Why doesn't "no" mean "no" when a guy propositions a gal?

Guys don't understand what's going on when a woman is afraid of a man who seems to has the potential to get angry at a woman for rejecting him personally. This is what women are attempting to dodge when they try to reject overtures "politely." This is why "no" is delivered in a way by a woman that doesn't resemble a "real NO."

For a guy to admit he 'desires" someone or something means he opens himself to disappointment when he is denied or cannot "have" what he expects or figures he 'deserves." But on his end, he doesn't experience that he's putting his expectations onto the woman. He only feels that the woman has the ability to reject him.

She doesn't really know what she's rejecting, just as he doesn't know her well enough for her to make an offer of intimacy that is all too commonly offered. I've had guys propose marriage to me who don't know me as the first thing they say to me!. But people do not experience their own reactions as originating from themselves. It's all too seductive to imagine it's the other person that is "causing" your own experience.

Why is "NO" the first urge for people to say?  No communication training...no negotiation training; no "how to use positive reinforcement" training is offered in education, pretty much. Instead the all-popular replacement strategy of "NO" is much too often employed. Then if a little punishment doesn't work, more punishment will work better.

Where can people learn differently?

As a young girl, it used to really make me angry how it was always the female's call about when to draw the line at displays of affection and be responsible. (I imagined it was because it's the woman who suffers the risk of pregnancy and not the guy.) What angered me is that this meant that the woman had to shut down her sexuality and deny feeling it. The guy could give his sexuality free rein because it was going to be the woman who drew the line for him. This seemed to me to be really unfair, because it leads to women having to figure out how to re-open their own sexuality when, sometime in the future, it's appropriate for them to rekindle it in the later context of marriage, etc.

Colleen writes: It would be helpful if men actually realized that, in a dating situation, we don't know you, you are not special to us, you have earned no trust, you are not different to us, etc. If I just met you, you can be NONE of those things to me if I don't know you. It does not mean you are not a good person, you are simply just a stranger. Just because I do not want to screw you does not mean you are less of a man. In fact... not being so pushy about it and being respectful will prove more that you are one. We owe you nothing in this category when you are a stranger or even if you are not.

Valerie writes: People who think "no" means "convince me" are likely thinking that the fan was brought up to be a 'good girl who shouldn't do things like that' and view smiling and politeness as flirtation. They offer/ask/proposition, get refused and think they just need to be persistent because that's what they'd been taught in the past (like the 50s). I'll refrain from bashing the patriarchy here but it's mostly about upbringing, a sense of entitlement and decades of being told 'all women want this.'

Brianna writes: I forget what movie I was watching recently but it contained the common trope of 1) Guy asks girl out; is told No, 2) Guy persists and asks girl out in a different way; is told No, 3) Guy persists and asks girl out again after accomplishing the goal of the movie; girl accepts. So maybe it's no big surprise that there is confusion about when a "No" is really "a No."

What do  you think are factors in this conversation?