Token Resistance

TDCRedPill · 2013-09-01T21:25:39+00:00

I think you may be confusing token resistance with last minute resistance ('LMR').

Token resistance is when she's worried about her perceived choosiness. "I don't want anyone to think I'm easy or a slut." It happens when sex isn't an immediate option, like say at the restaurant/coffeeshop on a first date if one on one when the other guys opinion is what she's worried about (and, well, convincing herself), or in a social setting when other people's opinion such as the friends they came to bar with/hottie bartender she crushes on/man she's telling it to. Sex isn't even an option at the there and then when it happens. It's considered a damn good sign because it means she is interested and thinking about sex with us. There are a few times when it's sincere and a rejection, and the her behavior after saying that is how we tell the difference. Still chatting/flirting/making eye contact, it's token resistance. Avoiding those things that generate rapport, saying it with a look of pity or revulsion, then it's a rejection.

Clamming up at that point just because of the token resistance? It's considered a bad idea. Sure, it's effectively stating a lack of consent, but it's happening when sex isn't even an option. If the date continues well with lots of touching, talking, and making out before inviting her to your apartment for 'coffee'? Maybe that takes 5 hours from there, maybe it takes 15 minutes. And if it's a rejection? Sex isn't even an option when that happens, so it's not forcing yourself on her. We still recommend the guy trying to seduce and connect with her, and sex won't even be a possibility with her otherwise. So, clamming up against token resistance, bad idea all around. Guy doesn't get any experience reading the person, disarming a bitch shield, or displaying confidence.

You may be thinking more of LMR, last minute resistance. This is when sex IS an immediate option and things are progressing towards it. It's an expression of their anxiety and uncertainty about sex with a new man. Yes, their 'no' should be immediately honored. That's why the recommended action men take is a freeze out, doing exactly that. Immediately stop the physical and emotional connection so the consequences can be felt by the woman and she can reexamine her views. After the freezeout if she does want to get back to it, we make certain she shows her willingness; have her take off her own clothes in front of you, have her put the condom on, etc. Sure, we get painted as being manipulative by detractors for this, but I think the concern for the well being of the woman and respect for her agency is more important.

But to be fair, LMR is almost never a 'no', or 'I'm not going to have sex with you.' or 'I don't want to do this.' or 'please god someone call the police'. It'll be 'I don't usually do this kind of thing', 'OMG its so not like me to be doing this', 'but this is so fast', etc. We have to interpret how much of it is worrying about what we think of her and how much of it is the conflict between her desires and her natural anxiety about sex with a new man. They are intentional statements make to give plausible deniability so things in their mind can 'just happen' to lessen her anxiety about something she wants without the responsibility of flat out stating 'I want sex.'

So there you go. Token resistance is a positive sign that is very encouraging that sex will happen, how to differentiate it from an in the field rejection, and why continuing to persue even if it is a rejection is encouraged and has nothing to do with sex without consent. For LMR, an actual statement of lack of consent should be respected as such, otherwise it's not consensual and it's bad. But such a statement is rare, while LMR is common, and tips for differentiating the two and explanations of why it happens.

Human interaction is complicated, and subtle. Adopting a zero tolerance 'no means no' gives the person stating it moral superiority without the responsibility of thinking about those complicated and subtle details. We're trying to help men understand women, how they feel and what they mean when they say things, and act accordingly. Following such a zero tolerance guideline results in failure and lack of understanding for the men, and makes sure that only those that don't follow it continue to be successful, and they may not have the benefit of understanding the whys; it will cause more acts of non-consensual sex than proper education will. IMHO, this is the same as preaching that a sex ed class should teach only abstinence rather than actual education about sex, STI's, birth control, condoms, etc. Just as abstinence is a great way to prevent STI's including children, a 'any sign of mild discomfort or uncertainty should immediately end all physical and emotional contact' policy is a great way to ensure nobody gets raped as long as everyone follows. But it'll fail in educating, and the result is people who don't follow the policy putting themselves and others at risk.

jeffsfather · 2013-09-01T16:54:05+00:00

If people did this, the women who really did want sex and we're engaging in token resistance would eventually learn that saying no does in fact get taken as a no. If they want sex badly enough, they will start just saying yes in the first place.

Men should withhold sex so women will finally learn the meaning of words?

Classic hypoagency, it's men's problem women communicate covertly. Men should fix it when women don't know how to us words.

Title	Token Resistance
Author	GerudoSheikah
Upvotes	11
Comments	50
Date	September 1, 2013 4:06 PM UTC (12 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/PurplePillDebate
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/PurplePillDebate/comments/1lisap/token_resistance/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/PurplePillDebate/token-resistance.286821 https://theredarchive.com/post/286821

Comments