Indirect messages permit communicative contacts when, without them, the alternatives would be total inhibition, si- lence, and solitude on the one hand, or, on the other, com- municative behavior that is direct, offensive, and hence forbidden. This is a painful choice. In actual practice, neither alternative is likely to result in the gratification of personal or sexual needs. In this dilemma, indirect communications pro- vide a useful compromise. As an early move in the dating game, the young man might invite the young woman to dinner or to the movies. These communications are polyvalent: both the invitation and the response to it have several "levels" of meaning. One is the level of the overt message—that is, whether they will have dinner together, go to a movie, and so forth. Another, more covert, level pertains to the question of sexual activity: acceptance of the dinner invitation implies that sexual overtures might perhaps follow. Conversely, rejec- tion of the invitation means not only refusal of companionship for dinner but also of the possibility of further sexual explora- tion. There may be still other levels of meaning. For example, acceptance of the dinner invitation may be interpreted as a sign of personal or sexual worth and hence grounds for increased self-esteem, whereas its rejection may mean the opposite and generate feelings of worthlessness.