The timing of this is incredible. I am being trashed elsewhere for commenting on implied sex and being called a misogynist, etc. and here is this woman admitting that implied sex is exactly how she opened doors.
No, that isn't what I wrote about at all.
Why not post your own opinion in a blog online, thereby exposing yourself to anyone that disagrees with you?
I haven't written a "no means no" article because a million others exist, and I don't see any reason ask for dissent on that opinion.
My comments certainly are available for discussion, anyway. They're on a discussion board here, which you've used to argue that my format is wrong without actually addressing the content of my argument.
Feel free to defend Cheryl by saying that she was worried he would refuse to finance her if she kicked him out, even though in fact she ultimately did kick him out and he still signed the deal regardless. Even though tolerating sexual advances in expectation of financial gain could be seen as borderline prostitution by some - maybe she really didn't want it to be that way, we get it.
But don't pretend that she wouldn't have been much safer if she were more assertive from the beginning.