No Means No
When a person says no they mean no , no ifs and no buts they mean it . Just because your feeling the lust , yourself you should always trust . Remember no means no and they mean it . You will never ever forget , no one will ever forget you . You don't need any one else to release your lust . No means no and they mean it . There is no need to harm another person , and destroy them , betray them , force them . There are lots of ways to fulfill your lust , so when a person says no they mean no . Just think of what you would feel like , if some one wanted to take there lust out on you . There is no going back , to undo what there at . So no means no and they mean it .
Julian (Admin)
Tue 27th Oct 2015 15:15
Huw, a couple of comments.
Firstly, your point is about negotiation whereas Wendy's poem is about abuse of power by men whose notions of relationships are stuck in the 1970s.
Whilst I understand that you find fascinating, as an experienced negotiator, the question of when 'no' means something other than what it presents - along the lines of 'getting to yes', in Fisher and Ury's terms - that is not the context of Wendy's poem.
You will, as a skilled negotiator, recognise the term 'ellision', something that, unfortunately, you do here to slip from commenting on the context of Wendy's poem to the title, in order to make a non-contextual point.
Now, we don't mind ellision; it can be entertaining at times. However, the effect of your elision, in the specific context of Wendy’s poem - but not, I am sure, its intention - is to imply that when a woman says 'no' in a sexual context she might not mean it. The effect of which is to portray you as a rape denier. I don't think you are. I think you simply wanted to start a discussion about other contexts when 'no' is a negotiating position, and then you have warmed to your them. but the meaning of your communication is the response you get, not the response you thought you would get.
Most unfortunately, Graham compounds the solecism by his what could seem a laddish comment (but isn't), which you then exacerbate – I am sure unwittingly - by only quoting female examples of being persuaded to change no to yes. By doing so you appear to be reinforcing Graham’s tongue-in-cheek ‘accepted fact’.
The saddest notion you introduce here, for me, is to be discussing lovemaking in the context of negotiation, which reinforces the idea that it is a transaction. Perhaps that is the nub of the problem?
If I were Wendy, I would be pretty pissed off at how this discussion has overshadowed her piece of work. Wendy, thanks for putting your writing up on Write Out Loud. It might well have taken you a lot of courage to do so, so I am sorry if the discussion does not recognise that. I hope others will comment on the piece as a poem.
Now can we get back to helping each other out as poets and writers please? And could we perhaps offer something more supportive rather than continuing this tergervisation?