If OP needs to use the camera while Jane's still using it, then I agree that OP needs to buy own camera. Otherwise, I'd personally recommend OP to wait until she has done with her projects, then ask if OP can borrow it again. That way, OP can avoid buying a camera and Jane doesn't feel offended/confused about the camera. (But if OP needs to use a camera for longer term project, then it's recommended to buy one) — Andrew T. 2 mins ago

Agree with this comment - sometimes you have to put your foot down for the other side to get the message when "being nice" stops working — Horkrine 52 secs ago

I completely disagree with this answer. If I'm not interested, I'd find the direct question to be awkward; if I'm interested in having sex, I would find it clumsy and it would be and instantaneous mood kill. Rainbacon's answer is the way to go. — LinuxBlanket 1 min ago

+1 for Saying a brief and neutral "No, thank you" about 1 to 3 times when the pushing is repeated. It's usually what I do when faced with this kind of situation (which happens quite often to me), and it works wonders most of the time. — HugoBDesigner 22 secs ago

@Oleg: It's not a quote, but a paraphrase - i.e. it's how Dan Anderson understands Peterson. Peterson himself may or may not agree with that interpretation of his words :-). — sleske 59 secs ago

To me, "You can keep it" and "It's yours" mean exactly the same thing. If I wanted to give you my video camera on indefinite loan, I'd say something like "I'm not using it at the moment but I'll let you know if I need it back." As for referring to it as "my camera", I agree that this suggests she (now?) thinks it wasn't a gift. (There's a slight possibility that she just meant "the one I gave you, as distinct from any other camera you might have.") — David Richerby 41 secs ago

Not something I'm going put in an answer, but that changes things. If she's Ukrainian, single and agreed to come and stay alone in your apartment that's a strong indication she won't have a problem to have sex. — Oleg 2 mins ago

This does not read like a full answer, but it DOES deserve a +1 for that very simple truth. Keeping this in mind, it will also be easier to fully evaluate her verbal responses: if she is not willing to talk about it, there is a signal she doesn't want to do it! — Layna 52 secs ago

@Oleg Thank you. I agree it's a bit corny but in my personal experience it never fails. — Paula Hasstenteufel 2 mins ago

As German for curosity: Why do you use Deutche Knabe" (German knave, correctly Deutscher* Knabe) as nickname if you are Ukrainian? It suspiciously sounds like a troll name for German ears. — Thorsten S. 41 secs ago

@Spagirl it's obvious that a reasonable person understands that keeping their roommate locked out and/or putting other people in their bed will highly inconvenience the OP. Therefore, the roommate is either unreasonable or, more likely, doesn't give a shit and even a bit despises the OP for their lack of backbone. An honest display of anger will be more effective than calm reasoning. — IMil 14 secs ago

@user15683 Yeah, does sound complicated. It also sounds like you haven't made your mind up on whether you want to be in an intimate relationship with her or not. On the one hand you broke it off, on the other hand she should discuss her intimate feelings with you - those two things don't fit too well together (see Jon's answer). You can't have it both ways. Also, your reason for breaking it off (not enough affection on her part) sounds really vague - are you sure she understood what you concrete behaviour you expected of her and really isn't able to give you that? — AllTheKingsHorses 24 secs ago

I wouldn't say "at the moment". That implies that if they try again, they might succeed. Just say "I'm sure it's delicious, but I don't want any." Don't leave any room for "okay I'll try again to see if 'at this moment' extends to five minutes from now". Aside from that, I agree with this answer, especially if you make sure to say the "no, thank you" in the exact same tone every time. Emphasize that your answer will not change, no matter how much they wheedle. — Nic Hartley 1 min ago

@Catija well if you want this public then, the explanation was clear but I disagree with your conclusion, I am usually very grateful for your edits. However if you are going to edit my answer in a way that fundamentally changes its content, Frankly that is rude, and I ask you not to do that. — Dan Anderson 52 secs ago

Born leaders are good at handling people. I wouldn't expect one to ask this question. Have you had problems with subordinates proving deficient in their capacity to appreciate and respond to your born leadership? — Ed Plunkett 19 secs ago

+1 for "more impoliteness than brits can handle" — WendyG 35 secs ago

There's a misconception floating around that if you get disagreeing parties to simply talk their differences out, everything is gonna get worked out. But many, many times those sort of talks fall apart when one party refuses to compromise/admit fault. Or they do admit fault superficially, but still claim to have been wronged more.There exists another misconception that leaders should be impartial. However, leaders have skin in the game, and thus are not impartial - and they shouldn't be. And the OP's interest is to have the community run smoothly, not babysit Dave's feelings. — AndreiROM 40 secs ago

I very much disagree. People make amends all the time. — mgarey 44 secs ago

@Spagirl I fully agree that OP shouldn't do anything that he doesn't have consent for and that being turned down verbally is preferable to being pushed off. That said, I find it is highly possible and, it seems to me, common for consent to be displayed entirely non verbally. If OP is in any way uncertain, he should absolutely ask if she consents before attempting anything ... I just wonder if saying that verbally asking is mandatory is taking it a bit far. — Skyl3r 57 secs ago

@LightnessRacesinOrbit Careless or unintelligent, let's not forget to observe the rules of negation of an and in formal logic. :) But seriously, when people disagree with me I do my best to find a way that the disagreement could come from a perspective more intelligent or careful (or informed or ...) than my own. I can see how my wording might imply such an a priori dismissal of disagreement, though, and I welcome suggestions for how it could be better within the brevity constraints imposed here. — mtraceur 18 secs ago

Yes - it's about honor, not weakness or safety. I hold the door for anyone who's there, putting them before me. +1 — Don Branson 2 mins ago