The article is a critical perspective on the dealing techniques offered by rape prevention assertiveness training and social skills programs for young women. It explores the irrationality of the kind of techniques offered by these training sessions. It emphasizes the need to understand conversational analysis techniques and different modulations and expressions during the course of a conversation to interpret the message conveyed. The article is centered on the main assumption that refusal skills related to sexual advances or proposals cannot be limited to answering in straight and simple no. In fact, the write-up looks into the problems of straight refusals with certain apprehensions. These apprehensions have been supported by examples from different cultural contexts where men’s perceptions are closely guarded and biased. The central idea is that even in normal conversation direct refusals are not considered as social etiquette. So when it comes to sensitive issues like refusing sex, the ‘just say no’ attitude does more harm than good. First, it does not come in the ambit of culturally acceptable norms. Second, the repercussions could be counter-productive. The article shows the value of conversational analysis for feminist theory and practice in the area of refusal skill training and date rape prevention.
The argument structure in the article is that saying no is difficult in any context. The research and analysis done in this piece brings forth the revelation that the inability to say a clear, specific and direct ‘no’ is not specific to age, situation or gender. It is common for people to experience difficulty in refusing invitations or declining offers, at whatever age, and across a variety of situations. The simple observation that there is so much literature available on the topic, ‘how to say no effectively’, is an evidence to the fact that most people find it problematic to refuse directly. The major argument in the article revolves around the work of Harvey Sacks done in the 1960s. The way in which most refusals are handled is very different from just considering them as plain negations. In fact, refusals are composed of detailed conversational aspects like pauses, palliatives, hesitations and non-verbal gestures. The content of such conversation is interspersed with explanations, justifications, excuses and certain hesitant arguments. Women generally go about refusing unwanted sex in accordance with culturally accepted rules for refusals. There is a certain limit upto which these refusals are explicit. Focus group studies reveal that explicit refusals have negative implications for women. These women believe in the concept of providing a justification to their refusal. However the way in which a refusal might be justified depends on the kind of relationship. The article evidently argues that if the relationship is a very strong one, thorough justification is needed; while refusal in a callous relationship might be considered with an average response. The article explains that direct refusals are often misinterpreted and boomerang. It further propels the argument that soft refusals are the best shot in these conversational techniques. It is ideal to acknowledge the other person’s sentiments and then justify your stand for not accepting them.
The entire discussion addresses a pertinent question of whether the concept of ‘just say no’ works in practical situations. It questions the assertiveness techniques propounded by most refusal skill and date rape prevention trainings. It explains that refusals are not sudden expressions but traverse through various conversational elements.