Whatever Happened to Saying No?

By Inez Feltscher Stepman

Saturday, October 10, 2026

 

In the bad old days under the evil patriarchy, most women had a standard response for male sexual advances. It was “no.”

 

No extraordinary or specific case was required for this no. If the man wasn’t a husband or at least a steady boyfriend, “no” was the default assumption. Of course, this didn’t mean that no one was having premarital sex, but it did mean that saying no was a common practice.

 

Then, vis-à-vis men seeking her attention, a woman’s “no” was normal, for reasons of virtue or, at minimum, social prudence. In the post-Sixties era of “sexual liberation,” female chastity is considered absurd, even medieval, and, as a direct consequence, a “no” is devastatingly personal and can be awkward to deliver, since it’s a personal evaluation of a specific man and his offer. It’s the kind of direct confrontation that many women naturally shy away from.

 

A “no” is harder to utter now that it’s no longer backed by the force of social convention. Nevertheless, this does not excuse women’s hesitancy to deploy the answer, nor does it deprive them of agency when they don’t.

 

Yet the modern social difficulties of “no” do explain some of the psychology behind the dangerously fantastical statements by the latest Woman Who Must Be Believed — the Cornell University student granted anonymity as “Jane Doe” in her recently filed civil complaint. According to documents filed in her lawsuit, she “felt as if there was no way for her to escape this room full of predatory, fraternity men.” As an adult woman, Jane Doe says she was too intimidated by a bunch of frat guys, with whom she consensually engaged in various sexual combinations, to give them a single, old-fashioned “no.”

 

Jane Doe’s own original statement to police in 2024 does not describe male conduct that could be labeled intimidating in any commonsense way. Instead, the alleged “victim” recounts, in her own words, instances in which the young men regularly “checked in” for her consent, reminded her that she could stop, ceased sexual activities when she expressed any wish to stop, took her to sit down when she was dizzy, and undertook other little acts of deference that are honestly surprising in the context of an alcohol- and ketamine-fueled, late-night orgy.

 

But the new version of the two-year-old story contradicts the prior sworn statement, which she reviewed and amended, that she provided to the Cornell Police Department in November 2024. In her later account, she was “forced” to remain in the room and continue to engage in group sex and drug use. In the face of the social awkwardness of saying no, some women have retconned their reluctance to say “stop”; instead of describing themselves as embarrassed or regretful participants, they now say they were intimidated. Coincidentally, this transforms them from social laughingstock or guilt-ridden sex partner into the highest rung on the progressives’ social ladder: the victim.

 

Of course, during a true sexual assault, in any era, a “no” does not work. Indeed, the definition of rape, not to mention its major criminal and social sanction in virtually every civilized society, depends precisely on a man’s disregard for a woman’s “no.” But the gulf in the absence of “no” has left us with an entire category of regretted and regrettable sexual encounters in which the boundary between legal and illegal is determined mainly by the woman’s unspoken feelings and state of mind.

 

Under old rape law, a woman had to show “utmost resistance” to validate her claim. Perhaps that was unfair. But now, the de facto standard for a claim of rape doesn’t seem to require female resistance at all. It’s enough for her to say, retroactively and long after the act, that she “felt” raped, even if at the time she expressed enthusiasm for, or even initiated, the sexual encounter.

 

It is not only the seven young men at the house party who are being blamed for Jane Doe’s AWOL “no.” It’s also the university, the entire Chi Phi fraternity, associated executive board and alumni organizations, her own sorority, and, just for good measure, a bar named Moonies that allegedly served her a drink earlier in the evening. Some feminists are even blaming Trump, though the house party in question took place when Biden was president. In response to the now-notorious scandal, New York Governor Kathy Hochul has reopened debate over the fact that state law correctly does not define sexual relations while voluntarily intoxicated as assault. (Sure, let’s make it illegal to have sex after sharing a bottle of wine, as if we didn’t have enough of a fertility collapse already.)

 

The end result of liberal sexual ethics writ large — according to which women seldom say no and they can be, or should be, every bit as debauched as men — has not been a joyful bacchanal but a minefield. It’s a two-tiered system for the sexes.

 

Female sexuality is practically unlimited, but it’s not coupled with an expectation of responsibility or agency, or even the minimal requirement to know and clearly communicate one’s own mind. On the other side of the ledger, male sexuality is maximally constrained. In a reversal of biological fortune, men are now expected to be the brakes on sex, even when women directly advertise that they are eager and open to all comers. In the face of “free p****,” to quote one defendant’s vulgar chat message, they must either be rapists or monks. Even turning away from sex openly offered by a woman who seems in possession of her faculties can land you in trouble if you’re a man: At least three of the young men charged in this case had no sexual contact with Jane Doe at all, and their alleged crime is walking into the room before opting to go out for a Big Mac instead of having sex with her.

 

It’s a schizophrenic approach that leaves an increasing number of young men having to choose between retreating into digital inceldom and living under a sword of Damocles that can come down on their head at the post-hoc whim of a female accuser.

 

Feminists understandably balk at the idea that women ought to be at all times under the supervision and control of the men around them. Yet they now claim that “no” is so difficult and so beyond women’s ability that we need to reinvent the old patriarchal structure, this time made more insane by the fact that it’s no longer a woman’s father or husband — who at least presumably love her and have her best interests at heart — who is responsible for controlling or curtailing her sexual escapades, but random fraternity brothers instead.

 

Conservatives have always had moral reasons to oppose the sexual revolution, wisely suspecting that “free love” wouldn’t bring the bliss promised. But irresponsible “sexual liberation” for women and legal puritanism and punishment for men may be the worst of all worlds. If we women do not wish to return to the days of legal chaperones, we must relearn how to deploy the simple no.