. This power, combined with energy, can be converted into force, which can kick you in the nuts for refusing to accept "no" for an answer.

 

            If someone has referred you to this article, then it unfortunately means that you don’t understand the meaning of the word “no”.

            Perhaps you have not heard the word “no” enough times in your life. I would be glad to help familiarize you with this concept of “no”.

            In case you weren’t aware, no means “no”. No means no, in a literal sense. And in a figurative sense, it means “no”, except figuratively.

            In Spanish, it’s “no”. In French, it’s “non”. In Italian, “no”. In Russian, “nyet”.

            “No” can be used as a determiner, an exclamation, an adverb, or a noun. It can also be used to tell someone to “fuck off”.

            “No” is the opposite – or negation – of “yes”. This indicates the direction in which you would like the person to fuck off; i.e., the direction which would lead you away the fuck from them.

            To put it another way: Off is the name of the general direction in which they would like you to fuck. Fuck “off”. Fucking off is the opposite – or negation – of fucking on. They want you to fuck off, because if you fucked on (or near) them, they wouldn’t appreciate it.
     Always get someone’s permission before fucking on or near them.

            Although “no” may be difficult to hear, I regret to inform you that other people besides you – in fact – exist in the world, and are not extensions or projections of you. Other people do not exist to serve you. If you want others to serve you, you have to negotiate.

            If you want to use other people’s stuff, share with people, and use other people’s labor, then you’re eventually going to have to deal with the sticky world of “consent” and “permission”.

            You’re also going to have to get used to the idea of negation, which the concept of “no” is based on. You may also have to deal with the mean concept of the “negative”.

            Since negations and opposites of things exist, it is sometimes necessary to “be negative”; such as by using words like “no”, “not”, “none”, and even “negative” itself.

            But using the word “no” every now and then, doesn’t necessarily make you a bad person. It just means that there are some things that you will do, and other things that you will not do.

            Everyone has standards, and boundaries. And everyone has a right to set up standards and boundaries, as long as they clearly communicate those boundaries to others.

            We say and think “no” every day. “I will not walk into the road because there are cars there”, “I will not spend too much of my money because I want to have some left over”, and “I think that I will not drink poison today” are all things that help us¸ yet curiously they somehow involve the “negative”.

            Thus, “no” is unavoidable, and what it brings to our lives is not solely negative. But why is this? Let’s take a closer look.

            Other people own their own property and possessions, and control their own bodies. If you want to use their services and labor – or their property or goods they produce or sell – then you have to get what’s called their “permission” (also known as “consent”) first.

            Usually this “permission” or “consent” is given through the verbal communication of an affirmative exclamation; i.e., the person will say “yes”.

            There’s a debate over whether "silence equals consent", and the idea that a clear affirmation must be given in order for permission and consent to be said to have been given. The idea that silence equals consent, could probably help explain the source of the confusion which you are experiencing.

            Allow me to be perfectly clear: Silence does not equal consent.
     A person should always clearly communicate that they want something, or want to participate in something, before another person does something to them that - for any reason - they conceivably might not want to do.
     If you're ever unsure as to whether someone really wants to do something, ask them. Ask them whether they feel pressured to say "yes" or "no", remove them from that pressure if there is any, and ask them again when you are sure that nobody else will unduly influence their decision.

            Additionally, for a person to be said to “volunteer” or “consent”, they have to have given enthusiastic consent.
     This means that a person must want a thing or action so badly, that any negative consequences which could possibly result from it, are negligible, in their opinion. But they have to know about the possible negative consequences in the first place. This sets up what is known as “informed consent”.

            For consent and permission to be given, that consent must be fully informed. And ideally, a person’s consent to an activity should be enthusiastic, and everyone who is involved, should benefit. This is the essence of mutually beneficial voluntary exchange.
     The more of these conditions that are fulfilled, the more consensual an activity becomes.

            “No” means no.

            It most certainly doesn’t mean yes. Unless someone is playing mind games with you, or has worked out a code system, or you and someone else have decided that it’s “Opposite Day”.

            “No” does not mean “maybe”.

            “No” does not mean “ask again later”.

            If you are reading this article, then it means that you have asked someone to use their property, or their possessions, or their body, or their labor, or their favors, so many times that they no longer feel that they can say “no” to you, and have that be the end of it.

            Given the historic level of derision afforded to The Knights Who Say “No”, it seems appropriate to conclude that the true meaning of the word “no” is, in fact, even deeper and more profound than modern anthropologists and linguists have ever guessed.

            Linguistic anthropologists have determined that the actual meaning of "no", more closely resembles "no, and please stop asking", as opposed to their previous hypothesis (which posited that "no" actually meant "do whatever you want, just don't kill me", which was widely regarded by nearly all of humanity as the word's previous meaning).

            You see, “no” is not just a small, two-letter word, bearing zero power. It can be applied to many situations, thoughts, and fields of study.

            Think of the economic, social, and sexual implications of the word “no”, for example.

            Many salesmen like to tell each other “Remember not to take ‘no’ for an answer.” This may be great advice for a sales meeting, in which everyone knows that one person is trying to be the seller, and trying to get the other person to be the buyer. But not every situation is transactional, and not every situation should bear those kinds of expectations.

            Suppose that you were a salesman, and you were to bring the same attitude that gets you a successful sale, into the bedroom. Suppose that you were to go out to celebrate a successful sale, by going to the local bar, and trying to pick up a woman. What would happen if you remembered not to take “no” for an answer?

            A person who refuses to take “no” for an answer - in a sales meeting in which everybody knows he’s determined to make a sale and everyone’s fine with that – is a good businessman. But a person who refuses to take “no” for an answer – in the bedroom, or while trying to pick up mates – is a potential rapist.

            If you do not learn how to take “no” for an answer sexually, then you are at risk of becoming a rapist.

            If you do not learn how to take “no” for an answer socially, then you are at risk of becoming a person who is interpersonally exploitative.

            A person who is interpersonally exploitative, takes every chance they can, to exploit other persons. They see each and every social interaction, as a chance to “win” or benefit in some way. This is a common trait of people suffering from narcissistic personality disorder, which is typified by a grandiose sense of self and delusions of grandeur.
     It's not that a person shouldn't want to benefit from every situation they're in. In fact, they should. People don't have a reason to do something, for which there is no benefit or payoff. But it's socially maladaptive - and frankly rude - to try to benefit more than other people do in every social situation.
     If you're trying to benefit at the expense of others, then you're not just "rationally self-interested", you're greedy.

            Applying “no” to the context of politics, gives us political independence movements, and movements to respect the consent of the governed. “No” as in “no taxation without representation”. “No” as in “Congress shall make no law…”.

            If someone has referred you to this article, then you need to learn how to take no for an answer, either socially, sexually, or economically. Perhaps all three. Or maybe it was in regard to your politics; maybe your political ideals have somehow refused to accept the idea that people will give a hard "no" to certain proposals, laws, or programs.

            Feel free to take this opportunity to read this article, and brush up on how to take "no" for an answer in each of those different ways (i.e., social, sexual, economic, and political).

     You may be unclear as to why someone has said "no", and you may find yourself in want of a better - or another - explanation as to why you received a "no".
            If someone has referred you to this article, then it is probably because they can’t find a polite, indirect way to say “no” to you that you will notice. Odds are, they have tried being polite and indirect, and it has failed. Now, they can't find a direct way to tell you "no", which you will not describe as impolite.

            If you are still at a loss for why someone is still saying “no” to you, then the reason why you find yourself in this situation, is that you refused to accept the explanation(s) which you have already been given, as to why someone told you “no”.

            Remember, if you are asking someone for something – their time, a favor, use of their body or labor, a possession, etc. – then you should not be surprised when and if they say “no”.

            After all, if you asked them, then that implies two things (which I don’t know whether you were aware of this):

            1) The answer will either be “yes”, “no”, “maybe”, “I don’t know”, “yes but only on certain conditions”, or “no unless certain conditions change”. “Yes” and “no” are the most common responses. All questions asking for consent and permission are what we call “yes or no questions”. Anyone who asks a “yes or no question” should keep in mind that “no” could be one of the potential answers. And that person should be prepared to accept that answer the first time. If you are unsure of whether they mean what they say, and you feel that you must ask for permission multiple times, then you should only do it in order to give them a second opportunity to say "no"; don't do it to pressure them to give a "yes". If you accept someone's "no", but the other person then says "What do you mean 'no'!?", then that will be a great opportunity to teach the other person about the wondrous concept of "consent".

            2) Asking someone implies that the person has the right and the authority to say either “yes” or “no”. You do not have the right to beg for an explanation after hearing “no”, unless you indicate during the “yes or no question” that you intend to beg and whine after the answer is given. You are asking for permission because the thing or person you want is not yours. This includes people besides you, their possessions and property, things they co-own with people, the household items they possess, their pets, children, family members, etc.. You can do what you want with things that are yours. But someone being "your" friend or family member does not make them your property. You have to clearly ask them for permission, and clearly receive a "yes", or else you have no right to expect them to help you.

            Therefore, asking someone a “yes or no question” carries with it the assumption that they are allowed to say "no".

MIND = BLOWN

     It is too bad that nobody explains this idea to us early on in our lives!
     Most of us only get a basic explanation: "Don't hurt other kids, and don't steal from them." And some of us are lucky enough to get the additional advice of "and if you do, don't get caught, destroy the evidence, and intimidate any witnesses into silence".
     Unfortunately, for the "take-charge" types, consent is a little bit more complicated than that. It's not just about avoiding killing, stealing, rape, and fraud. Your actions affect others in ways you might not be able to anticipate. People's willingness to continue interacting with you is conditional upon your continued good behavior and fair treatment of others.
     You do not have any right to pressure, guilt-trip, bully, bribe, or intimidate anyone into continuing a relationship, when they have consistently said no, and lost their ability to trust you, due to your repeatedly ignoring their answers.

            Human beings have limitations. They need rest and relaxation, sleep, adequate heating and cooling and ventilation, decent quality air and water and food, health goods and services, and emotional support.

            You do not have a right to make others prioritize your wants over their own needs. Do not expect other people – each of whom is going through a struggle you know little to nothing about – to set aside their basic survival needs, to attend to your wants.

     You do not have the right to interrupt someone's sleep or meals to ask them for favors. You do not have the right to accuse someone of needing to eat, or sleep, or clean their house, as if they did it just to spite you or fuck with you or lord their possessions over you. You do not have the right to expect someone to have the energy or patience necessary to hang out with you, if you are constantly draining them of energy, taking up all of their attention, and preventing them from getting anything done to advance or improve their life.
     Simply put: Your friends can't hang out with you if your neediness makes them drop dead from exhaustion.

     If you are an adult with a car, money, a job, and/or friends, then you can probably solve your problems by yourself, without pressuring one of your friends or family members into saying “yes” to something they’re obviously uncomfortable doing.

It's not that my problems are more important than yours.

It's that your problems are your problems,

while my problems are my problems.

I have enough problems. I can only take on your problems

when I am ready and willing to do so.

     Consenting to someone's request, is different from giving up and finally saying yes after they've repeatedly refused to accept "no". This is called bullying someone into changing their mind. Enthusiastically consenting to something in a total absence of pressure and coercion, is completely different from begrudgingly saying yes after the other person has communicated that they will not accept "no" as a final answer.

            The fact that you can successfully pressure someone into acceding to your asking for permission over and over again after you have already been given multiple clear, direct “no”s, doesn’t mean that you have the right to blame the other person for letting you manipulate them.
     You are the one who manipulated them. You cannot claim that you’re not responsible for your own actions, unless you’re a child, feeble-minded elderly, mentally disabled, desperately addicted to drugs, or psychologically deranged.

            Human beings are like Magic Eight Balls. If you ask them something, and they say “no”, you could shake them violently over and over again until they give you an answer that resembles “yes”. But the fact that you can shake a person violently until they change their mind, doesn’t mean that you should.

            Magic Eight Balls are inanimate objects. Human beings are not Magic Eight Balls. They are real people with real feelings, and they are not extensions of you. They are not objects on which you can project all of your hopes, dreams, thoughts, perceptions, suspicions, and delusions.
     They are people who are trying to fix their own problems. People need their space sometimes.

     You do not have the right to keep asking for consent and permission after you’ve been given a direct “no” over and over again. The answer is no.

            You do not have a right to an endless series of explanations, which imply that you’re only getting a “no” because you might not have asked “the right way”. The answer is no.

And you do not have the right to change the agreement in the middle of the agreement being fulfilled, unless the change you are making is to end and terminate the agreement.

     If you are having sex with someone, and they ask you to stop, stop. If you are giving someone a ride, and they ask you to stop (and it’s safe to do so), stop.

            Please learn to respect other human beings, their boundaries, and their right to say “no”. The sooner you learn this, the easier it will be for you to understand that you should not use the fact that someone said “yes” once to some particular question, to imply that they really mean “yes” from now on. even though they’re saying “no” over and over again from now on.
     A single "yes", said once, is not the same thing as a "yes" that is meant to last forever. The more chances you give someone to say no, and withdraw consent, the safer you will be.

     No always means no. The only time it doesn't mean "no" is when it means "no, no, a thousand times no".
     Sometimes a "no" isn't just a "no". Sometimes it means "No, and please stop asking", or even "No, and please go away."

If someone tells you “no”, and you think they really mean “yes”, then it's fine to ask them, as long as you don't do it more than once. You must be prepared to take "no" as a final answer either the first or second time you hear it, or else you relinquish the right to be trusted by the other person, as someone who respects their boundaries.
     Make it clear that you didn't understand. Ask them, “When you said ‘no’, did you mean ‘no’? Or did you mean ‘yes’?” Be prepared to explain whether it was the "n" part or the "o" part that you failed to understand.
     Next, they’ll probably tell you what they really mean. And when I say “probably”, I mean “definitely”.
     Unless you're in a private sexual situation involving B.D.S.M. and/or "consent play" - or you're playing "Opposite Day" with someone, believe what they say. You have no right to expect other people to lie to you about their intentions regarding what you are planning to do together.
     Be direct with people, and they’ll be direct with you. Don’t say the opposite of what you mean, and other people won’t say the opposite of what they mean. If you need to practice taking what people say at face-value, then do that.

     Finally, a person who volunteers, must volunteer of their own free will.
     The "vol" in "voluntary" is the same root word that we find in "volition", which means "willingness". A person can only volunteer himself. To "volunteer somebody else" is not purely voluntary on the other person's part, unless they agreed to potentially be volunteered by someone else beforehand.
     And finally, there is nothing voluntary about demanding that somebody volunteer. Someone who tells a group of people "We need a volunteer, and if there are no volunteers, then a volunteer will be chosen at random", is not using the word "volunteer" correctly. There is nothing voluntary about pressuring people to volunteer after everybody present has already indicated, through their silence, that they do not intend to volunteer.

            If you can remember even just one of the pieces of advice in this article, then your difficulties communicating clearly, and respecting other people's boundaries, should start improving soon.
     Good luck on your journey! Welcome to the world of "no"!

This has been a semi-satirical piece.

Written on May 23rd and 24th, 2021

Published on May 23rd, 2021

Edited and Expanded on May 24th, 2021