If you read the writings of the Guide's author and do not recognize that it is misogynistic and advocating sexual assault, you have a problem. That problem is that you are mistaking sexual assault for "taking the first step."
You do not need to resort to pulling out your dick and forcibly placing the woman's hand on it in order to "make a move." There's literally hundreds of other things that aren't sexual assault that you could do before resorting to that.
If you believe that's a reasonable "move" to make, then you not only have no imagination, but your judgment of what's acceptable behavior is way, way off. It doesn't matter if this is a woman who you're behind closed doors with for the first time, that's not a normal, acceptable "move". That kind of thing is for people already in an established, ongoing relationship with a solid foundation of consent.
Without that consent, it is assault.
I strongly urge all of you who "do not see the problem" with the author's writings to do more research into exactly what consent is, and what women (as a whole, obviously it varies from individual to individual) see as acceptable, expected behavior.
If women are loudly saying "This is assault.", you need to take them at their word, because it is their judgment, it is their consent that matters. Not yours.
Sincerely,
A married, 34 year old HNer who is ashamed of this community right now.
EDIT:
I thought this was obvious but I have already read all the comments in this thread and all the "context" the excusers are providing. If you think pointing me to that again is refuting my points, then you didn't understand what I wrote.
Ask 100 women if they find it romantic to be kissed without being asked or if they want to be asked first. I'm pretty sure the answer is: being kissed, don't ask.
The author writes on reddit:
IMPORTANT NOTE ON RESISTANCE:
If at any point a girl wants you to stop, she will let you know. If she says "STOP," or "GET AWAY FROM ME," or shoves you away, you know she is not interested. It happens. Stop escalating immediately and say this line:
"No problem. I don't want you to do anything you aren't comfortable with."
Memorize that line. It is your go-to when faced with resistance. Say it genuinely, without presumption. All master seducers are also masters at making women feel comfortable. You'll be no different. If a woman isn't comfortable, take a break and try again later.
So I really don't see where this is assault by not asking first.
Thing is, if you try to kiss her and she doesn't want it, she'll turn away and that's it.
This is such a load of shit. There are so many circumstances in which someone may feel powerless to say something or engage in a resistive act, or may be physically incapable of doing so that the time. Rapists use the justification of lack of "acceptable" resistive force all the time, there is no place for this kind of comment.
There's a big difference between "resistive force" and saying no. Anyone can say no, at least in situations in which both partners are of equal power. In situations where one partner has greater power than the other, it's usually illegal for them to be intimate anyways (teacher/student, employer/employee). Also, if you, say, kiss someone without their explicit consent, I think it's pretty obvious when they are not kissing you back/want to stop (actually, I hope - never been in that situation, really, but at least I have lots of passionate kisses as a benchmark).
1) Power imbalance exists in general between men and women, in favor of men
2) Rapists and society at large often blame rape victims for not resisting enough. Rapists do not have a problem with a lack of consent and relying on victims to stop their own assault is completely unacceptable. The kickstarter project in question advocated for physically violating actions to be undertaken by would-be assaulters and put the burden of stopping assault on victims and should this kind of thing should never be supported period.
2) Rapists don't care about Kickstarter banning a seduction manual; they aren't seducing.
1) I don't think so; strength imbalance maybe, but not power imbalance. In fact, when it comes to sex and intimate relationships, women are usually more trained in socializing and have the upper hand in choosing a mate, and are strongly favoured by the courts [1] and the police [2].
> 1) I don't think so; strength imbalance maybe, but not power imbalance. In fact, when it comes to sex and intimate relationships, women are usually more trained in socializing and have the upper hand in choosing a mate, and are strongly favoured by the courts [1] and the police [2].
This is completely not accurate. Women are more likely to be murdered by their partners, men have better outcomes in family court when they pursue parental rights, men overwhelmingly commit sexual assaults (against all genders), and men do not experience sexual violence at the hands of police as often as women.
There is at least a thousand ways to say no, and only a few of them requires the use of a word.
And there may be times where women feel powerless, but unless they actually are powerless (that is the man wouldn't respect it if they said no) feeling has little and less to do with real world.
Also please remove your last sentence. HN is a place that values discussions with a high intellectual content and it cheapens your argument.
I don't think you can split it like that. To me opt-in would mean you have to go and ask, whereas opt-in would be being asked, but you seem to me to prefer being asked in a verbal manner, whereas I would also accept a non-verbal manner.
Obviously just jamming your dick into her isn't acceptable.
> Ask 100 women if they find it romantic to be kissed without being asked or if they want to be asked first. I'm pretty sure the answer is: being kissed, don't ask.
I am pretty sure the answer is more complicated.
> Thing is, if you try to kiss her and she doesn't want it, she'll turn away and that's it.
Well, the problem is sometimes if you are too quick, your greasy lips might end up on her lips, making her smell your foul breath. And even if she turns away, it will not make the first seconds of assault unhappen.
> Ask 100 women if they find it romantic to be kissed without being asked or if they want to be asked first. I'm pretty sure the answer is: being kissed, don't ask.
That depends on the man. I don't want someone I don't want to kiss me without asking. I don't want them to kiss me at all, but I'd prefer that they ask than just try it.
Do you think that women just want men to randomly walk up to them in the street and kiss them? If you don't, then there's obviously some communication that's meant to be going on.
The guide puts the onus for that on the woman. If she doesn't want it, then she has to MAKE you stop:
'Don't ask for permission. Be dominant. Force her to rebuff your advances.'
Which is just a really disgusting mindset. Do you think anyone wants to have to make you leave them alone? And you have to acknowledge that some people are going to be too shy to make you stop.
It's an oversimplification to ask whether women would like someone to ask before kissing them. Not all communication is so blatantly verbal.
These sorts of guides don't help the fact that a lot of the boys reading them are poorly socialised to begin with, and are essentially being set up to rape some shy girl who may not feel confident enough to stop you doing something she's not really interested in. And that does a disservice to him and her - because I don't feel like, unless he's a total psycho, he wants to rape someone.
The book's attitude essentially seems to be that the author feels it acceptable to make people very uncomfortable, and risk raping someone, just because he doesn't want to take the chance that he'll turn off a potential date.
>Do you think that women just want men to randomly walk up to them in the street and kiss them?
This is the absolute most obtuse reading of the situation you could have mustered. And this is the problem with this entire debate: those who are arguing against these "seduction" techniques must resort to strawmen and imagined scenarios to show how awful this is. Unfortunately, this is the stuff that social interaction is made of. You're not going to change it by suddenly defining normal interaction as assault.
> This is the absolute most obtuse reading of the situation you could have mustered. And this is the problem with this entire debate: those who are arguing against these "seduction" techniques must resort to strawmen and imagined scenarios to show how awful this is.
I didn't even attempt to portray that as his argument. I said that if you don't then there must, of necessity, be some communication going on. -le sigh-
> Unfortunately, this is the stuff that social interaction is made of. You're not going to change it by suddenly defining normal interaction as assault.
>If you don't, then there's obviously some communication that's meant to be going on.
Yes, nonverbal communication.
>The guide puts the onus for that on the woman. If she doesn't want it, then she has to MAKE you stop:
There are plenty of ways to do this. When a guy first opens the conversation, you can simply blow him off. If you seem receptive and he tries to flirt, again you can create space to nonverbally let him know you're not interested. Etc, etc.
All of these things are standard in social interactions. You guys are the ones that are twisting this into somehow being assault. This IS IN FACT the stuff that social interactions are made of. You can prefer that it weren't the case, but it is sad that you would block me for simply stating a fact.
Aside from king_jester's good point, he doesn't even follow that CYA in the guide. The other (more offensive, IMO) passage that people are in an uproar about is when he talks about how even when she rejects your touching or rubbing her when you first meet, she's actually secretly getting turned on, and that you should continue.
> when he talks about how even when she rejects your touching or rubbing her when you first meet
He suggests no such thing. He writes about having been on several dates and now you’re alone with her and you’re expected to escalate. His gives some suggestions how to do so, to make it more physical:
“Be playful. Spin her around. Pick her up. Push her away as a tease and then pull her back in. Decide that you're going to sit in a position where you can rub her leg and back. Physically pick her up and sit her on your lap.”
Only then does he write: “Don't ask for permission. Be dominant. Force her to rebuff your advances.”
In other words: try something, see what she will allow. She’s definitely going to tell you what she doesn’t want when you try it, but it’s very unlikely that she’s going to tell you what she wants before you try it.
Every woman you flirt with. Touch them immediately. Be shameless in your physicality. When a girl rejects your advances, she knows that you desire her, and it arouses her physically and psychologically.
Stop trying to evade what the quote says and trying to find some legalistic way of misreading its plain meaning.
I hate to break it to you, but humans (and animals!) value touch very, very much. Flirting without touching is not as effective at creating a bond. Generally, I'd say this advice is fairly sound, if your goal is to make another human being feel more connected to you. But of course, touching someone when they aren't interested does not create a bond, because they weren't interested in the first place.
So yeah, if your goal is play it safe for fear of lawsuits, offense, or rejections, then by all means, do not initiate any physical contact. Expect to be forgettable and for people to tell you "they just didn't feel that spark."
The project doesn't say touch is good, it associates that any time you touch a woman and she rejects that advance or tries to distance herself, she is actually just really aroused and should totally keep going. That is: IGNORE WOMEN'S OBJECTIONS TO YOUR VIOLATING OF THEIR SPACE, CONTINUE TO VIOLATE THEIR SPACE. This is literally the mindset of rapists.
Nothing of the sort was written. The text in question:
“Even when a girl rejects your advances, she KNOWS that you desire her. That's hot. It arouses her physically and psychologically.”
Which may or may not be true, but nowhere did the author suggest to the reader that he should carry on after the girl objects. He strongly advises against it.
That kind of statement serves as a justification for action even if someone objects to what you did. This is literally the kind of thing rapists say about the sexual assaults they committed.
A thief will say he stole a Rolex because he wanted it. That’s the same motivation as someone who buys the watch in a store, and yet, the two are not the same.
The difference between a rapist and a date is that one stops after you told him/her to stop, and the other doesn’t.
I don’t know what you think ‘touching’ entails, but I think you’re reading too much into it. He didn’t write “Every woman you meet, grab her crotch!’. If you touch someone’s shoulder, that hardly qualifies as sexual harassment.
> Ask 100 women if they find it romantic to be kissed without being asked or if they want to be asked first. I'm pretty sure the answer is: being kissed, don't ask.
Your answer seems to assume the consent of these women. Do you still think it's more romantic, even if they don't want to be kissed at all?
First off, I'm also married and have never read a seduction book. However, I'd like to quote some other comments from this thread to refute you.
> The thing that the commenters on social media are leaving out is that the advice was taken from a section in the guide offering advice on what to do AFTER a man has met a cute girl, gotten her phone number, gone on dates, spent time getting to know her, and now are alone behind closed doors fooling around. If "Don't wait for signs, make the first move" promotes sexual assault, then "Kiss the Girl" from The Little Mermaid was a song about rape.
> And all seduction guides do is offer advise on how to do that, but somehow what is acceptable for every issue of Cosmo (and a fair number of mens magazines) isn't acceptable for a guide on kickstarter.
Also, would all women who have seen the full story and context call it assault? Would they call it assault in real life? Probably not.
> Also, would all women who have seen the full story and context call it assault? Would they call it assault in real life? Probably not.
The point of this exercise is to be proactive about not hurting people. "Would they call it assault?" is a question that should simply not be on the table.
Survivors of sexual assault and rape may most certainly call an unwelcome kiss sexual assault and it may be a hugely triggering thing that causes a relapse. You don't get to decide what someone's boundaries are just because you want something from them.
Now we're getting somewhere in this conversation. What you're advocating is that we should universally change established cultural norms to protect the very small minority who might be actually harmed by a misread signal. Most people wouldn't agree. Most people can accept the fact that miscommunications happen and brush it off as a fact of navigating a complex social world. It's unfortunate for those that can't do this due to past trauma or whatever psychological quirks they have, but that is not the problem of the entirety of society.
> What you're advocating is that we should universally change established cultural norms to protect the very small minority who might be actually harmed by a misread signal.
What I'm saying is that this kind of thing isn't necessarily an established cultural norm and that even if there is an established cultural norm people have a right to their physical space and safety. If we are willing to discards the concerns of marginalized people then we as a society are only ever going to support dominant groups and paradigms, which is not useful for handling systemic inequalities like racism, sexism, etc.
>What I'm saying is that this kind of thing isn't necessarily an established cultural norm
Of course, cultural norms can vary. So it is in fact an established cultural norm in a non-trivial number of places. I would go as far to say its the majority in the western world, but that's irrelevant to the discussion.
>If we are willing to discards the concerns of marginalized people
People who have psychological quirks regarding personal space are not marginalized people by any common definition of that word. People who absolutely do not want anyone breaching their personal space without express written consent yadda yadda usually have good ways to communicate this to the people around them. Perhaps they shouldn't have to, but then perhaps the rest of the world shouldn't have to alter their behavior on account of a very small percentage of people.
But anyways, this discussion has suddenly turned from a question of whether "seduction" techniques is morally reprehensible to whether we are morally obliged to collectively take into consideration the concerns of a very small minority of people. These are two vastly different questions. Under this new understanding of the issue, "seduction" techniques are by default morally neutral. The question becomes whether it is morally obligatory (rather than simply morally praiseworthy) to not use these techniques on the off chance that person will have an abnormal reaction to personal space being breached. This question is very much dependent on the probability of encountering a person who will sustain actual harm from this. I would wager that this probability is extremely low, and a few orders of magnitude lower in your typical social situations (bars, clubs, etc). It seems rather clear that constantly obsessing about this scenario is unnecessary.
They may...or if they've recovered, they may not. The goal is usually to become able to react to things normally again, not become permanently stuck in damaged victim status for forever. People do manage to get over their triggers with counseling, medication, & time.
Honestly, calling an attempted kiss a sexual assault is really insulting to people who have actually been sexually assaulted. I'm really not fond of how pervasively histrionic things have gotten about it, as of late.
You don't get to decide what everyone's boundaries are just because you want to mandate complete and total obedience to gendered ideology.
And yet, Kickstarter can decide that they want nothing to do with it or anything else for pretty much any reason they want.
Kickstarter is claiming that they won't allow seduction manuals period ("we are prohibiting 'seduction guides,' or anything similar, effective immediately."). They have the right to do that.
If you really need a seduction manual, you need to shop elsewhere.
The gist of the controversial advice is "Don't wait for signs before you make your move. Let her be the one who rejects your advances. If she says no, stop immediately and tell her you don't want to do anything that would make her uncomfortable. Try again at a later time if appropriate or cease entirely if she is absolutely not interested."
This is not a defense. This advice leads to sexual assault. You are assuming your partner's consent, and placing the burden on them to reject it. That is the problem.
Without a clear verbal confirmation of consent, or an explicit proactive action, you cannot know if your partner is participating willingly. Failure to reject is not the same thing as consent, and no adult should have difficulty understanding the distinction.
If you follow this advice, you will rape people while believing that they are just shy.
And for what? To avoid the embarrassment of saying, "So do you wanna fuck?" How old are you?
Or are you worried that if you ask a woman "So do you wanna fuck?", she might say no? Do I even need to explain what's wrong with that?
>And for what? To avoid the embarrassment of saying, "So do you wanna fuck?" How old are you?
I'm not the person you wrote this to, but I can answer that I am 41 years old, have been married for 11 years and have three children (including a daughter).
When I think of the little scene you've played out there occurring, I see the biggest nerd in the world getting his first chance at making out with a girl when he awkwardly stops and says, "Do you consent to fornication at this time?"
Frankly, your advice makes you sound unbelievably young and inexperienced with women. I have yet to meet a woman that wants you ask permission for every stage of a sexual relationship. In fact, every woman I've talked to about the subject has told me that it's specifically unwanted.
"I see the biggest nerd in the world getting his first chance at making out with a girl when he awkwardly stops and says, "Do you consent to fornication at this time?""
Been there, done--basically--that. Damnedest thing; wouldn't you know that it didn't have the intended effect?
> In fact, every woman I've talked to about the subject has told me that it's specifically unwanted.
Is it so hard to believe that a woman (or man) may be uncomfortable expressly saying "No" in a given circumstance? Just because you have anecdotal evidence about woman you have talked to does not mean that we should adopt practices that those woman would like the most.
If 1 in 100, 1,000, or even 10,000 people do not like forward advances and feel paralyzed to say no in such circumstances, we should ask for consent because otherwise 1 in however many thousand times it would be rape or assault.
Shockingly, the correct course of action may not actually optimize people's chances of picking up women or men. Yet a culture of rape is a far greater price to pay than having a little more trouble getting dates or having sex. You might, in fact, actually have to ask someone, before touching them or 'shoving your penis in their vagina'.
My experience is that women tend to communicate non-verbally much more than men do. For instance, if a women doesn’t like you, you probably won’t be sitting on her couch on a Friday night after having taken her out to dinner.
Also: in that scenario, trying to touch your date’s shoulder or leg, or approaching to kiss her, isn’t rape. It’s an opportunity for her to let you know whether you’ve interpreted her signals correctly.
Isn't a culture where rape and sexual assault happens a pretty steep price to pay for the allure and romantic nature of non-verbal communication?
Most of the time, nothing bad will happen if you depend on non-verbal cues, but in the minority of times your advances may unwanted, and the person feels uncomfortably verbally rebuffing them. In these instances, assault or even rape can and_does_happen.
Simply asking for consent is hardly difficult and the insurance it provides that your partner does in fact like your advances is very valuable.
>Also: in that scenario, trying to touch your date’s shoulder or leg, or approaching to kiss her, isn’t rape. It’s an opportunity for her to let you know whether you’ve interpreted her signals correctly.
How do you know it is not rape (or assault in this circumstance)? Non-verbal queues are not infallible; without asking, you must trust your judgment. While you probably judged correctly, that does not mean it is advisable behavior to proceed without asking.
Even using one of the most ridiculous straw-man arguments I have ever seen, you still fail to make your point. Surely the benefits of being able to participate in the immense amount of activities that exist outside your house is worth the risk. In other words, the benefits outweigh the costs. Asking consent comes at negligible cost. Correct me if I am wrong, but I tend to think rape and assault is worse than opening my mouth.
Furthermore, the risk of being struck by lightning is one you accept when you exit the house. The same is not true in the actual object of the discussion because the victim of your actions will primarily be your would-be partner.
Finally, I find it extremely offense that you assert that the amount of sexual assaults that can be attributed to failure to obtain adequate consent to the chances of being struck by lightning upon exiting your house.
--
Assuming that you do not present the best arguments for your side (at this point, I feel very safe in this assumption), I will acknowledge that, in a committed and well established relationship, it is possible to have sex without first asking for consent. Still, I am reluctant to encourage people to do so, and many sexual assaults occur in committed relationships. It is so easy to ask; I cannot see why someone would refrain from doing so.
EDIT: On further thought, I feel comfortable saying that after having asked consent each time a relationship progresses, that, in a committed relationship,it is safe to rely on non-verbal cues.
In all the scenarios I’ve provided, the girl will have given dozens of non-verbal cues for the guy to act. If the guy then still feels he needs to ask, there’s a real possibility that the girl gets turned off.
If the girl didn’t want to make out, she wouldn't have repeatedly have gone on dates with you, she wouldn't have invited you to her place, she wouldn't have lit candles, she wouldn't have sat on the couch with you, she wouldn't have asked you whether you like the perfume she's wearing, etc etc.
And on the off chance that all these things did happen but she doesn't want to make out, she will have told you by then. She knows way better than you what kind of signals she's giving off.
And lastly, if you misinterpreted her signals and you reach for a kiss, all she has to do is not lean into it. This can happen if you think you’re on a date, while she thinks you're just good friends (she may have thought you were gay). Trying to kiss her clears all that up, and it's better done sooner than later. The longer you wait to kiss her, chances increase she thinks you're not into her.
> When I think of the little scene you've played out there occurring, I see the biggest nerd in the world getting his first chance at making out with a girl when he awkwardly stops and says, "Do you consent to fornication at this time?"
...really? Sure, whatever, let's go with it. If that's the only way you know how to figure out consent, that's what you need to say. And I bet it will work more often than not, too. The solution is to teach people better ways to find out if their partner consents, not to say it doesn't matter.
But a fifteen year old kid is likely not going to have a great first time no matter what. If you can't imagine a sexually active adult talking about sex in a sexy way, that's very much your problem.
> Frankly, your advice makes you sound unbelievably young and inexperienced with women. I have yet to meet a woman that wants you ask permission for every stage of a sexual relationship. In fact, every woman I've talked to about the subject has told me that it's specifically unwanted.
I'm not here for the dick waving contest, but suffice it to say my experience is not just with talking to women.
I don't know about you, but I would prefer if things happened "naturally", without talking about it explicitly. Us sitting closer, slowly drawing our heads closer, lips touch, mouths open, kiss.
It is, of course, somewhat sad that our culture taught us it's inappropriate and shameful to talk about sex, and that we're more comfortable having sex with someone than we are talking about sex. That's also why the most common advice on reddit.com/r/sex is "just talk to him/her".
Btw, you realize, right, that with your comment you're promoting rape (according to your definition)? After all, a woman taking "explicit proactive action" without your explicit verbal consent is, the same as a man would if the situation was reversed, raping him.
Have you ever touched someone without them giving you verbal consent? Rape! Please, that's absurd!
> I don't know about you, but I would prefer if things happened "naturally", without talking about it explicitly. Us sitting closer, slowly drawing our heads closer, lips touch, mouths open, kiss.
I used to think that, too, as a teenager. Then I had sex with a bunch of people and realized, who gives a fuck? Sex is fun. It's fun when it happens spontaneously, with mutual passion. It's fun when it's discussed and scheduled ahead of time. It's just fun!
As long as both people want to. Then I thought about some of those times things just happened "naturally", and I realized, I'm not really sure if she did want to. That's not fun.
So now, if there's any doubt in my mind whatsoever, I just ask. I'm in a committed, long-term relationship now, and I still ask her regularly if I'm not sure if she wants to. Because I'm even less interested in pressuring someone I really care about into something she doesn't want. And she will do the same for me.
Guess what? Still fun.
> Btw, you realize, right, that with your comment you're promoting rape (according to your definition)? After all, a woman taking "explicit proactive action" without your explicit verbal consent is, the same as a man would if the situation was reversed, raping him.
Yes. It goes both ways, regardless of gender. Did you expect me to disagree with this?
There is such a thing as enthusiastic nonverbal consent-- it's pretty hard to mistake. I've never been saying, "always ask 100% of the time no matter what". I've been saying, "If you have any doubt in your mind, just ask." And accordingly, to place the line of doubt somewhere a little higher than "She let me into her house."
Well, that's exactly what I believe that the author of the book was saying, if one reads his text with a slightly different, more realistic, bias. He wrote the book exactly because many men, after having heard lectures from people like you, fail to notice and act upon even the most enthusiastic non-verbal consent.
> Yes. It goes both ways, regardless of gender. Did you expect me to disagree with this?
Well, the only thing I can say is that I'm glad I live in Europe, where people are still normal and not yet so frigid/distrustful that they need to talk about everything before they do it.
>Well, the only thing I can say is that I'm glad I live in Europe, where people are still normal and not yet so frigid/distrustful that they need to talk about everything before they do it.
Fortunately, it's like that in the U.S. too for most people. There is a very vocal minority here that is making things way more complicated than they actually are in real life. This was my favorite quote from the person you're responding to:
>I'm in a committed, long-term relationship now, and I still ask her regularly if I'm not sure if she wants to.
This is unbelievable to me. I think the typical woman confronted with this behavior would look for a new boyfriend - one that isn't so amazingly timid. As a married person I can't imagine asking my wife "regularly" for permission to have sex. I know her signals, she knows my signals and if either of us put out a signal the other person isn't up for we volunteer, "Not tonight" and that's the end of it.
To imply that to not receive explicit verbal affirmative permission is equal to rape is unbelievably insulting and delusional.
> This is unbelievable to me. I think the typical woman confronted with this behavior would look for a new boyfriend - one that isn't so amazingly timid. As a married person I can't imagine asking my wife "regularly" for permission to have sex. I know her signals, she knows my signals and if either of us put out a signal the other person isn't up for we volunteer, "Not tonight" and that's the end of it.
See, this is the problem. It's not "timid" to talk about sex. I know my girlfriend well, and she knows me, and if we're hanging out together and we're both down to fuck then it's on.
Here's the other thing that happens: I'm in one room playing Starcraft, she's in the other room reading a book, and I start feeling a little randy. I'm not going to wander in there and try to get into her field of view to make eyes at her. If I just walk up and start touching her, and she's not into it, she'll feel irritated and I'll feel rejected and that's not good for us.
So what I do instead is -- and to be clear, this happens about as often the other way around -- I say, hey, do you want to have sex? And she thinks about it for a second, and if she says "yes" we get naked and down to business. If she says "no", no hard feelings, I can go back to my game. If it's in between, like "not really" or "maybe later", we can have a quick chat about it and come to a decision together.
Do you understand what I'm saying here? Me asking my girlfriend if she wants to have sex, and vice versa, means we have way more sex than we would if we both sat around waiting for the "signals". And we really like sex, so this is great for us.
But I guess if you're married with kids, there are other reasons you can't relate to this.
And since I'm here, rid that word "permission" from your vocabulary in this discussion. Permission is asked from a superior. Consent is a mutual arrangement between equals. Therein lies the core of this entire issue.
Whatever works for you. Your scenario actually seems somewhat atypical to me, but it helps me understand why you come off as "white knight" to everyone.
EDIT: which is to say, it's not wrong that this works for you, this isn't a criticism of that. I think you may be mistaking a local optimum for a global [in the sense of math - so the country/dating pool] optimum because it works so well for you; i.e. the false-consensus effect.
Also, I don't value "having way more sex" over "having extremely hot sex", but this is also just me.
Your advice would not work in my relationship. In fact, it is decidedly unhot to ask a "yes/no" question and I would probably get rolled eyes. It would still work and bluntly convey my intentions, but it would come off as completely un-suave. For us, the language of the body is far more rich, intimate, and revealing to one's true desires. In fact, rarely when we have sex does it start with both parties reaching the same conclusion at the same time. Sometimes, something as simple as a good-bye kiss can turn into a 20-minute delay -- and I wouldn't have it any other way.
Of course, I realize I'm in a really fantastic relationship and most people don't have the luxury of being frank with their partners about their desires. But I'd encourage you to consider those things may not be unrelated.
No, you didn't say "We don't have hot sex". I didn't say "You don't have hot sex" either. Now that you're feeling validated, please consider what was written again, but without getting offended.
You stated what worked for you, and you measured its "workingness" by unambiguousness of the process, the lack of bad feelings on rejection, and (ostensibly most importantly, seeing as how you put it in italics) the quantity. I'm happy for you.
But what if what you are suggesting can come by following your advice //is not what I value//? What if I can achieve what is optimal for my relationship in a different way? What if, and this is crazy but, what if what works for you and what is best for you, isn't best for everyone? -> False consens effect.
I was remarking that I find it interesting that you're defending a particular strategy that works in your relationship and is not a cultural norm (hence, atypical), while at the same time suggesting that all men should act more like you. Too fast there cowboy! If all men woke up tomorrow and acted like that, there might be a few (million?) women who find their choice of mates underwhelming all of a sudden. Why? Because it violates our cultural norms. But at the level of one couple, you and your partner, sure, you have the luxury of making such "optimizations" and being "absolute" about what is best.
There is no need to defend yourself, your sex life, or your relationship. I'm sure you're in a great one; may you two be together forever. Communication is great and key. However, please consider as well that I am not going to follow your advice, and that I, too, am delusional about how awesome my relationship is compared to everyone else's. :) :) :)
> Without a clear verbal confirmation of consent, or an explicit proactive action, you cannot know if your partner is participating willingly.
> Did you expect me to disagree with this?
I don't understand. Why did you bring it up if you didn't think it was okay for your partner to make an explicit proactive action without clear verbal confirmation of consent?
When you’ve gone out on several dates, you’ve kissed, she’s invited you to her home, and you’re now sitting on the couch with her, more often than not, the girl will expect the guy to take the initiative. By that time, asking her if you can touch her is a major downer for her. You’re expected to try something. If she didn’t want to fool around, you wouldn’t be there.
That’s the context of the quotes, and in the book, it is prefaced by an instruction to stop immediately if she indicates you to do so.
That's great. So all you've gotta do is replace, "Try to have sex with her, and stop if she says no" with, "Find out if she wants to have sex with you, and do so if she does."
The difference that makes to whether or not she consents -- the "downer" -- is precisely the point.
If you’ve been making out, fondling, and fingering her for a while, asking her if she wants to have sex is going to make you seem obtuse.
She’s been standing in line at an ice cream truck, it’s finally her turn, and now you, the guy behind the counter, are asking her whether you should make her some ice cream. ’No, I’m here to get movie tickets!’
> If you’ve been making out, fondling, and fingering her for a while, asking her if she wants to have sex is going to make you seem obtuse.
Uh, this is literally the difference between raping someone and not raping someone. A lot of people have different levels of comfort with intimate activity, some people may not want to have more than a certain level of contact. Just going for it and not talking about it puts the burden on your partner, which in our society puts that person in a position of being an uptight downer or just suffering through an experience they don't want (yes this is acquaintance rape and it is a real thing).
From your comments in this thread I strongly get the feeling that you have never had sex. So for the people who have not had sex I'll try to describe how it goes. If you are fingering somebody and then make a move to insert your penis, there is plenty of opportunity for that person to say no or pull away, if she/he does not want it. It's not like you make a lightning fast move and before your partner has a chance to understand what's happening they have your penis in them. If you're doing it right, you reach for a condom, you open the package, put the condom on, adjust your partners' position, and tease before entering, and finally you enter. In this whole process there are a great number of opportunities for your partner to (verbally or non-verbally) indicate that she/he does not want it.
If every man followed the methods that you describe here and elsewhere in the thread, the human race would die out in one generation.
For a time in college (and bit after) my "move" during make-outs was to grab a condom and hand it to her. What she did with that condom at that point made very clear her desired outcome. It also gave a little insight into the person. Does she know what to do with it? (not everybody knows how to put on a condom. or maybe knows TOO well.) Does she think we didn't need to use a condom? (uh... ya... WE DO!) Looking back, it seems a little un-suave but it was sufficiently effective for me.
The last time I pulled that move, it was met with "uh... we don't need this... yet." Fair enough... we hit the brakes a bit. She's my wife now. :)
> If you are fingering somebody and then make a move to insert your penis, there is plenty of opportunity for that person to say no or pull away, if she/he does not want it.
In instances of sexual assault, this is not at all true and there are a variety of complicating factors that go into sexual assault situations that negate this statement. Just reading the stories of sexual assault survivors is enough to illustrate how not true this is.
> If every man followed the methods that you describe here and elsewhere in the thread, the human race would die out in one generation.
Ah yes, taking care and being sure of consent certainly means the death of humankind.
> In instances of sexual assault, this is not at all true and there are a variety of complicating factors that go into sexual assault situations that negate this statement.
Well, yeah, you it is possible do a lightning move. My whole point is that you shouldn't do that. That would indeed be sexual assault.
So if I may ask, do you have personal experience with dating/sex? You don't have to answer if you don't want to. I agree with your position in theory, and I actually did what you suggest at first. The problem is that it doesn't work in practice, which is why I stopped doing that.
Does this consent have to be verbal, or does active participation count? (e.g. Kissing back, tugging at or removing your clothing, unzipping your fly, etc)
To me, those are clear evidence of a desire to progress toward sex. (Obviously, if she says stop, do so.)
Presumably, if "A" (male) is pushing forward and initiating sexual action, he's consenting ... the question is whether "B" (female) is also consenting.
The question I'm asking is that if both parties are expressing 'forward motion' in terms of their actions and their body language, is it necessary to have verbal consent?
Or are you violating consent if you assume their apparent physical interest substitutes for verbal consent?
> The question I'm asking is that if both parties are expressing 'forward motion' in terms of their actions and their body language, is it necessary to have verbal consent?
Judging by romance flicks set in modern times, teen pop songs, advertising, and women’s magazines, Western culture says ‘no’ — the guy is supposed to pick up on non-verbal hints and take the wheel. (In reality, she’s already put the car into ‘Drive’, but she wants to give the guy the idea he’s in control)
Now, over time I’ve become fairly religious, and last year I’ve vowed not to have sex before marriage, but even with a girl who shares my faith, she expects me to try something (everything up to actual sex). Otherwise, she thinks I’m not into her (no sexual chemistry = no marriage).
Judging by romance flicks set in modern times, teen pop songs, advertising, and women’s magazines, Western culture says ‘no’ — the guy is supposed to pick up on non-verbal hints and take the wheel. (In reality, she’s already put the car into ‘Drive’, but she wants to give the guy the idea he’s in control)
I would agree. Until now, I've always considered the physical fact of the girl being "into it" as consent. I've never been wrong yet.
I suppose it's possible that a girl could physically participate in moving a sexual interaction forward while simultaneously not wanting to do so, but that suggests immaturity, inconsistency, and possible mental illness rather than any kind of behavior that should be recommended for anybody.
Now, over time I’ve become fairly religious, and last year I’ve vowed not to have sex before marriage, but even with a girl who shares my faith, she expects me to try something (everything up to actual sex). Otherwise, she thinks I’m not into her (no sexual chemistry = no marriage).
That's a bit different from "mainstream" culture - it's interesting to hear that expectations are similar (aside from actual PiV sex).
This advice leads to sexual assault? Come on. Yeah, in the strictest sense, you do not have a legal right to her bubble of space and she can charge you for sexual assault for leaning in for a kiss.
OR, she can be a normal, non-litigious person and reject you. She can say "no", turn her head, take a step back, etc. and you know what, she won't be worse for the wear, mentally or physically. I promise!
I mean, at that rate, a girl could indicate that she wants you to rub her off, but charge you for sexual assault because Simon Didn't Say Touch My Breasts. Good god, please let this never happen to anyone.
Please, stop spreading advice that any and all action must be done with full and explicit consent. American society doesn't value that. Watch romance movies sometime. This is what girls grow up with. This is how many girls wish to be treated. They know how to operate in those scenarios. They understand the roles of each and have predefined expectations long before you meet them. They want their lives to play out like the most romantic scenes from their favorite movies. They want spontaneous adventure. They want unexpected trips and kisses in the rain. They want to stare in your eyes and for you to lean in. Defy these norms at your own risk.
I mean, fundamentally, what you are saying is just that: go against cultural norms because it's better for the girl that way. Says who? You? Her? "Society"? Feminists? Movies? I, for one, do not buy this line of thinking.
In the beginning, I expect relationships with people who aren't too sure about each other might well be represented by a series of try { } catch { } and throw CourtshipAdvanceNotAcceptedExceptions. Fine, this is par for the course. This is quite a bit different from throwing a lawsuit.
The people you should worry about are the ones who after rejection occurs, grab their victim and proceed to force their actions anyways.
This is a very touchy subject, right? I'm going to try and convey my thoughts very carefully here, so please try and be receptive.
(Context for this is for your bog-standard straight courting scenario--I do not feel qualified to comment on how courting for any other gender scenario works.)
~
In an ideal world, everybody would communicate honestly and openly. You could sit down with a girl, and have a conversation like so:
"Hi, I think you're attractive and I enjoy your company. Would you be interested in pursuing a relationship, or if not, perhaps a shorter-term physical engagement?"
"Yes/No/Not interested."
This is, needless to say, not how 99.999% of the population works--as I, and I suspect others, have found to our dismay. Negotiating these sorts of things is not just a TCP ack sequence or something.
The fact is that even were roles reversed, that is just not what we would consider a compelling user experience. Expecting explicit handshaking for every step of the relationship cycle is something only emotional robots expect.
In an ideal world, the following things would be true:
1. People know what they want in a relationship.
2. People know how to convey what they want accurately to other people, especially in terms of arousal or courting.
3. People are free to signal availability or interest without repercussion, and accept rejection just as easily.
These three things are obviously far, far from the case.
~
There are very much conflicting cultural mores about how courtship is supposed to work.
On the one hand, we have hundreds and thousands of years of precedent (and perhaps biology, though I personally hope this is not the case) suggesting that the man is the one to initiate actions, and that the woman, if disinterested, will make her rejection known. Strictly speaking, we've got a bit more barbarous history behind us than that, but let's assume decent folk here to keep life simple.
On the other hand, we've got this recent push for more explicit confirmation for consent and for the more equitable distribution of first-move-making between the man and the woman.
These two things do not go together, and even worse, trying to come to a synthesis for your average inexperienced guy is a road which easily runs to ruin.
So, instead we find ourselves in this curious place where young men who mean well want to get with young women who also mean well. Unfortunately, the women are brought up expecting that the men will do the work, initiate everything, and the men are increasingly told that hey need to--to be safe and respectful, mind you!--wait for explicit confirmation of every step.
In programming terms, we are setting up for a deadlock.
Perhaps even more troubling, the hilariously large impact of social networks and whatnot mean that gossip is worse than ever, and there is no room to make mistakes if you are one of these young men. Worse, media is constantly reinforcing some awful blend of these two mores, making both sides seek after a state of affairs that simply does not exist.
There's some more issues I've seen, but you get the gist.
The phrase you're looking for is "enthusiastic consent". You're not looking for a signed contract. You're looking to have absolutely no doubt in your mind that your partner genuinely wants to do what you want to do. That just happens to be about a thousand times easier if you can talk about it like a (sexy) grownup.
Believe it or not, one goal of this policy is more, and better sex.
I don't disagree that being able to talk openly about these things is good.
I assert, though, that the climate today makes it very treacherous to do so--and that even if it didn't, there still is a chicken-and-egg problem in learning how to do it. Vocaroo and similar services seem to be a starting point for folks these days.
Honestly it isn't something you just know how to do (especially if you are prone to over-analysis of your actions), and the chance of making a lot of trouble for yourself is non-trivial.
"No doubt in your mind that..." != "It is true that..."
This is the problem with your argument. I'll admit it, I don't explicitly "ask consent" and there have been times where there was "no doubt in my mind", and yet, I was rejected. :(
But if I was rejected, then I've clearly committed sexual assault in the most strict sense.
It's called "misreading a situation". You may think something is enthusiastic consent, but it isn't. Hence, why I will continue to ignore your advice and "live dangerously" by attempting to interpret the situation and predict the other partner's desires by other subjective and unreliable means such as body language and the nebulous concept of "where we are in our relationship".
Just as long as you understand that in this context, "live dangerously" means that you might rape people without meaning to, just because you couldn't think of a sexy way to say, "So do you wanna fuck?"
1) The legal definition of rape (at least in most states?) makes it such that one cannot "accidentally" do it.
Keywords: "[by means of] force", "duress", "physical resistance", "objected verbally".
A woman who was:
* Not forced
* Had no duress
* Not physically resisting
* Not verbally objecting
* Mentally capable of making decisions
...is considered to be consenting. In other words, and perhaps contrary to the way you believe it should be, THE LAW REQUIRES YOU TO EXPRESS YOUR DISCOMFORT OR ELSE THERE IS NO PLAUSIBLE WAY THE OTHER PERSON COULD KNOW. Sorry. :(
If a person has sex but later decides they weren't really that into their partner, wished that they didn't, wished that they had stopped it earlier -- it's not rape. Regret and the discomfort / dissonance that comes from it is a far cry from traumatic, forced rape.
2) You know long before you were "accidentally raping" someone whether or not they were consenting.
Excerpts from a random hit on the subject of enthusiastic consent, in re: Stubenville:
In the aftermath of the guilty verdict, several people observed that many of the teens at the party didn’t realize that this was rape. To them, the fact that the victim was unconscious didn’t mean anything. “I didn’t know this was rape,” said one witness. “It wasn’t violent.”
...
In many ways, the focus on “no” puts the burden – yet again – on women to rein in the libidos of men who presumably can’t control themselves… and in many ways can put them at a disadvantage. Women are often socialized to be non-direct for fear of causing offense; many women are frequently uncomfortable with being up front with saying “No, I don’t want this.”http://www.doctornerdlove.com/2013/03/enthusiastic-consent/
This is much more complex than you make it out to be, and that's precisely what obliges us to set guidelines that encourage folks not to rape rather than assuming not-rape as the default.
Seems pretty straightforward to me. There are legal requirements for an action to be considered rape.
--
In the first case, it really is quite trivial. Unconscious is not making a choice. Hence, "mentally competent". I suppose you could accidentally rape someone if you didn't know what rape meant, but if someone only told you "rape is sex without consent" and you fucked an unconscious person, surely if they took 2 seconds to think about it, they'd realize there is (and can be) no consent. I'm sure the people didn't really think it was perfectly fine to have sex with them.
--
In the second case, it may be true that women have a more difficult time saying "no", but that doesn't absolve them of responsibility. Perhaps it is a failing that more women have sex when they don't really want to (but never express it), but legally, it would not be rape, so I don't see why this is being brought up. I agree that this scenario is unfortunate and but it doesn't warrant locking up a person. Yes, we should all strive to be sensitive to the needs of our partners, but realistically, some girls even feign consent when they really mean "I don't care much for it" or "if you'll cheer up afterwards" or "if you'll like me more" -- i.e. disinterest or questionable motives.
In summary, let's keep rape as a reserved term for obvious and gratuitous violations. This "accidentally raped" is kind of stupid.
Also, having thought about it slightly more, I think you're confusing "unwanted sex" with "non-consensual sex". Neither is a good thing, but there is a strong different, especially in terms of legality and trauma.
Men and women have unwanted sex all the time. They do it because they don't want to let their partner down, because they think it is their "job", because they want to get something, because they are bored, because they want to feel wanted, because they just want to feel loved, because they haven't in a long time, etc. -- not always the best reasons. Typically, those feelings can be resolved in other ways.
We, as lovers, should strive to reduce the number of unwanted sex events as possible, and to do so requires an open bidirectional communication channel. However, while it may be sad that women are more prone to agreeing to unwanted sex, this is not the same thing as //raping// someone. I think it's really important to make the difference, because for one we say that the relationship is a bit off, in the other, we lock a person up and mark them for life.
It's highly inappropriate for you to refer to "kissing someone", even if it's unwelcome, as "rape". Sexual assault, that's ok, even though I don't agree with it. But calling it rape is very disrespectful, maybe even insulting, to the victims of actual, violent penis-in-vagina rape.
Men more than women? I'm not disagreeing or agreeing, but [citation needed]. I've never heard of that being true, so I'd like more information. I mean, the fact that we typical think of rape as man-on-woman kind of speaks to our perceived frequency, yes?
Ah prison rape. Yes, I hadn't considered that, but that would make sense. I'm not sure that prison statistics are really relevant to the original topic though, as far as defining what typical interactions are like, but does seem like interesting trivia.
> So, instead we find ourselves in this curious place where young men who mean well want to get with young women who also mean well. Unfortunately, the women are brought up expecting that the men will do the work, initiate everything, and the men are increasingly told that hey need to--to be safe and respectful, mind you!--wait for explicit confirmation of every step.
This is so laden with sexism it cannot be taken seriously. No, most women are not brought up expecting men to do all courtship and it silly to assume so. Further, in the context of how men treat women the dominant social narrative is sexual violence perpetrated by men your problem as a victim, so the reality is that the kickstarter project in question advocates taking advantage of this narrative to get sex without clear consent, which is outright rape.
Most humans can tell if the person they are with is into what they are doing or not. If you can't, then you have problems, maybe asperger or something, idk, not a doctor. I'm not endorsing this guy in any way. The entire thing seems sort of pathetic to me, to be honest. But honestly, it's probably hard to write about things that most people intuit.
To my understanding the two sides of this issue are whether or not Kickstarter has the right to choose what is on their site. I say they do. I do not understand the position that they must allow any project even if they don't want to (as long as they comply with the law)
The issue of whether this book is misogynist or not doesn't really matter. You can still buy it if you want or any other legal material you want to buy. Just not on Kickstarter. There are many stores that don't sell things I want to buy.
But what happens when the feminists run kickstarter, and facebook, and google, and tumblr, and twitter, and hacker news? There are many sites who would simply ban one side of the conversation. Sure, you may have the legal right to speak then, but not the ability.
Meanwhile, I don't think it is wrong to sell books to men to help them learn what women want to succeed in the confusing world of dating. If you can write a better book, one filled with sexy ways to ask permission for each escalation, then thousands of men will buy it.
The real problem is that the science of attraction doesn't match well with feminism. And men want to know the truth. A woman is twice as likely to give you her number if you touch her on the arm at your first meeting[1]. Are we supposed to surpress this hatefact? Or fire the psychologist who did the study?
It's because someone didn't provide a tl;dr; and you know how we pretty much have our pitchforks ready having read one persons view on something and not finding out the facts for ourselves...
Context was obvious if you read the few lines around the quoted "trouble" text
Oh, my reading comprehension is perfectly okay (even for an old guy). The issue that I have is that when the author claimed to have been taken out of context ("devoid of context" was the term he used), he himself removed the context surrounding his posts.
> You do not need to resort to pulling out your dick and forcibly placing the woman's hand on it in order to "make a move." There's literally hundreds of other things that aren't sexual assault that you could do before resorting to that.
Is it sexual assault if I do that to my girlfriend of 5 years?
In many contexts it would be sexual assault, but in many it wouldn't be. I think you're just assuming it's sexual assault because you don't like the idea of a book that teaches people how to "pick up women"
FYI, the context behind that sentence is:
> offering advice on what to do AFTER a man has met a cute girl, gotten her phone number, gone on dates, spent time getting to know her, and now are alone behind closed doors fooling around
And the book says "If she says no, stop immediately".
My point was that I would hope I don't have to ask permission after 5 years without it being sexual assault, therefore whether that action is sexual assault is context dependent.
Long term relationships are different from early dating, you have your own communication and boundaries with your long term partner that are really different than when you are first starting out. However, domestic rape is real and yes you can totally sexually assault your partner and you do not have automatic consent just because you've been in a relationship.
That said, this book advocates doing physically violating things to all women you would date in a short term time period, which is the kind of thing a serial rapist does.
How is that relevant? You are essentially using a shame argument.
The answer is yes, everybody needs to become much better seductors. Why? Take a look at the divorce statistics and then imagine what they would look like if people were receptive to their parters needs (and actually cared about them). My guess is low, single digits and almost no messy divorces.
Becoming a better seductor is only a small subset of being receptive to your partner's needs and actually caring about them. There's a lot more to a successful relationship than sex and seduction, and the idea of no divorces if everyone started having better sex is laughable.
If someone has intimacy issues after 5 years, he/she may want to consider seeing a relationship therapist instead of buying a self-published book from some guy on the internet that tells you how to pick up women in a bar.
Regardless of that, the book is not about managing long-term relationships. Ostensibly, it's about how to get relationships started in the first place. Therefore, whether a given interaction may or may not be appropriate with a girlfriend of 5 years is irrelevant to the conversation. That was my point.
It's a good job the "pulling out your dick and forcibly placing the woman's hand on it" advice comes in the section of things you do after you're hundreds of moves down the line and you're alone in an intimate setting with a girl, after a number of dates then.
The counter-article writer doesn't make clear that he's picked quotes from all over the guide, they aren't all "the first thing you should do" quotes
”5) Get CLOSE to her, damn it! To quote Rob Judge, “Personal space is for pussies.” I already told you that the most successful seducers are those who can’t keep their hands off of women. Well you’re not gonna be able to do that if you aren’t in close! ” “All the greatest seducers in history could not keep their hands off of women. They aggressively escalated physically with every woman they were flirting with. They began touching them immediately, kept great body language and eye contact, and were shameless in their physicality. Even when a girl rejects your advances, she KNOWS that you desire her. That’s hot. It arouses her physically and psychologically.”
“Decide that you’re going to sit in a position where you can rub her leg and back. Physically pick her up and sit her on your lap. Don’t ask for permission. Be dominant. Force her to rebuff your advances.”
I really can't believe I'm getting into this argument when a much more interesting discussion is whether platforms have a responsibility to be open to all comers, but alas.
You boys need a lesson in basic empathy.
Imagine you're in a bar, and a super built gay guy reeking of booze comes up to you and sits uncomfortably close to you. His face is inches away from yours but as you try to pull away he scoots himself forward. His hand brushes lightly on yours. After a couple minutes of ignoring your obvious lack of interest he places his hand on your inner thigh, which you brush away and tell him he's being a creep, and walk away to a different area. But he KNOWS that even as you reject his advances you're really getting turned on, that you're aroused physically and psychologically. So he follows you, sits next to you, and picks you up and puts you on his lap.
Now, don't skip that scenario: I want you to stop and think about it in detail. How would it make you feel? Do you feel turned on? Do you feel violated?
Incidentally, not everyone here who disagrees with you is a cismale.
Please save the patronizing condescension for your tumblr blog.
When people hit on me, and/or won't leave me alone, I'm perfectly capable of telling them to piss off if I'm not interested. This goes for a gay guy, straight guy, straight girl, gay girl--whatever.
>Now, don't skip that scenario: I want you to stop and think about it in detail. How would it make you feel? Do you feel turned on? Do you feel violated?
I take control of the situation by removing myself from the situation or making a scene. And I get over it.
Look, I'm queer and I'm actually pretty sympathetic to the anti-seddit et al crowd.
But the notion that I'm supposed to care about every person's feelings around me is nonsensical. It's exactly the kind of sentiment that you're violating by lecturing your audience. You're _deliberately_ provoking an uncomfortable reaction and prioritizing your own emotions above those of others.
And I'm going to tell you to shove off, and get over it.
This isn't about rape, the violent action and definable crime. It's about communication in a social space. And you can't communicate if you can't aggress, as you have _just demonstrated_.
There is obviously a world of difference between verbal aggressing and physical aggressing. Verbally, different situations call for different things: when people need to know that what they're arguing for is unacceptable in a very bad way, you speak to them with contempt. The hardcore PUA crowd will shake it off, but people at its periphery better understand that it's a bad thing. But physically, aggressing against someone's physical boundaries is wrong, and it's always wrong.
Nearly that exact scenario has happened to me. Multiple times: in bars, people hounding me playing a non-consensual game of grabass. In a crowded bus, a guy continually rubbed his hand against my hand despite my trying to move away and escape him.
That's bad, and you're a bad person if you think it's acceptable. Comparing "being mean to people online" to sexual assault is ridiculous and offensive.
>There is obviously a world of difference between verbal aggressing and physical aggressing.
That's cute, honey. Why don't you leave the real talk to us men?
I hope you see my point, but to make it more clear: boundaries are boundaries, and disrespect is disrespect.
You are making an argument about magnitude, and I am making an argument about conflict.
Now I'm going to break a rule about respecting victims, and I hope you respect that it's for the purposes of argument:
>In a crowded bus, a guy continually rubbed his hand against my hand despite my trying to move away and escape him.
So shout at him. Lay into him like you're laying into me ("you're a bad person if you think it's acceptable"--as if I even said such a thing!) and make it devastatingly clear that you won't stand for it.
You don't owe anything to the status quo, the peace of mind of other people on the bus, the rules of decorum, _anything._
It's not a solution because it's unrealistic due to inherited gender roles blah blah (and don't lay into me about _that_, Ms. "you boys"), but I really wish more women were just _loud_ about things like this.
Borderline victim blaming. It is the aggressor's fault that they rubbed up against your hand. That you didn't stand up to them by being loud or whatever doesn't come into it. If you did and scared them off, so much the better – but it shouldn't have happened in the first place and that's what we should focus on, not giving excuses ("they should have said no!") to the perpetrators.
Just because you like loud women doesn't mean they should be so. Quiet women exist and are totally cool. They shouldn't be assaulted either.
It doesn't matter how many dates you've been on, if you do this and the person didn't want that you are committing an assault. You don't get a license to do something just because you invested some amount of time or energy into dating, saying otherwise is a direct promotion of rape (remember, the majority of rapes are committed by someone known to the survivor).
> At some point the meaning of "sexual assault" will be so diluted it's meaningless.
Sexual assault is crystal clear, you can do whatever you want with your partner(s) with consent, nobody cares at that point. The minute you take past activity as a license to do what you want without someone's permission is the minute you cross the line into assault.
Reminds me of this comedian. In one of his clips he talks about how he hates people recording his gigs on mobile phones etc, etc because then they are free to selectively show parts of a skit: http://youtu.be/Z3fZutYufGE?t=26m15s
Correct; this is yet another reaction started by radical feminists and followed by naive no-time-to-read-if-true followers; (e.g. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M2KPeMcYsuc)
The concept of consent does not vanish when you're in a relationship, and if you need a guide – especially one that advocates being dominant – then heaven help you.
If you read the writings of the Guide's author and do not recognize that it is misogynistic and advocating sexual assault, you have a problem. That problem is that you are mistaking sexual assault for "taking the first step."
Seduction is not inherently misogynistic, even if some seducers are misogynists. And whether an action is "sexual assault" or not is heavily context dependent.
Let me ask you this... every time you go to kiss your spouse, do you ask "May I kiss you" first? If not, then by the standard you are setting, you are assaulting them every time you initiate a kiss.
> You do not need to resort to pulling out your dick and forcibly placing the woman's hand on it in order to "make a move." There's literally hundreds of other things that aren't sexual assault that you could do before resorting to that.
Context: this is part of the penultimate chapter, which is about what to do when you’ve gone on several dates with a woman and now you’re alone with her. Many women expect men to take the first step, the chapter explains how to interpret the signs and act on them. One of the first sentences of the chapter is:
“IMPORTANT NOTE ON RESISTANCE: If at any point a girl wants you to stop, she will let you know. If she says "STOP," or "GET AWAY FROM ME," or shoves you away, you know she is not interested. It happens. Stop escalating immediately”
The part about taking out your dick is after the sections about kissing, fondling and fingering. NOT taking out your dick at this point would be more curious.
Now, I don‘t particularly like the tone of this guide and I don’t think it‘s very insightful or well-written, but it’s definitely not anything new or out of line. In the genre, I personally prefer the writings of David DeAngelo.
While I agree with the gist of the post, I disagree with this part:-
"If women are loudly saying "This is assault.", you need to take them at their word, because it is their judgment, it is their consent that matters. Not yours."
We live in a world where not everyone is resonable. Anyone suggesting you forcibly put someones hand on your penis as a courting move is not resonable. However there are also many woman who are also not resonable and you shouldn't simply back them up just because they're woman.
I also haven't read the book, so have no real opinion on it's content.
I would personally very much not like that move. If we are fondling, it will get to the point where I'm touching the guy's dick without any sort of prodding on his part, unless he does something to turn me off like forcibly place my hand on his dick.
> You do not need to resort to pulling out your dick and forcibly placing the woman's hand on it in order to "make a move."
That quote was never given as 'taking the first step'. It was given as "how to begin when you're finally alone in the bedroom with mutual consent for sex". That is obvious even after only reading the one part of his 'guide' that includes this quote.
To call everyone participating in civil discourse in this thread as merely "the excusers" is an admission of dogmatism, regardless of your statement of "having already read of all the comments in this thread". The discussion does not end because you say it ends with your comment as the last word on the matter.
dogmatism - "the tendency to lay down principles as incontrovertibly true, without consideration of evidence or opinion of others"
"I thought this was obvious but I have already read all the comments in this thread and all the "context" the excusers are providing. If you think pointing me to that again is refuting my points, then you didn't understand what I wrote."
There's a difference between understanding and agreeing. Just because somebody doesn't agree with your flawed, poorly thought out emotion based opinion doesn't mean they don't understand where it comes from. You're doing what so many people accuse conservative christians of doing - you're trying to silence a dissenting opinion because it makes you feel bad. That makes you an authoritarian of the worst sort; the kind that would gladly burn any book you find offensive.
Just to be clear, because this is something misogynists like to pick on, both matter. The point of this is that you can't assume their consent just because you do.
Of course, men who don't have experience with not having the power to consent struggle with this idea.
That's true, but if she lacks consent, she should also voice it/make it clear at some point (disregarding obviously illegal power-imbalanced situations such as student/teacher, boss/worker, ...). Someone shouldn't be charged with rape just because their partner, after passionately and vigorously fucking the whole night, says she actually didn't want to the whole time.
There is no obvious fact of the matter about "exactly what consent is, and what women (as a whole, obviously it varies from individual to individual) see as acceptable, expected behavior". Your own words contradict themselves; should we research what women "as a whole" think or judge or should we research individual women? Should we consult you personally if there is any disagreement or conflict among the results of these two lines of research?
I don't believe you have actually understood the arguments put forth against your position, even if you have read the comments, but please even if you disagree with us, don't go around and mindlessly brand us as evil (or "you have a problem"). It only needlessly devides and cheapens the discussion.
I hate to be contrarian, because by the standards in most cultural spaces in the US I wholeheartedly agree with that statement, but I've traveled enough to know that there are exceptions to the exceptions people are taking with this material when you take culture differences into account. The majority of women in the majority of cultural spaces we on HN frequent of are saying it is assault. In those spaces and for those women it is. However this is not a universal truth.
I've lived abroad several times in different places and the behavior of women in certain culture actively promotes/encourages the behavior being promoted by this book. For example, I've lived in Rio de Janeiro (and several places in the US) and there in particular you are expected, by the women, to behave in the manner promoted by this book otherwise you simply won't meet women when going out to many night venues. Seriously, the nice guy approach will net you not one number in a nightclub/dance club in Rio, you actually have to "manhandle" women to enter into a conversation. I'm a decent looking guy and normally don't have too much difficulty meeting women, but when I was in Rio, my US-acceptable "passivity" relative to the culture norm in Rio, got me absolutely no where there. It was only when I forced myself to be physically assertive that women started responding well and flirting back and I started getting dates.
With this in mind, I honestly would not be surprised if the backlash we are seeing here is indicative of a cultural echo chamber that finds this behavior reprehensible that is also ignorant of of the existance of cultural spaces in the US where this behavior is not only acceptable but welcomed by women, and that this guide is geared towards men who frequent those cultural spaces. Examples of cultural spaces in the US where this behavior is expected by women are probably the same spaces that the cast of Jersey Shore and their real life analogues frequent. Watch this video of interviews with people on a certain beach on the Jersey shore and try to tell me that these assertive "mating practices" are not only acceptable but welcome: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5weU2olAl-E . What is unfortunate is that behavior that is acceptable in those spaces bleeds intquo the common cultural spaces where this is not acceptable behavior.
Anyways, I'm neither defending nor supporting this kickstarter, but merely saying that a lot of the people on their high horse need to realize the relativism of culture and that some things that may be wildly offensive to many women may actually be encouraged by certain subsets of women in certain cultural spaces. With this in mind, public outcry and censorship of material you may find objectional can sometimes suppress culture and you need to be aware of when you may be doing so.
I think Neil Gaiman's thoughts "Why defend freedom of icky speech" is particularly relevant here.
I personally would prefer that this speech be protected even if I don't agree with it, but that Kickstarter require that the author write a chapter on the importance of being discriminatory in practicing this behavior in cultural spaces where it is not acceptable and helping them identify women that don't welcome these advances in those cultural spaces where they may be acceptable.
The cultural acceptability and effectiveness of the asking for consent is incidental to the issue at stake.
I honestly find it shocking that so many people on HN are having such difficulty accepting the principal of expressly verbalized consent. Surely we can move on from the notion that men need to "be dominant" and "force her to rebuff your advances".
While a particular culture may call for certain shifts in attitude, that does not mean verbalized consent is not important.
>I think Neil Gaiman's thoughts "Why defend freedom of icky speech" is particularly relevant here.
I think a key distinction between the subject of Gaiman's thoughts and the material at hand is that "Above the Game" purports to offer advice applicable to real word scenarios. This advice, however, will, unquestionably, lead to sexual assault if followed (not in every case, but in some).
I would certainly find it dubious for the United States Government to condemn the book, but I feel that Kickstarter's stance is defensible from the position of not wanting to be associated with such dangerous and callous material.
"While a particular culture may call for certain shifts in
attitude, that does not mean verbalized consent is not
important."
Nor does it mean that verbalized consent is important or necessary. Not all human communication is verbal.
"but I feel that Kickstarter's stance is defensible from
the position of not wanting to be associated with such
dangerous and callous material."
Do you find the financial embargo of Wikileaks by Visa, Mastercard, Paypal and Amex to be acceptable?
With centralized electronic payments and centralized crowdfunding platforms we've lost the neutrality of money and that is a threat to a free and open society.
Good god this. Until these guys can explain why we must suddenly ignore a million years of hardwired non-verbal communication, their argument is completely moot.
when I was in Rio, my US-acceptable "passivity" relative to the culture norm in Rio, got me absolutely no where there. It was only when I forced myself to be physically assertive that women started responding well and flirting back and I started getting dates
This ability to read feedback and adapt to a cultural context is exactly what the guide should teach. I know you say you're not defending the Kickstarter, but you're criticizing criticism of it, so the exact content of what we're talking about is very relevant. If you take a look at what the guide says, you'll know this has nothing to do with an "echo chamber" and has everything to do with sexual assault.
Consider the audience of seduction guides. They wouldn't be reading explicit guidance on how to verbally and physically interact with women if they had any understanding of the boundaries and expectations in their own culture. They should be learning how to read feedback from women and how to map out the boundaries in their culture and in each individual interaction with a woman. Instead, the guide advocates specific ways of physically handling women to people who are not remotely capable of figuring out whether those actions are appropriate in context or whether they constitute sexual assault.
Even worse, the guide teaches them that their "nice" impulses, their desire to respect women and their fear of making them angry by being openly sexual, are sabotaging them and making them less attractive to women. This is often true, but it's horribly irresponsible to teach people to interact in physically assertive ways while also teaching them to distrust their inhibitions against sexual aggression. If your inhibitions against sexual aggression prevent you from touching a woman while you talk to her, then your inhibitions need to be recalibrated. However, you absolutely cannot physically interact with women unless you have some trustworthy sense of how to avoid unacceptable behavior.
In other words, what the readers are in desperate need of is a way to figure out when they're making small or large mistakes, and when they're actually doing well. This would liberate them to start learning by trial and error. Instead, the guide actually says that men are notoriously bad at reading women, and you should never let any "signs" hold you back from the proper course of "ALWAYS BE ESCALATING!" What level of "resistance" is explicit enough to pay attention to? (Seriously, this is from a section titled "IMPORTANT NOTE ON RESISTANCE.") "If she says 'STOP,' or 'GET AWAY FROM ME,' or shoves you away, you know she is not interested." It then gives you a line to memorize -- seriously, a line to memorize for this situation -- and says, "If a woman isn't comfortable, take a break and try again later. All that matters is that you continue to try to escalate physically until she makes it genuinely clear that it's not happening."
Because "STOP" and "GET AWAY FROM ME" don't mean it's genuinely not happening -- they just mean you should try again later. Is this really good advice to give people who in all likelihood are already not that great at figuring out when they're assaulting somebody?
The kicker: "From now on you must ASSUME that she is attracted to you and wants to be ravished." Ravish means rape. It only sounds nicer because it is associated with an indistinct, rose-tinted past when rape could be considered classy under the right circumstances. (It is also used as a metaphor for overwhelming emotion, but the key to that image is the experience of being carried away against one's will, and once again the usage comes from a time when the concept of rape wasn't so intrinsically offensive as it is now.)
"GET AWAY FROM ME" means try again later, and you have to assume every woman wants to be "ravished" by you. This is not ambiguous material; this is material that teaches a model of interaction in which sexual assault is a commonplace side effect.
The same women that scream "assault", are very likely to have taking the of a stranger, consensually, in their hand, at least once in their lives.
What you naively don't know, is that in this field, the culture is very far from reality. Some ahem "people" would scream horror to things that they would secretly do.
"Take your exposed penis, and thrust it into her vagina. Don't wait for her to put it in for you. Be dominant."
That could be instructions for rape. Or it could be instructions for the kind of a sex that millions of straight couples have every day. It all depends on the quote's context, right?
Right?
So stop taking quotes out of context from the author.
> If women are loudly saying "This is assault.", you need to take them at their word, because it is their judgment, it is their consent that matters. Not yours.
Your language is intentionally misleading. What matters is the woman with whom you're interacting. Feminist internet commenters can neither give consent nor take it away. And the author is severely explicit about respecting consent. His quotes are being butchered.
There are long-term relationships where sex is one of the later steps, after there's already some form of long-term commitment. There are a lot of things that can happen well before the "seduction" step -- talking, mutual interests, shared experiences, and so on.
"That could be instructions for rape. Or it could be
instructions for the kind of a sex that millions of
straight couples have every day. It all depends on the
quote's context, right?
Exactly. I highly recommend anyone that disagrees or doesn't believe this statement to watch the interviews commonly found at the end of any BDSM kink.com videos. Those interviews at the end are enlightening for anyone with a narrow vanilla view of how sex should be. Different sexual practices and preferences are really no different than the spectrum of music preferences out there and equally valid.
Folks into BDSM are (or should be) overwhelmingly clear about consent, pre-negotiating their play and having things like safe words. That is worlds apart from what the project is advocating, which is to take actions without pre-negotiated consent and to ignore objections made by your partner. Anybody in the scene will tell you that engaging in that kind of shit without clearing it ahead of time (esp. way ahead of time in a non-sexual situation) is someone who is committing real actual rape.
I completely agree. The point I was trying to make is that there are wildly different variations of what is and is not consensual behavior. For folks who actively participate in the BDSM community the social norms are very much in favor of clear, adult, responsible communication. However, there exist lots of men and women who have inclinations towards BDSM and are turned on by BDSM practices who have never been introduced to the community and have not learned these "best practices" in terms of communication. This means that there are many men and women who enjoy and like aggressive sexual advances who have never been taught how to communicate their interests as an adult, and that entire population of people who are inexperienced create a grey area. BDSM and other non-vanilla interests going mainstream would go a long way to raising the general level of discourse and communication about sex in general.
Just to be clear, please don't take my comment as excusing the problems people have raised here, but as simply an impartial anthropological description of the reality of the world.
The bullshit excuse I keep seeing about "taking quotes out of context" is making me mad. The author himself, removed those specific passages from his Reddit thread when the shit storm started brewing.
If he worded what he wanted to say correctly and with the proper context, why remove them?
>If he worded what he wanted to say correctly and with the proper context, why remove them?
Why refuse to speak to the police without an attorney present if you have nothing to hide? Your question is no more fair than that one. If I were stirring up a "shit storm" by offending people about a hot-button topic I would certainly start deleting everything I could. Seriously, the guy got a measly $16,000 for this and people were threatening to ruin his life over it.
Regardless of whether what I did was wrong or not I would've deleted it all, refunded the $16,000 and disappeared for a while.
Actually he had. Those passages were not there and clicking on your link led to those passages having been removed at one point at the height of the shit storm.
@creativeembassy - Jesus, are you being deliberately obtuse? The passages WEREN'T there at the height of the controversy (i.e.: they'd been removed). They ARE there now.
Jesus, seems like an over reaction. Books and guides like this are nothing new, and should be taken in context/used appropriately. A nerd in a club is going to take this brash advice like:
"All the greatest seducers in history could not keep their hands off of women. They aggressively escalated physically with every woman they were flirting with. They began touching them immediately, kept great body language and eye contact, and were shameless in their physicality."
And not go up and rape a woman, but perhaps take a chance and put their hand on the girls shoulder during conversation to show interest, where they might have otherwise oddly looked away from them. Also, there's a huge difference between personal conduct in a night club and in a library.
Anyhow, I'm a nerd with a SO that has never drank and hates night clubs but that's my take. Seems like any other topic and people would be crying free speech and censorship. A guide like this isn't going to turn a normal man into a rapist.
This. Seems like a few lines taken out of context, and you can make anything seem bad if you take it out of context.
Sex - Pull out your cock and put her hand on it. Remember, she is letting you do this because you have established yourself as a LEADER. Don't ask for permission, GRAB HER HAND, and put it right on your dick.
- http://www.reddit.com/r/seduction/comments/1dvnem/above_the_...
Sounds bad out of context sure, but in context he is talking about when you are about to have sex with the woman, in a private location (or whatever). You are in the act of it, not forcing yourself on a woman you just met in a bar.
Personally, I can see nothing wrong with this. Sure, the wording could possibly be better or less crass maybe, but if the book was to go to publish then there would be the time to go through that phase. All books go through edits.
Usual overreaction to everything that may seem slightly anti-feminist.
As josh2600 says above, there are similar books to this already, maybe we should start rallying Amazon et al too?
The blog post linked from the kickstarter blog post includes lots of examples of what most people would consider to be "rapey"
“Decide that you’re going to sit in a position where you can rub
her leg and back. Physically pick her up and sit her on your lap.
Don’t ask for permission. Be dominant. Force her to rebuff your
advances.”
According to the author, that was taken from a section on what to do once already in a private setting:
"The thing that the commenters on social media are leaving out is that the advice was taken from a section in the guide offering advice on what to do AFTER a man has met a cute girl, gotten her phone number, gone on dates, spent time getting to know her, and now are alone behind closed doors fooling around."
Out of context, yes, that's awfully rude. But, given the predicating situation, it is not nearly as much so.
You are aware rape usually occurs in private settings. Just because some one has decided to go to a private place with you does not mean they've given consent. And this kind of behavioural priming will gear men to steam roll over someone who isn't giving consent, hence sexual assault.
He doesn't say "Now, get her somewhere no one can hear her. Be sure to have your duct tape handy and then force your hand down her pants..."
It's a piece of advice on how to start being physical with a girl you're dating. So many guys will have a girl that's interested over to drink and watch a movie and just sit there a couch cushion away. Put yourself in your 16-20 year old shoes.
I'm assuming you don't really think that all rape involves having duct tape handy or making sure you're where nobody can hear her. A comment like this presumes that rape must be violent to be rape; that's simply not true.
That doesn't really sound rapey to me, but I can see how people see things like don't ask for permission and be dominant and force her as rapey. Really though, it is the difference between going for the kiss and stopping when she turns her head (rebuff your advances) and asking "may I kiss you". Any good salesman (and that is what you are doing in a club, selling yourself) knows that one of them gives a much better result, but neither is rape (kissing her even when she says no would likely be assult, but not rape as no genitalia is involved).
Quotes about intimate behaviour taken out of context will always seem rapey. Sure, doing this to someone you never met before is creepy at least. Picking a girl you spent a lot of time with and putting her on your lap when she's already shown she's comfortable with physical contact is rapey how?
The expression there is escalation. And the author is as clear as he can be that if she says no at any point, you back off.
I think "rapey" would be more appropriate here if that escalated to holding her down, forcing her clothes off and violating her. Instead, a lot of women enjoy that kind of interaction when you're already fooling around(which is what section of the guide its from) - and if they don't, they can quite easily refuse such an advance in a number of ways.
“Pull out your cock and put her hand on it. Remember, she is letting you do this because you have established yourself as a LEADER. Don’t ask for permission, GRAB HER HAND, and put it right on your dick.“
I would guess that people buying a seduction guide don't really understand 'women' - in that they believe that women are somehow different, unapproachable and alien to them. The misogyny stems from the book not teaching these people that women are equal and worthy of respect, but instead teaching them to ignore consent and be an 'alpha bro' stereotype.
To me, that sounds like 'generalisations about women aren't disrespectful to women' - maybe it's a cultural thing or just the social circles I hang around with but I find it sexist.
I don't see it as ignoring consent. If you're on a date with a girl and you hold her hand without asking her, that's not sexual assault or being an alpha bro. If you're having a lively conversation and touch her arm, that's not sexual assault or creepiness, it's being a human and engaging the person you're interacting with.
We all know douche bags that make girls uncomfortable and push the line. We all hate them. They've probably (almost definitely) never read this book. A book/guide like this isn't a bro factory, and won't do anything to an existing bro that a night out with another bro wouldn't do.
Should timid guys trying to seek a companion try to emulate some portion of it? Probably. Friend-zoning is big with timid guys because they never broach the physical bubble. If a nervous guy aims to emulate 100% of this advice they'll probably successfully emulate 20% of it.
I guess my problem with it is if you're writing a book to educate nervous, timid, perhaps less experienced guys about interactions with people you're attracted to, it'd be nice to educate them in a way that teaches respect and kindness, not objectification
> And not go up and rape a woman, but perhaps take a chance and put their hand on the girls shoulder during conversation to show interest, where they might have otherwise oddly looked away from them. Also, there's a huge difference between personal conduct in a night club and in a library.
Touching someone you don't know is a no-no and many people find that form of contact (even in a night club) to be disturbing. Touching someone without their permission is just something you shouldn't be doing.
Respecting people's physical boundaries does NOT mean verbally requesting permission to enter their personal airspace! Why must you guys pretend non verbal communication doesn't exist?
Oh please, we're now comparing touching someone's shoulder in a night club with sexual assault? If you don't want any contact at all with other human beings you probably shouldn't be in a night club.
There is a difference between accidental contact from being in public and having someone intentionally do the kind of shit the kickstarter project was advocating. Also, being at a night club is not an automatic invitation to touch someone, saying so is implying that women deserve the unwanted contact put upon them.
See, this is exactly the sort of ridiculous, reactionary nonsense at the heart of these crusades. No, touching someone's shoulder is not rape. You may define yourself as the moral minority, selflessly protecting everyone from imaginary evils, but your opinion is a tiny, minuscule, insignificant minority. Virtually everyone disagrees with you.
I didn't say touching someone's shoulder was rape, but you don't have the right to touch someone if they don't want you to or have affirmed that you may.
I won't touch the issue of whether the action was right or wrong here on Hacker News, but I think everyone has to admit that this is a brilliant example of an apology done well.
They do not equivocate (the "sorry you were offended" apology) and they take direct action to fix what their users felt was wrong (new policy made) as well as somewhat atone for the original offense (donation to RAINN). It's also written simply but very skillfully: zero weasel words or anything.
I happen to agree with the action taken, but bravo in any case for the brilliant apology!
I don't see it as brilliant, I see it as a giant foot-in-mouth situation (which may be colored by the fact that I don't have a problem with seduction guides in general, and haven't seen the material in question) - until now Kickstarter has been neutral on legal content so if I see something I don't like, well too bad, but now there is a precedent for removing something because somebody finds it offensive, but others like it; so now they either have to issue an apology and retract the next offensive thing (say a t-shirt commemorating the ban on assault weapons) or lose their stance as neutral.
If they had instead issued a non-apology-apology they would have been of the hock.
Agreed. The more dangerous precedent is that they are willing to cave to a vocal group who may or may not be right. Without defending the material, because I frankly can't, I am troubled to see Kickstarter imposing its own value judgements on projects, and even worse than that, now subject themselves to the value judgements of whichever populace can prove to be the most vocal.
> The thing that the commenters on social media are leaving out is that the advice was taken from a section in the guide offering advice on what to do AFTER a man has met a cute girl, gotten her phone number, gone on dates, spent time getting to know her, and now are alone behind closed doors fooling around. If "Don't wait for signs, make the first move" promotes sexual assault, then "Kiss the Girl" from The Little Mermaid was a song about rape.
Private company. They are free to cave in to demands from a vocal minority if they so choose. They are free to ban anything remotely non-religious or atheistic, if they so choose.
If you feel so strongl about it, start your own company that will publish and market products in line with your values, get together with like-minded people to start an advocacy group and most importantly, vote with your dollars and encourage others to do the same.
It is easy to cry Free Speech, but hard to take actions to defend and strengthen it.
I'm a pretty staunch civil rights advocate, so I acknowledge that it is hard, but that shouldn't stop me ignoring that Kickstarter's value judgement here has, at least in my opinion, erred on the side of draconian.
As someone who occasionally consults for other political groups and startups, I don't necessarily need to start up a new project to spread my message, IndieGogo already serves the more avant garde fairly well -- but my course of action will be to stop advocating the use of Kickstarter and instead start recommending IndieGogo and its ilk.
For the record, I am not trying to assert that Kickstarter did not have the right to do what they did. Obviously it's their site, their servers, etc., etc.; I just really wish they hadn't chosen this course of action because I feel that they went the wrong way, and I will act accordingly.
But again, even more sad than that is that there are 50,000 young people (at least according to @dosomething) that were so eager to see a project censored.
Nobody is denying Kickstarters rights and I would be the first to defend them if anybody ended up suing them over this, but actions have consequences, even for companies. If they don't cave in to the next offensive project (t-shirt with "I have a gun because I have a small dick") then they will stop being percieved as neutral and will hurt their business with some groups. As a company, they are trying to make as much money as they can, so they should consider the consequences of turning away people, even if they unquestionately have the right to do so.
> Private company. They are free to cave in to demands from a vocal minority if they so choose.
And individuals are free to criticize them for their decision. If they indeed caved to the demands of a vocal subgroup of people, then it is only logical for people that didn't like this decision to voice their own opinions, perhaps inspiring another vocal subgroup: fighting fire with fire.
They already curate projects for a lot less than this, as does nearly every store. YouTube doesn't host every video, HN doesn't post every link, B&N doesn't sell every book -- it's actually hard to think of counterexamples where they don't draw a line far before legality or some other obvious choice.
Not to say there aren't places that wouldn't carry this book -- but, nearly every store controls their inventory.
And again, all perfectly within their rights to do.
Barnes and Noble not selling every book though has less to do with the content of any particular book and more to do with its overall sales figures, I imagine. Not stocking the Kama Sutra because it's offensive is a problem (which is probably best suited to Davis Kidd booksellers); not stocking the Kama Sutra because it doesn't sell is a business decision.
I have no idea how YouTube manages their videos, so I can't comment on that.
HN is community moderated, and that's a feature, not a bug.
All of the above though are different entirely from a project being approved, fully funded, then removed after the fact as a response to a vocal opposition group.
This isn't a legal issue. You can write all you want promoting rape culture. Kickstarter, as a private company, is well within their rights and Terms of Service to pull your project if they find it in bad taste. And they should most definitely be commended for deciding that rape-culture-promotion is inappropriate.
Did I say it was a legal issue? No, it is a PR issue, or rather, it can become a PR issue. It may be my right to tell my neighbor he is an idiot and that I hate him, but that doesn't mean it is very smart or likely to make me popular.
> until now Kickstarter has been neutral on legal content
No it hasn't. They've had clear policies about certain types of content. They even say in this blog that if they'd seen the Reddit material when the KickStarter had been created they would not have allowed it.
You are right about this being a good apology, but I think placing to much value on a good apology is not healthy. We are already living in a world where words, promises and good intentions matter too much. In the end, actions matter most. In fact, they are the ONLY thing that matters.
I prefer a company with a good track record that issues bad or no apologies to a company with a bad record, but great apologies for all of their mistakes.
I'm not saying anything about kickstarter.com here. I just want to make a point about, and I'm saying this with a wink, apology-porn.
You're right that actions matter. Part of what makes this a good apology are the actions that back it up. They took meaningful action to redress the harm they caused, and put a policy in place to prevent the mistake from recurring. It's awfully hard to build up a record of bad actions followed by good apologies, because good apologies are more than just words.
But I think words are important too. The folks at Kickstarter clearly regret not having cancelled the project before it was funded, and that comes through in their apology. They gave the reasons for their failure, without turning them into excuses. That kind of sincerity is rare, and it's important. I'd rather see companies defend their actions when they believe they were right, sincerely apologize when they believe they were wrong, and never issue insincere non-apologies.
I'd normally agree with your rules for an apology (eg. after a breach) but in this case I think their aggressive tone creates a Streisand effect. I for one had never heard of this guy. He certainly seems to be gaining some fans among commenters here.
I worry that their post will only increase book sales...
Reading some of the comments on that blog post, I left thinking: Am I a terrible person?
I just don't see what's wrong with this project, and I certainly don't see the link between it and "sexual violence" – where is Kickstarter making this connection? Say what you will about the seduction community, my very brief and infrequent encounters with it have been largely positive and I left thinking that they were a generally respectful, if a little bit misguided, group. There's some of their terms and techniques I don't like, such as "negging", but there's things like that in virtually every community that I don't like.
The context, which is conveniently being ignored in most of the discussion, is that at this point you are already "fooling around", at which point it might actually be a fairly reasonable thing to do.
What you are describing is still sexual violence. Forcing someone into a form of contact they didn't consent to, even if there has been some other kind of intimate contact, is still sexual violence. A lot of sexual assaults occur in this way.
According to what I've gleaned from the folks against this book, you need explicit verbal consent before proceeding with that kiss even if the girl in question has been with you for several years. If not, you may possibly be unwittingly sexually assaulting her because she was too afraid to say no. Even if she kisses you back, she may be doing so out of fear.
So the key takeaway is; you can never be sure if you're raping someone or if you had implied verbal consent so if you don't have explicit verbal consent, stay the hell away from her.
And for you shy people who don't have the courage to ask your partners for verbal consent and never get asked; it's better to be celibate than a potential rapist.
If you are violating their boundaries, then yes. I don't know if you are aware of this, but people who have been assaulted may have a problem with people violating their physical space and you doing something that you consider harmless may actually be a big deal. The point is get consent and default to doing no harm, which is basic human decency.
If a girl is already in a private, intimate setting with you after you've met her a few times – like that part of the guide relates to – then sex probably isn't too much of an unreasonable assumption.
Of course that counter-article cherry-picked quotes from all over the guide and threw them together to make it sound like these were all things you should do on first meeting someone
It really really depends on the context and how you define "force". This doesn't even come close to mild sado maso.
A kiss can be sexual assault, especially against minors. But even strangling (which I don't do and never did to a woman) can be part of consential sex. It's really sensitive subject. Let's not talk about fifty shades of gray...
"Consent" isn't discussed enough. For example prostitution is widely seen as consential, despite tons of evidence that prostitution hardly ever is a conscious, free career choice, and rape is rape no matter how much you pay to the pimp...
>For example prostitution is widely seen as consential, despite tons of evidence that prostitution hardly ever is a conscious, free career choice, and rape is rape no matter how much you pay to the pimp
But you are entering the realm of misogyny again. The, "Oh, no one would wilfully chose this profession society finds immoral, they must be a victim of happenstance." It is a difficult thing to get around now days.
No. I'm not saying "no woman wilfully chooses". What I meant was that there is tons of evidence that completely wilful choice of prostitution is the exception, not the norm.
I'm also alleging that no "client" of prostitutes can know if the woman gets beaten regularly, was forced into prostitution, is coerced not to leave or was hooked on drugs. I don't believe a drug addict can consent to paid sex.
I don't believe illegal immigrants who were smuggled into a country and "indentured" can wilfully consent to prostitution. But their patrons choose to think so, and they look the other way.
"Decide that you’re going to sit in a position where you can rub her leg and back. Physically pick her up and sit her on your lap. Don’t ask for permission. Be dominant. Force her to rebuff your advances."
> The thing that the commenters on social media are leaving out is that the advice was taken from a section in the guide offering advice on what to do AFTER a man has met a cute girl, gotten her phone number, gone on dates, spent time getting to know her, and now are alone behind closed doors fooling around. If "Don't wait for signs, make the first move" promotes sexual assault, then "Kiss the Girl" from The Little Mermaid was a song about rape.
Doesn't seem very rapey when you consider this is after several dates and they are alone together. He also says over and over again "If she says no, stop immediately".
META: I know it's wrong to talk about flagging, but I think it's also important for the community for people to try to bring up good reasons to flag posts.
I read the linked article, I skimmed many of these comments, and hell if I got anything useful at all from them. Dating standards and decisions about misogyny and important topics, but they're also highly subjective. We HN'ers could argue until the cows come home and not accomplish a damned thing. In addition, it's highly emotionally-charged.
A couple commenters tried to take the conversation towards how a company should act in the face of public outrage. Kudos to you guys. You were drowned out, though.
I love talking about controversial topics. Heck, I'll post about the existence of God, the reasons for controlling speech, the relationship between organized religion and societal progress -- I really love good conversations among smart people about important things.
But I got none of this here. Just a bunch of people making speeches to themselves. Which looked like it could go on forever without either the writers or readers gaining much insight. I flag not based on the topic, but on the quality of the comments I see around the posting. So I had to flag it. Sorry.
Provided HN is going to remove categories of posts, I've always advocated banning gender discussion from HN. It's just not the forum for it, and it's the same circle of discussion you see on r/politics.
HN is a "cultivated" free speech zone, which is another way to say it's an arbitrarily censored forum where some legitimately objectionable material is filtered away, some good material is lost through false positives, and we _still_ frequently have garbage content and constantly moan about it because the "cultivated" part is supposed to mean we only see gold.
To state plainly what I see in this topic: white men talking about feminism presumptuously. White knighting; "as a man, I..."; mansplaining.
They're all terms I hate because they totally box out men from participation, which is destructive and actually its own topic.
I don't respect this. I acknowledge that as it is their playground they can make this kind of judgement call, however I have always believed that freedom of speech also protects the freedom to hate and be a terrible person. There are countless texts, movies, and other 'creative works' which both condone and encourage violence against women, mass murder, torture, and other things I find abhorrent, but I don't get to ban any of them, and that is a good thing.
If your mission is focused on art I would encourage the kickstarter group to go back and re-read the history of banned works of art, and pay attention to which groups were pushing for those bans. I suspect you won't like the company you now keep.
Freedom of Speech goes out the window when you start dealing with private enterprise. Kickstarter doesn't have the power to "ban" anything more than you or I. They're just addressing the kind of content they don't want to be promoting, which is totally within their rights.
It's pretty hilarious when libertarians and believers in unfettered free enterprise cry foul against corporations and businesses for having content standards.
> Freedom of Speech goes out the window when you start dealing with private enterprise.
Why? And before you answer, take a quick survey of all the means you used to communicate today. How many of them were provided by 'private enterprise?' And how much of your day was spent on property owned by 'private enterprise?'
Not that we're going to resolve this debate in a thread :) but please consider the implications of this assumption. Also note I'm not advocating for a say anything you want whenever, wherever world.
There don't seem to be any direct competitors to kickstarter, so when kickstarter chooses to ban something from their site, they ban it from getting kickstarted. Just because they don't use violence doesn't mean they don't have power, or that their power doesn't come with responsibility.
There are lots of competitors to kickstarter, such as http://www.indiegogo.com/. Hell, the idea of a kickstarter isn't exactly difficult to replicate: we've seen many, many sites (App.Net and Soylent among them) 'roll their own'.
Are you saying there is a market failure for crowd-funding? (<irony>Maybe we need some government intervention?</irony> Or that because Kickstarter is an amazing service that has conquered a niche, it has the moral obligation to incorporate the Bill of Rights into their ToS?
Two things:
One. Freedom of speech is a first amendment right to protect you from censorship by the government and the government only. Anyone, anywhere running their own service is fully within their rights to boot you off.
Two. A sleazy pickup artist book isn't anywhere remotely near any previous works of banned art. I would consider something as awful the film Cannibal Holocaust to be fine art before I used that term for some idiotic kickstarted pick up artist book.
Not sure I agree with the parent poster, but I think he/she is well aware of the distinction you're drawing, and says so up front. Certainly, legal freedom-of-speech protections don't require Kickstarter to host any particular content. But Kickstarter can still espouse freedom of speech as a value they try to uphold in their practices, even if they're under no legal obligation to do so. I think as more and more of our online interactions move to hosted platforms, we have to decide as a society whether or not we want the hosts of those platforms to police our speech. Those spaces can either be free-speech spaces or safe spaces, but probably not both, and there's a legitimate discussion about societal norms to be had about where we want that balance to fall, independent of this particular rather-icky example (and let's face it: most examples that bring this discussion to light are probably going to be icky).
How far do you take this? Kickstarter is a business and needs to make money.
Should it be acceptable for people to Kickstart escort businesses, "legal high" websites, or Amway pyramid schemes? All of those things are legal but are seen by the public as being slimy and taboo. Why would Kickstarter want to associate with these people?
Right, I'm not saying the all-free-speech route is the right answer for Kickstarter; in fact, in my personal opinion, it probably isn't. I'm just saying it's a reasonable question to ask, reasonable people can disagree about the answer, and the whole discussion is orthogonal to whether or not the first amendment obligates them to do anything in particular (since it doesn't).
Freedom of speech as defined in US law and freedom of speech as liberty we value are not necessarily the same. While it's not illegal to boot someone from a private service for expressing opinions you disagree with it, it still may be wrong.
>I would consider something as awful the film Cannibal Holocaust to be fine art before I used that term for some idiotic kickstarted pick up artist book.
Calling Godwin's Law here. Nazis were proud of burning books that were not art.
I've been tweeting jeers to @DoSomething (the group that garnered the petition) and kudos to Perry Chen and Kickstarter for not having ceded to censorship.
To be fair, the book is ugly. The passages quoted are disgusting. I would never buy this book, nor endorse that anyone else buy this book. If asked, I would state that I think the book is disgusting and that you probably should not buy it.
What is even more disgusting to me is the very popular idea that its manufacture should have been censored. While we may each be able to judge for ourselves that this book does or does not (for me, it does not) have any artistic value, none of us is capable of making that decision for the others, and certainly not for everybody else.
I'm somewhat saddened to see Kickstarter's apology for this reason, and I am disgusted that the project was canned altogether. But worse than all of that, I am deeply, deeply troubled that so many young people were so eager to jump on the censorship bandwagon.
You have kind of a funny idea of censorship. Kickstarter can't stop the book from being made, and authors are certainly not owed assistance by Kickstarter or anyone else to get their work published. It's actually never been easier to get books published and there's certainly no actual censorship happening here. The only role Kickstarter plays is aggregating funds. The author is not limited from pursuing that goal through other means.
You're absolutely right. It was within Kickstarter's rights to defund the work, or to disallow the project, or to impose whatever burdens their whimsy could think up. Nor are they the government, from which the first amendment is intended to protect us.
The author, meanwhile, is of course free to publish the book in whatever other means he chooses.
That doesn't make it any more right in my book, and sets up a dangerous precedent that Kickstarter will now subject themselves to the whims of whichever populist group can be the most vocal.
It contradicts their brand identity to some extent. But they're a corporation like any other, so if their financial ends are served by subjecting themselves to populist whims, that's just life. One could try to compete with them on that angle. Indiegogo, for instance, seems to attract people who find Kickstarter restrictive (also Europeans).
They're a business. If a larger amount of their customer base doesn't want it, then they would presumably respond accordingly. Microsoft did it for the XBox One, after all.
I don't disagree with that either. But, for me, and I can't say whether I'm in the majority or the minority, nor do I care, but I will now literally never use Kickstarter for anything lest my project be deemed to avant garde by the populace at large.
I do sincerely hope, not for Kickstarter, but for us, that this doesn't discourage truly innovative art projects from being crowdfunded, as I think that sets art back, contrary to Kickstarter's stated goals.
In short, they've made it all too easy for me to believe that a book series like Harry Potter could be shut down by the religious right, or that Huck Finn would never have been Kickstartable, nor Nine Inch Nails' "Pretty Hate Machine", etc.
I think for your disaster scenario to be taken seriously there would need to be major cultural works--peers of Harry Potter, Huck Finn, and NIN--that were products of the Kickstarter process. Using examples that predate crowdfunding to discuss the negative repercussions of not having crowdfunding is a little ridiculous. The avenues that produced HP, HF and NIN still exist.
The point was clearly hypothetical. I wasn't looking for a statement with 'impact', so much as a way to illustrate that there are works of art that can also be considered controversial.
There are clearly books, movies and songs being funded by Kickstarter. I want the media I consume to challenge my beliefs, and to challenge my ways of thinking.
And again, I don't dispute that this was perfectly within KickStarter's right to act the way they did, and while yeah, I don't like it, who am I? Nobody. That doesn't mean that it doesn't bother me, and that doesn't mean that it isn't somewhat ominous, at least in my opinion.
I really don't think I am. The actions of the petitioners (or at least the threats thereof, whether or not they were made) could have been seen as boycotting, at some point, in the future, but the actions of Kickstarter terminating an already funded project and refunding the donated moneys is a notion far closer to censorship than to boycotting.
Kickstarter isn't censoring anybody. They don't have a military to enforce the censorship. They didn't refund the money. They made a donation to RAINN instead. The POS still gets to publish his book and the backers still get their copy.
There is no censorship in saying, you don't get to use my platform for that.
From Wikipedia: "Censorship is the suppression of speech or other public communication which may be considered objectionable, harmful, sensitive, or inconvenient as determined by a government, media outlet, or other controlling body."
Kickstarter exercising their control to restrict the publication of this material meets the clinical definition of censorship, even though they aren't the government. Again, I'm not saying that it wasn't within their rights to do so; it was, but being within their right doesn't make it something else.
You are right, however. I misread the statement that the project was defunded as that the moneys had been returned. The statement that they make though, at least to me, indicates that they would have defunded the project if they hadn't missed the window.
If that was their intent, I am no less saddened by it. If their actual intent was to miss the window on purpose, and then issue this apology, I am no less saddened by it.
I would argue that with MANY other publishing platforms available to the public, Kickstarter is NOT a "controlling body". Regardless, I believe wholeheartedly that censorship by the government is utterly and completely wrong, I don't believe that in this particular circumstance, it's appropriate to cry "censorship".
1) The project creator has freedom of speech to a point. For one, he cannot yell "Fire" in a crowded theater unless there actually is a fire. He also cannot advocate or call for illegal activity by others (such as "Go and mug that guy walking down the street"). This is where the line of protected speech gets blurred. Reading some excerpts from his works it's clear that he advocates for aggressive physical/sexual contact with or without permission, to the point of making the woman struggle to rebuff advances. Basically this is borderline sexual assault depending on how good of a lawyer you have.
2) Whether or not it is within the project creator's right to publish this as free speech, Kickstarter has their own interests in mind. By facilitating funding for this project, they may open themselves to legal liability if someone going by the guidelines set in the book does end up sexually assaulting someone.
To address what I see as the core of your comment, I agree that an old fashion book burning / banning is not the answer. Just understand that this work dances the line between protected and unprotected speech, and Kickstarter does not want to play a part in that. Also understand that there is a significant difference between Kickstarter not allowing a certain project (or class of projects), and the government declaring a topic to be unpublishable.
IANAL, so everything I'm saying comes from one vague semester of business law.
> For one, he cannot yell "Fire" in a crowded theater unless there actually is a fire.
This meme really needs to die. The "fire in a crowded theater" standard hasn't been relevant for half a century [1].
> He also cannot advocate or call for illegal activity by others (such as "Go and mug that guy walking down the street").
This sounds like the "imminent lawless action" standard [2]. IANAL, but it seems that the "imminent" part of the standard applies to someone telling his pal to "go and mug that guy", not to someone who writes terrible advice for seducing women. Even if those that follow that advice are guilty of sexual assault, it is doubtful this author is placing women in imminent danger of sexual assault.
> Whether or not it is within the project creator's right to publish this as free speech, Kickstarter has their own interests in mind. By facilitating funding for this project, they may open themselves to legal liability if someone going by the guidelines set in the book does end up sexually assaulting someone.
Again, IANAL, but I doubt that Kickstarter faces real legal liability here. This seems like standard first amendment territory. I am not aware of any constitutional law that forbids running a campaign to fund a book, no matter how bad the advice in that book is. If you can cite relevant statutes or caselaw, or can state a potential civil cause of action, I'm willing to be proven wrong.
> Just understand that this work dances the line between protected and unprotected speech, and Kickstarter does not want to play a part in that.
It seems firmly on the right side of that line, no matter how distasteful it is.
IMO, it is far more likely that Kickstarter doesn't want to be branded in the public eye as a safe haven for molestation advocates, which I can understand.
To further explain the "fire" point above: What isn't obvious is that, while obviously immoral, the fire example is actually not a good way to test if something should be free speech protected.
Quoting from the article: "The "shouting fire" standard seems to require that the to-be-censored speech be (1) false, (2) said under circumstances in which there is no opportunity for reasoned reflection or debate, and (3) the cause of actual harm by those who hear it."
The problem is people who dislike free speech can argue that yelling "false" things shouldn't be protected. This is leads to selective enforcement.
The more narrowed definition was added in Brandenburg v Ohio tto something is protected under free speech unless it has a likelihood of inciting "Imminent lawless action".
Regarding "fire in a crowded theater", I don't see how it's any less relevant that it was in the past, regardless of the context it was first used in. The concept is that I say something false in order to cause a panic and through the panic cause harm. (Admittedly I only skimmed the article linked. If I missed where the article specifically addresses this, I apologize.)
Regarding the second point, the "imminent lawless action", this is where having a good lawyer would come in to play. It's a matter of definitions and arguing for a definition to side your way.
Kickstarter might not be breaking any constitutional laws, but that doesn't prevent them from being sued or even having a judgement declared against them. Again, this goes to the use of a good lawyer to make arguments for defining the role Kickstarter played. Are they an active participant, or just a neutral 3rd party (like perhaps a bank where a criminal stored stolen money).
I'm not saying that this is the only reason, or even the main reason that Kickstarter wants to prohibit something like this. I'm only saying that I believe legal liability is a legitimate concern in this case.
> Regarding "fire in a crowded theater", I don't see how it's any less relevant that it was in the past, regardless of the context it was first used in. The concept is that I say something false in order to cause a panic and through the panic cause harm. (Admittedly I only skimmed the article linked. If I missed where the article specifically addresses this, I apologize.)
The "falsely shouting fire in a crowded theater" quote comes from the supreme court decision in Schenk v. US, which is all but defunct today.
> Regarding the second point, the "imminent lawless action", this is where having a good lawyer would come in to play. It's a matter of definitions and arguing for a definition to side your way.
I don't believe the "imminent" part of that phrase leaves much open for interpretation.
> Kickstarter might not be breaking any constitutional laws, but that doesn't prevent them from being sued
Of course not. But as my father (who is a lawyer) is fond of saying, anyone can sue anyone else at any time. That doesn't mean they are likely to succeed.
> I'm only saying that I believe legal liability is a legitimate concern in this case.
I'll concede that legal liability might be an issue in this case, though that's for lawyers to decide. The point of my original comment was primarily to debunk an outdated legal standard. I got sidetracked with what I will now admit is poor additional legal analysis.
I will now admit my initial analysis was poor because after doing a tad more research, I stumbled into a far more pertinent case. That case is Rice v. Paladin Enterprises [1]. Back in 1983, Paladin Enterprises published a limited-run hitman manual [2]. A decade later, a convicted hitman noted that he had picked up tips from this book; this led a circuit court to hold that book was unprotected speech. This paved the way for civil sanctions against Paladin Enterprises. The Supreme Court declined to hear the case, and Paladin's insurance company settled for an undisclosed sum.
Drawing parallels to the current issue is left as an exercise for the reader.
1) I think you may be incorrect about the advocating of illegal acts thing, but neither am I a lawyer so lets agree on "they could get sued out of existence." Totally valid.
2)A larger point is that the public/private divide is a false dichotomy. We have our lives and we want to be able to express ourselves. So my point is that the difference between the government and kickstarter banning something is one of degree but not in kind. It is a restriction on expression within a space. Granted, a much smaller space.
You may be correct on 1), but take a look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandenburg_v._Ohio There are a few tests that have to be met. The key piece is "The Court held that government cannot punish inflammatory speech unless that speech is directed to inciting, and is likely to incite, imminent lawless action."
On point 2), I still think there is a clear difference in kind between government and private entity bans. The government can enforce their bans with legal threat of violence (i.e. You can go to prison). Another point of distinction is that within private spaces there may be implicit endorsement by the private space owner. For instance you have the public right to promote a political candidate, but if you do it by planting a sign on my lawn, it is implied that I endorse that candidate. I may not want to make that endorsement and restrict you from posting your sign, but that is not nearly the same as the government saying "No one may publish endorsements for Communist Party members".
I see no denial of the author's freedom of speech here. The author is free to host and fund their misogynist drivel on their own server, and Kickstarter doesn't seem to be denying that. Kickstarter has a business to run, and has some semblance of ethics, so it has chosen to refuse to offer its service to this content.
I see exactly where you're coming from but KickStarter isn't the only outlet, there are plenty of others available.
It's murky water to tread anytime you start excluding groups but you also have to preserve the community that you build and do what you believe to be correct for it. The owners and admins of KickStarter are stewards of that community and have a duty to it. If, after very careful consideration, it is deemed that this material would hurt this particular group then it's fine by me if they stopped it. The creatives will go elsewhere because there are other places (this is key).
Random House doesn't get into the business of publishing books on many different subjects but plenty of other publishers do.
I think you're conflating the right to promote something abhorrent with permission to promote something abhorrent in my space. There are many examples of rights which can be exercised to perpetrate moral wrongs. Kickstarter isn't capable of impeding that. They are, however, well within _their_ rights to revoke access to _their_ mechanism.
Kickstater is, ultimately, a business, and they've decided they will make more money by doing a little of their own policing. If what's best for art isn't what's best for Kickstarter, expect them to do what's best for Kickstarter. If someone can compete with them by doing what's best for art instead, more power to them.
They are refusing to organize payment to these things. They aren't 'banning' them in the sense you're talking about. I find your comparison offensive. You're twisting the meaning of the word 'ban'.
They're not banning anything. They're banning it from their platform. They don't get to say "You can't publish that", but they do get to say "You can't publish that in collaboration with us". There is nothing stopping the author of this work to raise funds via alternate means, which is much as it has always been. I imagine most all controversial works have had problems getting published, but I don't think people cry out "censorship" whenever a publisher rejects a work on vaguely moral grounds.
As usually codified in law. There is plenty of room for people to believe that rights to speech should enjoy greater protections (I don't mean to defend that position, I mean to acknowledge it).
Kickstarter is a business and has no obligation to uphold free speech. They need to curate their projects to protect their reputation. What if they allowed filmakers to Kickstart porn movies? You could call it free speech and make no judgments about the act itself, but at the end of the day people would start to see Kickstarter as a slimy business that's willing to host any project as long as they get a cut of it.
Somewhat related: There's another site called http://offbeatr.com/ which is like Kickstarter, except it is exclusively for porn, sex toys, erotic art/literature/games, and other such adult projects. I don't know if they are perceived as "slimy" or not, but there are a lot of interesting, innovative projects on offbeatr.
Kickstarter is simply selecting with whom they choose to enter into a contractual agreement. So long as they do so in a way which is not illegally discriminatory, they are within their right.
Likewise, the potential counterparties to an agreement with Kickstarter are free to choose not to enter into a contract with Kickstarter.
I think it's worth reading through the creator's response to the situation: http://pastebin.com/zwHYzCZe. He claims and reasonably supports that the highlighted excerpts were taken out of context.
> The gist of the controversial advice is "Don't wait for signs before you make your move. Let her be the one who rejects your advances. If she says no, stop immediately and tell her you don't want to do anything that would make her uncomfortable. Try again at a later time if appropriate or cease entirely if she is absolutely not interested."
> The thing that the commenters on social media are leaving out is that the advice was taken from a section in the guide offering advice on what to do AFTER a man has met a cute girl, gotten her phone number, gone on dates, spent time getting to know her, and now are alone behind closed doors fooling around. If "Don't wait for signs, make the first move" promotes sexual assault, then "Kiss the Girl" from The Little Mermaid was a song about rape.
> To quote Rob Judge, “Personal space is for pussies.” I already told you that the most successful seducers are those who can’t keep their hands off of women. Well you’re not gonna be able to do that if you aren’t in close!”
> “All the greatest seducers in history could not keep their hands off of women. They aggressively escalated physically with every woman they were flirting with. They began touching them immediately, kept great body language and eye contact, and were shameless in their physicality. Even when a girl rejects your advances, she KNOWS that you desire her. That’s hot. It arouses her physically and psychologically.
> Decide that you’re going to sit in a position where you can rub her leg and back. Physically pick her up and sit her on your lap. Don’t ask for permission. Be dominant. Force her to rebuff your advances.
This is the bit that's being decried as "intrinsically bad" - not seduction in general - because it advocates invading another person's personal space and touching them when they've expressed they don't want to be touched "because it will arouse her".
>touching them when they've expressed they don't want to be touched //
Maybe I'm being an idiot but where did it say that in your quote?
Perhaps it's this line:
>Even when a girl rejects your advances, she KNOWS that you desire her. //
I'd say implicit in that is that "when you have to stop because they've rejected your advance it's fine because they KNOW [blah blah blah]".
To be honest it's Kickstarter's gig, but I think putting someone down in this way for simply advocating diminished personal space in social interactions, seems a bit heavy.
Seriously from the "We were wrong" post I was expecting the "manual" to be telling you how to feed someone rohypnol [memory removal drug] not to touch their back when you're on a date.
>Content promoting or glorifying violence against women or anyone else has always been prohibited from Kickstarter. //
Where's the bit that promotes violence? It must be very obvious in the book otherwise they wouldn't surely be risking libelling the creator by making them out to advocate violence against women.
A bit further on they also write that the seducer should learn to figure out when NO really means NO. And if humans are wired that way (responding to touch) then it's not the fault of somebody writing a book.
There is also scientific research that people are more likely to respond to your requests if you touch them while asking. It's just psychology.
It seems, though, that those are taken out of context--the context being what to do once in an intimate setting and having already established some form of relationship.
So, basically, trying to teach awkward dudes how to start physical stuff if they're too inexperienced to know how.
All he's saying here is that you should test/push boundaries, not to continue once they've rejected the advances. But, he notes, that even if they reject, it achieves a desired effect which may eventually pay off.
> This is the bit that's being decried as "intrinsically bad" - not seduction in general - because it advocates invading another person's personal space and touching them when they've expressed they don't want to be touched "because it will arouse her".
They are banning all projects related to seduction though. This seems a bit excessive, considering even the supreme court basically released a guide to seduction at one point. (C.f. the 'one bite at the apple' rule as it relates to sexual harassment.)
Apparently for these people seduction = violence against women.
I haven't seen such a broken thinking process anywhere else. If anything seduction is about giving women what they really want. That said it does have a somewhat, hmm, sketchy reputation which is no doubt related to a combination of loathing for men who have a difficult time getting laid and the extreme marketing tactics that those kinds of guides are usually sold with.
And seduction isn't inheriently bad, but there are still some around who are trying to be politically correct and seduction isn't exactly something you are supposed to talk about in polite company.
<irony>Of course, because some women want dominance from men, it means that all women loves it. If you unpermittedly invade the personal space of 100 women, and only 10 complain about it, then it's only 10% sexual harassment, right?</irony>
To establish that dominance is not sexual assault, you should communicate. Simply to impose a dominant behaviour in case of doubt is not a GOOD strategy and may be sexual assault.
Just read My Secret Garden by Nancy Friday sometime. Women have some f%!#ng sick fantasies... but somehow men are painted as the sexual predators / deviants, from whom the pure, wholesome, virtuous, innocent girls must be protected...
When the guide is written like a rape manual, yes, yes it is. It features quotes like:
"Pull out your cock and put her hand on it. Remember, she is letting you do this because you have established yourself as a LEADER. Don't ask for permission, GRAB HER HAND, and put it right on your dick."
That particular comment is taken from a part of the guide where you're already with a girl in "a private, intimate setting". It's assuming that you're with someone who's already comfortable around you. It's not saying that you should get naked in a nightclub with someone you've just met.
So you're supposed to wait until you're alone with a woman before you sexually assault and/or rape her? That's not an improvement, and doesn't negate that it's still very much so a rape manual.
Are you saying you consider that "rape", even if the subjects were already kissing and fondling?
I wonder how many people outraged at this have explicitly asked for permission before every step of physical escalation in every one of their relationships.
I have a hard time believing a jury would convict someone of sexual assault for placing someone's hand on their penis if they were already (consensually) fingering that person.
I’ve no doubt it would be hard to convict – but that doesn’t change anything about whether you are a rapist or not (or at least guilty of sexual assault).
At the same time... if this same content was written as fiction, with the viewpoint character/hero accomplishing his goals through these same methods and relaying that same philosophy through dialogue or internal monologue, would it be (as) problematic?
Of course it wouldn't. Is that surprising? Fiction is different from a how-to manual and should be treated as such. It's not just the literal words in a particular paragraph, it's also the surrounding context.
I agree the context matters, but there's a long history of equivocating the fictional and instructional, on the part of people who try to draw these lines with regards to speech. [1]
I simply don't think the line is as clear-cut, for many of those who were outraged at Kickstarter. I think the company may have inadvertently stepped out onto a PR tight-rope.
[1] Note the use of words like 'murder simulator'/'rape simulator' or the outrage and claims of sexism/homophobia/stereotyping whenever there's a fictional representation of a character or situation that happens to (however briefly) conform to some stereotype.
You're asking whether it would be as problematic if it were a different book? I guess it depends. It's not like fiction/nonfiction is a switch that you can toggle without making other substantive changes.
Maybe I'm a horrible person, but I don't think taking someone's hand and placing it on your dick is such a horrible, disgusting thing to do when you're in a situation like the one described in that post.
Keep in mind that in the original post it only happens after dating, kissing, fondling and fingering without protest. At that point, if you describe the next step between two consenting adults out of context it's going to sound "rapey".
I don't see how that's a 'rape manual' quote if it is clearly in a section labelled sex. I.e. you both already have the expectation of sex - are in a bedroom or whatever. It's obviously clear that he doesn't suggest such behaviour in a different context.
Most of the negative arguments against seduction have a few root causes. Seduction science is very disturbing.
First, it disturbs women because it's perceived as a shift in the roles and their power over the other.
Second, it disturbs men, at least some of them, because when read it from the armchair, looks just ridiculous.
Third, expert players ("PUA"s) are very often troubled people, who become expert because they have a great need for validation. Their writings can be perfectly valid and effective, but surrounded by tons of self-validation, so they cause aversion to the person rather than the content.
There is a mix of #2 and #3 in the reaction to your comment.
The problem is that the things written look rape when put out of context.
Abstractly, they are all forms of physical assertion. Nobody, except fools and rapists, would do them where inappropriate.
Putting the girl's hand in one's k is something that is effective in a very specific context.
Putting a a girl on one's lap is something that, again, is effective in a very specific context.
Both of them are not* done unless one expects a consenting reaction.
The key difference between physical assertiveness and rape is that the first is done with expected consensus, the second with expected dissent (so that force is involved).
The armchair critics are mixing the two, just because they don't have idea of how those things work in real life.
Regarding the general idea of seduction, that's a separate subject, and it's actually complex and multi layered.
Summarizing, seduction is at his essence psychological hacking. Asserting that it's bad the exact analogue of a non-engineer saying that hacking is bad.
To conclude, the guy writing the book is clearly psychologically troubled, and there are way better books than his.
I'm confused too. The blog post mentions violence against women and sexual-violence several times. The cached page is unreachable for me but I suspect a "seduction guide" doesn't advocate hitting women. Seduction guides are often sleezy from what I've seen and appear to be more effective at taking advantage of lonely men than they are about taking advantage of women. The blog post stops just short of calling this a rape guide though which I highly doubt is the case.
That's because the project page itself was done in a way that doesn't raise any flags. But if you dig into what his book actually contains, then you'll see what's wrong with the project.
In all honesty I don't blame Kickstarter for approving it originally because at face value the project does seem harmless, but nevertheless they f'ed up and admitted to their mistake and I applaud them. It's never easy to admit you were wrong.
Great apology. Right to the point, no dodging blame, and an acknowledgement of the debt to society.
Now, that being said, is this not a take on the book "the game", about picking up women? Am I missing something or is Kickstarter now picking and choosing what is "good" content? Obviously they have to do this to some extent, but where is the line drawn?
I read "The Game", I was curious. It's less how-to guide than a journalist foray into becoming ingrained into the pick up community. Any behavior by the people in the book is just stating facts about what they did. So while it might be viewed as a beginner guide, it's more of a story than anything else.
I believe this is more akin to a guide to specific actions that you should take that are basically misogynistic.
To me (and based on everything I read/searched/saw/experiences in the "community"), The Game is not really about "you're gonna have sex with plenty women", it's more about "you have to be a better person and then, you may happen to have sex with plenty of women".
It's about self-improvement: it's about "go out, socialize and meet people", it's about "have an activity that you enjoy and that drives", it's about "know yourself and know what you want",... Sure, sex is there (Because we're adults and if some of us like the married life, other crave for the carnal pleasure of one-night-stands) but it's mostly "don't shoot yourself in a foot by asking her if she still thinks about her ex". It was never about forcing oneself on women, it was about "fun for you and the persons you want to interact with".
That said, even I would punch anyone who'd follow the "advices" from this "book".
No, they weren't wrong. They decided not to do a snap judgement on a controversial topic. Let it slip with what little time is left, examine post facto how it got through, tighten the cracks, explain it to the punters. They did everything right except think that they did it 'so wrong'. Making snap judgments on new areas of information can bite you back and make things much worse.
"The thing that the commenters on social media are leaving out is that the advice was taken from a section in the guide offering advice on what to do AFTER a man has met a cute girl, gotten her phone number, gone on dates, spent time getting to know her, and now are alone behind closed doors fooling around. If "Don't wait for signs, make the first move" promotes sexual assault, then "Kiss the Girl" from The Little Mermaid was a song about rape."
I'll probably get down voted for this, but reading through what was written, and based on the fact woman LOVE the book, 50 shades of grey. I'm kind of lost as to why on one side everyones offended, and on the other side its what they desire... Yet get offended.
This book: purportedly gives power to men.
50 shades of grey: describes a powerful man ceding power to a woman.
Conclusion: politics brings out the extremes in people.
The linked blog post has an update that is really interesting:
[UPDATE: In the opening paragraph of this beast I mentioned a Kickstarter campaign that I am passionate about, that represents everything I like about Kickstarter. But for some reason I am getting bombarded with e-mails from people that think that project and “Above The Game” are connected. And now people are pulling funding for the project I’m pumped for. Because of that, I’ve removed any mention of them by name.]
Makes you question if any thought was put into the situation by many of the people who are outraged.
Just read this thread, and it applies to my newly learned wonder phrase:
"Tyranny is the suppression of nuance"
Not many people working with the nuance here, are there? Its gotten very black and white , and if you don't agree with one side, you must simply be a sexual predator.
The rights of women? Women have a right to not have a book published? Really?
I could make the parallel argument for The Anarchist's Cookbook, and the difference between publication and action, but what's the point? Gender politics has been extraordinarily effective at driving reason out of such discussions.
This was clearly, obviously, blatantly not in response to anyones hangups about sex in general. Not wanting to be associated with creepy, rapey stuff written by and for creepy, rapey people is hardly Puritanical, it's more like being a human being.
Perhaps you meant to reply to the parent or grandparent? I'm merely pointing out that "Puritan America" does not mean "1600's Puritans That Just Happen To Be Living In What Will Become America". I could not get the site to load to read the book, so I cannot make judgement on the content.
Kickstarter believes their only choices are "allow to continue unimpeded" or "cancel the project". This incident suggests a third possibility: "flag for review". They could set up a policy which allows them to temporarily suspend a project, placing a short-term hold on project funds so that they do not go either to the creator or get refunded. The review process would need to be fast and transparent, but not so fast as to require snap judgments.
I don't think Kickstarter's response to this incident is incorrect.
We're talking about the legitimacy of a single blog post vetoing 686 backers (according to the cached link on the kickstarter post) from what it looks like from the kickstarter post.
I don't think that this response was particularly measured:
-1) Does it only take a single blog post to have kickstarter ban a project?
1a) Can we be certain that the blog post did not take the passage out of context?
1b) Can they be sure that the seduction manual was intentionally promoting the alleged "sexual violence"?
1c) Was there any reasonable attempt to communicate with the author to address the paragraphs in issue?
-2) What number of the kickstarter community reacting negatively to this project?
2a) Was "Sexual violence" the only controversial topic?
2b) Was a specific (kickstarter) clause for violation cited?
2c) Was any law broken because of this project?
3)Can malicious intent be proven?
[1] If you actually look at the link to reddit comment link I don't even see conversation that could be taken as people taking this as "sexual violence" and there is even one comment from a female user (derina585) that recommends changing the language and offering advice.
This reaction to lynch mob the guy is unwarrented and is somehow legitimized by kickstarter's "apology." I think that we need to take a closer look at the information before jumping to conclusions here.
Heh. So enslaving sentient organisms for the purposes of entertainment (cockroach robot app) is classed as a "creative work", while teaching teenagers how to pick up women results in outcry?
And no I'm not suggesting some equivalence between women and cockroaches, I'm objecting to their frivolous dismissal of the project on the grounds of it not being a "creative work".
I see the same quote about stopping if there's any rejection being repeated endlessly in this thread. Treating consent as a simple yes/no ignores the reality of a culture where women are taught to be quiet and compliant, and where they're punished when they don't go along. In a culture where half the population is treated as subservient objects, it's a good idea to seek explicit consent every time.
There is no monolithic "culture" of which all humans are members and of which all women are treated as subservient objects. There are in fact many overlapping cultures throughout humankind and there is a staggering array of diversity among them in all kinds of dimensions.
Wait, I'm going to sidestep the whole book's ultra-crazy content and ask a kind of really obvious logistic question:
Why the hell was he doing a kickstarter for a book he could easily publish online for 0 money down and only cost him the time to write it and maybe get a copy editor?
The content of this book, and most similar unpopular material, is designed for the internet. That's how 50 Shades of Gray got its start, and there's been underground sex and erotica content for decades online. Doing a kickstarter just seems like a blatant scam or complete laziness, either are an indication that he won't finish the book.
So why the hell was he doing a kickstarter? Idiot.
The point I was trying to make is that publicity itself is often the reason projects get put up on Kickstarter.
I suspect the author did the Kickstarter project knowing he could effectively publish for free but wanted to generate the buzz that currently comes with having a Kickstarter project. And maybe even to gauge interest. If he wouldn't have been able to raise $2K then it may have been worth dropping the idea altogether.
The negative publicity is the stroke of pure luck. Now he'll make even more because of the free publicity the book is getting now.
Here is an entire quote from one of his passages on a reddit thread:
Hi guys.
First off, big props to thesacred. I went out with him yesterday and he has tons of game. Looking forward to many scandalous nights with him and others in Tokyo. He skipped the club to go attempt a threesome! Awesome!
Anyway, if you've followed my FR's recently, you've probably seen me mention the Physical Push/Pull (PPP) move I've been using. It's basically where you substitute actual physical pushes and pulls for emotional push/pulls, OR combine them with emotional push/pulls for maximum effect.
I was field testing it as an OPENER in the club yesterday and my GOD did it work. I highly recommend some of you guys try this out, but it's not for the faint of heart.
Example:
[see girl on dancefloor or near bar]
[approach]
[hook her in with your arm] "Aww you're so cute. Come here."
[shove her aside HARD, seemingly randomly]
[approach someone else and say hi]
[Turn around. About 75% of the time she'll be staring at you with a huge grin on her face.]
[Walk back over to her.] "You really are so cute, you know that?"
[repeat]
This is one of those "reality destroyer" openers where girls have NO IDEA what just happened. You can open as many sets as you want throughout the club/bar this way and decide which ones you wanna pursue further at your leisure.
I did this yesterday in a dance club.
I re-open a girl by walking up, grabbing her, caveman-ing her against the wall & kissing her. Then I cast her aside and get a drink at the bar. The entire time she is staring like "OMG who is this guy?" (in a good way).
I come back to her with my drink. "Come on, let's go."
I walk her to the corner, escalate kino, smalltalk a bit. Fast forward and guess who is getting a BJ in the dark corner of the club? THIS GUY!
Gentlemen, try this out. It's not only extremely effective but it's hilariously fun. Your friends' jaws will hit the floor when they see you pull this off.
Agreed and now about a million more people will have heard about this project that otherwise probably wouldn't have.
This reminds me a little of when The Last Temptation of Christ came out in the late 80's. All the bible-thumpers were screaming about how blasphemous it was and that everyone should boycot it. Which, of course, people being people they did the exact opposite and had to endure what turned out to be a pretty bad film.
Also the Satanic Verses by Salman Rushdie, which due to the protests, banning by all the Islamic countries, the fatwah on the author and associated press (and this was in the days of before the Internet!)just made the sales go through the roof.
>I'm curious how the funding was going before this, I can't imagine it was getting much traction.
The kickstarter blog post mentions that they couldn't stop the project from receiving funds, so the project must have been fully funded for that to happen. I don't know how much they were asking for, and whether or not they got more funding than they requested, though.
EDIT: It seems they made $16,369 pledged of $2,000 goal.
Kickstarter should claim safe-harbor as they are a conduit.
This case means they open themselves up to being required to censor every project for every jurisdiction. Kickstarter apparently views the cost of that censorship as much less than the community cost.
I believe they've always censored in a fairly opinionated manner. I'd only be speculating if I tried to say why, but I imagine it's to do with wanting a much more active audience - a site needs to do a lot more to make you give your money than just keep on reading. If their projects list turned people away they'd be in a lot of trouble.
It's easy to see why there aren't more women in computing with the mountain of rape culture, misogyny, and male privilege on display in these comments.
And it is easy to see that whenever women are mentioned, or connected, people like you feel like you don't need to back up your assertions with facts, quotes, figure or any kind of argument.
Hn is an intellectual place. That means that we sometimes discuss news that requires you to read and understand the other sides point of view, not merely dismiss it out of hands with a few choice words that are chosen to silence debate, not to improve mankinds understanding of things.
"on display in these comments" is a pretty clear reference to a source. The people here defending the whole PUA genre are defending an objectification of women. The PUA approach treats women as objects that are to be manipulated to achieve the end the PUA desires. Defending such an objectification is a hallmark of male privilege throughout history, and furthermore is a type of misogyny and characteristic of rape culture.
Because opinion here isn't dictated? Feel free to express your own opinions on the matter, but don't start with the slander because you dislike the opinion of others.
Slander is spoken falsehood, I think you meant libel. Also something is only a falsehood if it is false, and much of the writings here are quite characteristic of misogyny, rape culture (esp. apologetics), and male privilege as commonly used in SWE.
I don't really see any of this...although I do see a lot of examples of female privilege going on in the comments.
The type of women in tech we need are normal people who don't social justice blog for 14 hours a day on their tumblr about how oppressed they are. Oddly, the women who end up in tech are more likely to be the women who did their STEM classes/homework for 14 hours a day, so in the end it usually works out.
Odd you should say so. My wife is a programmer, and distances herself from the online computing world not because of "misogyny", but because of this insane crowd of privileged people who insist on pretending to be victims in her name.
Without getting into specifics, as what the SRWs generally consider to be an "underprivileged" person or whatever...I have been feeling the same way as your wife lately QUITE a lot.
It makes it so that actual victims of sexual assault/rape/sexism/homophobia/etc can't talk about their experiences, because there's no way to distinguish between say people with ptsd!triggers and the people with omg-someone-disagreed-with-me!triggers. I hate it so much.
Nice straw-man, since I never claimed to be a victim (I was merely making an observation). Also citing your wife's individual experience is a red herring since she alone does not represent a large sample size.
I didn't say anything about you or what you claim. Resorting to the logical fallacy fallacy is pretty poor in general, but quite ridiculous when you aren't even using the terms correctly.
A lot of comments are getting into the issue of whether or not seduction stuff is appropriate/misogynistic/etc., which I think is missing the point.
Kickstarter received a vocal outcry against the material. They responded quickly and fairly to remediate the issue. There are tons of times that a business is pressured/advised to stop doing something when that 'something' isn't strictly illegal or immoral. How they respond to those opportunities defines them going forward.
Part of Kickstarter's value proposition now is a certain level of content curation: moving forward, they're much less the 'anything-goes' crowdfunding platform than they used to be. I suspect they're okay with this, given how much they're pushing the social networking aspect of their site (and for good reason -- their stats on how many users went from funding the Veronica Mars or Zach Braff kickstarters to other initiatives were pretty impressive.)
Free enterprise, of course, also dictates that now there's a vacuum for a competitor which has less (or no) qualms about stuff like this.
I am a fan of "I'm sorry" posts, though they have become frequent enough to become cliche. When they put a $25K donation behind the apology, then it's a lot more than false humility.
"Fourth, today Kickstarter will donate $25,000 to an anti-sexual violence organization called RAINN. It’s an excellent organization that combats exactly the sort of problems our inaction may have encouraged."
I can't believe I haven't seen a single comment about non-verbal communication. No, a girl doesn't want you to ask for a kiss (it comes off as incredibly lacking in self confidence), but she better be touching you, smiling a lot (at you not just in general), laughing at your jokes, playing with her hair and/or many other things that show you she's saying she wants you to go further.
Everyone here is talking exclusively about verbal communication, but in courting non-verbal communication is the key context. Women are masters of it, but most men are only barely aware of it and that's where most of the problems in these kinds of materials come from and how well authors teach inept men how to read and respond to body language is what really separates a decent "dating" guide from a misogynistic "how to get charged with sexual assault" guide.
The Guide's author is a horrible writer and only makes passing references to reading non-verbal communication, but builds all of his "techniques" upon it. That's why they are all so horrible.
If you're chatting with a girl and she's smiling, playing with her hair and glancing down when you make prolonged eye contact you're probably okay to brush against her arm or touch her shoulder or elbow or even if you're bold pick her up and put her in your lap (but that'd force a girl to immediately decide if she likes you or to reject you).
In contrast if you're talking at a girl and she answers in the minimum length sentences, won't look at you, and has her arms crossed then touching her in anyway is going to make her want to get the hell away form you.
Similarly if you're in your bedroom because she came home with you when you invited her, you've been making out and her shirt is off then opening your pants and putting her hand on your penis probably isn't the smoothest thing, but probably isn't a deal breaker for her at that point either.
Again opposed to you sharing a taxi with her and asking her 10 times if you can come up for coffee/tea/drink then once you're inside her place and pulling your penis out, that's probably going to get you thrown out at the very least if not having the cops called on you.
This guide focuses exclusively on what the guy should "do" which, without a similar guide on how to know how and when to "do" those things, will lead to bad out comes if not sexual assault. It's written from the perspective of an instruction manual for a video game/passive object (the girl), which is a lot of what misogyny is all about, do A then B then C and you save the princess.
I think what you're experiencing here is a crowd that isn't satisfied with claims of intrinsic wrongness that don't include evidence. You do realize that you're not allowed to just state opinions as facts, right? That's not really how arguments work around here.
This is a direct quote from a guide written by the author of the guide under discussion:
Never, ever, ever, wait for a SIGN before you escalate! You will miss out on the vast majority of chances if you sit around waiting for SIGNS. Men are notoriously bad at reading women's minds and body language. Don't think that you're any different. From now on you must ASSUME that she is attracted to you and wants to be ravished. It's a difference in mindset that makes champs champs and chumps chumps…
Decide that you're going to sit in a position where you can rub her leg and back. Physically pick her up and sit her on your lap. Don't ask for permission. Be dominant. Force her to rebuff your advances
The author advises his readers to assume that their partner consents to sexual activity. This is a recipe for sexual assault. At some point one of his readers will misread the signs put out by a partner and they will sexually assault them.
> The author advises his readers to assume that their partner consents to sexual activity.
And this is a direct misinterpretation of what the author said. The author states:
> From now on you must ASSUME that she is attracted to you and wants to be ravished.
There is a difference. The author says that you should assume the woman is attracted to you, not that she is consenting to sexual activity. It's pretty damn clear. He further states that if a girl says no at any point, you stop.
> > From now on you must ASSUME that she is attracted to you and wants to be ravished.
> There is a difference. The author says that you should assume the woman is attracted to you, not that she is consenting to sexual activity.
That's not really the most natural reading of what you quote the author as having written. If that's really what the author intended, the word choice ("you must ASSUME she ... wants to be ravished") is quite poor.
ravish
tr.v. rav·ished, rav·ish·ing, rav·ish·es
(1) To seize and carry away by force.
(2) To force (another) to have sexual intercourse; rape.
(3) To overwhelm with emotion; enrapture. See Synonyms at enrapture.
That kind of arguments are not worthy of HN. Nothing here is beyond debate (it may be of topic but that is different), nothing, no matter how strongly you feel about it is beyond debate here and shutting down a debate and declaring the other a monster simply for opening a debate is tantamount to admitting that you hold believes that you are so weakly tied to that you can't defend them.
I am not shutting down the debate. I am not declaring anyone a monster. I am merely pointing out that if you are defending the guide, you are defending a sexual assault manual. That is the reality of the situation.
Now you go a head and do it again - simply declaring your point of view as fact is shutting down the debate. Please, post your arguments and how you came to your conclusion not just state it (I think schools used to call it show your work).
The chapter linked appears to be called "Physical Escalation and Sex" and seems to be very late in the book.
Consent is assumed in the situation because of all the stuff leading up to it. Like the getting the number, the going out on dates, talking a lot, and finally ending up alone with them in their or your own residence.
Are you sure you've had sexual congress with a woman before? As many other posters are pointing out in this thread, most real women absolutely do not want to be asked for permission every step of the way.
Furthermore, the author includes quite a bit of text about respecting when consent is explicitly withdrawn, which is something I hope we can all agree is a good thing, without getting lost in, "but you should discuss it first". Most people don't, and that's the reality we live in.
>Consent is assumed in the situation because of all the stuff leading up to it. Like the getting the number, the going out on dates, talking a lot, and finally ending up alone with them in their or your own residence.
Consent should never be assumed. Just fucking ask. This chapter is explicitly talking about transitioning from a non-sexual to a sexual relationship. Assuming that your partner wants this to happen is a recipe for sexual assault.
> Consent should never be assumed. Just fucking ask. This chapter is explicitly talking about transitioning from a non-sexual to a sexual relationship. Assuming that your partner wants this to happen is a recipe for sexual assault.
I think you're mistaken, and I think you're inexperienced with women. Most women absolutely do not want to be asked every step of the way. Many women I have been with have specifically enjoyed it when I have done things such as not ask them but pick them up and place them in my lap, then kiss them.
If someone withdraws their consent, and you do not respect, that makes you a rapist. Consent is typically withdrawn when she says things like "no", which the guide you are calling a rape-manual specifically notes to respect.
You're being disingenuous. No one who already is not a rapist and respects consent, can hear, and read body language is going to continue in the face of withdrawn consent.
Finally, how do you know the "talking a lot" step doesn't establish explicit verbal consent prior to the event?
I don't think you've read much PUA material. A lot of it is about trying to have sex with a partner who does not (at least initaially) want to have sex. Escalating physically until they say no, lying and saying you'll stop and then escalating again. Charitably it is about convincing someone to have sex with you, uncharitably it is wearing them down until they give up resisting.
There have been clear descriptions of rape which have been posted by redditors on the PUA subreddit, which the poster apparently did not realise were rape.
If consent is not violated, it's not rape. You can't assume that consent is not established... which is what you're doing. Convincing someone they raped their girlfriend or their boyfriend raped them is pretty reprehensible, but I am aware that it goes on.
I don't actually recommend following the lead of these so called Pick Up Artists... but I don't think they were trying to teach anyone to rape. Apparently we should agree to disagree on that point.
> The thing that the commenters on social media are leaving out is that the advice was taken from a section in the guide offering advice on what to do AFTER a man has met a cute girl, gotten her phone number, gone on dates, spent time getting to know her, and now are alone behind closed doors fooling around. If "Don't wait for signs, make the first move" promotes sexual assault, then "Kiss the Girl" from The Little Mermaid was a song about rape.
I'm not using a Disney film as an example of a good portrayal of women, and neither is the author of the seduction book.
The implication is that the Disney movie, made and marketed for children, has a song called "Kiss the girl" which is about as rape-y as the advice in the seduction manual. Which is to say not at all.
So, the male computer scientist now feels qualified to tell little girls what is and isn't ok for them to like. I thought you didn't like men telling women what to do?
I was just curious about this Disney song everyone mentions. It's actually kinda' weird:
Yes, you want her
Look at her, you know you do
It’s possible she wants you, too
There is one way to ask her
It don’t take a word
Not a single word
Go on and kiss the girl
Look at you, unable to understand that things aren't binary and that it is possible to be interested in seduction guides and wanting to have consensual sex with attractive women without wanting to rape them.
It might even, gasp, be possible that women wants to have sex with men. Have you considered that.
If you are white, cis and male, you need to understand how that affects positively how society treats you. Because society treats you better than any other group. Then you need to think about how that shapes your opinions so that you can understand the complaints of the less privileged.
For example, if you are a white New Yorker, you might say "stop and frisk is fine, I never get stopped so they must only be stopping criminals". However, once you realise that the police disproportionately stop black people, you are better able to understand black people's complaints about the policy. It's nothing sinister or hateful. It's a way to critically evaluate ones own biases.
It's not a way to critically evaluate biases, the way you and others use it today. It's a way to insult people for the sexuality, sex, or ethnicity they were born to. Do you really want to behave in the same way the people on Fox News do?
This annoys me greatly. Whether or not the book itself was bad, an open platform shouldn't have to apologize for not immediately censoring its users on public outrage. To the contrary, I would have expected an apology if, given the first blush or public outcry, they suspended the account without a proper investigation into it.
How does removing the kickstarter project after funding has taken place work for the backers? Do the backers no longer get their rewards? Does the project creator have no access to the backers information? Will Kickstarter refund the backers out of pocket? Strange situation.
I don't think one can fault Kickstarter for this or the Kobe Beef Jerky incident. As the platform grows so will the number of abuse cases. The submission process is a fairly strict filter, but from there the project is more than crowd-funding, it becomes increasingly about crowd-sourcing the due diligence process.
My concern is that a crowd-sourced due diligence process can be slow and requires active participation from the backers. That sense of common responsibility is what's needed to help the company take rapid action and for the community to remain a positive place for funding great ideas. I hope Kickstarter can continue inspiring that proactive participation from its users.
You start by saying that if you disagree with you you're a misogynist pig, and any discussion of the merits is wrong. Just think about times you've read other people say that, and try and think it over.
He mentions having only 2 options to decide whether to cancel or let the funds go through. Isn't there a third option that they could use in the future, Put a delay on the transfer while you review it?
Kickstarter is a private company that can decide what they want to have on their site for whatever reason they want. They have to answer to their customers. If you disagree, don't use Kickstarter.
But the idea that they have to comply with "freedom of speech" or be consistent or anything else doesn't make sense to me. Every store curates it's inventory with whatever rules they deem appropriate. Kickstarter never claimed that any possible piece of content was ok.
So many of the comments here are trying to justify this project's content by saying this are things to do when you are with something you've already been dating/wooing. I just want to say that the majority of sexual assaults are perpetrated by someone the victim knows and that ANY kind of intimate contact does not justify further contact that someone has not consented to. Saying otherwise is an attempt to justify rape.
Women are sensitive, fragile, inferior creatures who require constant, vigilant protection from honorable men.
If it becomes necessary to take a few quotes out of context in our noble quest to protect the fairer sex, so be it.
Kudos to Kickstarter for adhering to feminist principles.
> The thing that the commenters on social media are leaving out is that the advice was taken from a section in the guide offering advice on what to do AFTER a man has met a cute girl, gotten her phone number, gone on dates, spent time getting to know her, and now are alone behind closed doors fooling around. If "Don't wait for signs, make the first move" promotes sexual assault, then "Kiss the Girl" from The Little Mermaid was a song about rape.
”5) Get CLOSE to her, damn it!
To quote Rob Judge, “Personal space is for pussies.” I already told you that the most successful seducers are those who can’t keep their hands off of women. Well you’re not gonna be able to do that if you aren’t in close! ”
“All the greatest seducers in history could not keep their hands off of women. They aggressively escalated physically with every woman they were flirting with. They began touching them immediately, kept great body language and eye contact, and were shameless in their physicality. Even when a girl rejects your advances, she KNOWS that you desire her. That’s hot. It arouses her physically and psychologically.”
“Decide that you’re going to sit in a position where you can rub her leg and back. Physically pick her up and sit her on your lap. Don’t ask for permission. Be dominant. Force her to rebuff your advances.”
I don't know if it should have been removed from Kickstarter, but this is bad, bad behavior that must be discouraged.
As for the "whip your cock out and drag her hand to it" bit, everything's contextual, but for some reason I'm skeptical that people buying a "seduction guide" will grok the very subtle facets of circumstance that might make that consensual.
1) Don't do anything that doesn't have her consent.
2) "Yes means yes" is a better slogan than "no means no."
3) Always be conscious of whether she seems comfortable or not and whether she's enjoying herself. This can be tricky, but always, always err on the side of caution. If she seems merely bored or uninterested, you should consider that a no.
That's really all you need. That and volume: if someone isn't interested, don't take it personally and don't force it. Just move onto someone else. Most pairings aren't meant to happen. If you follow my earlier advice and take care of yourself, it will pretty much automatically.
> "Yes means yes" is a better slogan than "no means no."
Maybe, but it's also very unrealistic, and I doubt very many people want it. Personally, I would prefer if women simply realized that I am attracted to them, and wouldn't explicitly ask me if I want to fuck, and I'm willing to endure the few awkward encounters where they would misread me.
The answer only would have been "yes" until you demonstrated that you actually needed to ask. Being timid and insecure destroys attraction and respect. The world would be a lot better if we didn't work that way, but we do.
I'd say his use of the word "escalate" would mean to start somewhere innocuous, touching a shoulder or whatever, and go from there.
You portray the potential customer of this as some kind of rapist dreg, but I'm guessing it'd be more like a shy guy who is too timid with women (which he seems to portray himself as as well). In that light I find this delivered in slightly bad taste, but not really something to be up in arms about.
Kickstarter pulled this cause it's not politically correct, and people were upset about some quotes taken out of context. That's also fair, it's their right as a business, but still kind of weak, nice apology or not.
What I dislike most about these discussions is that it invariably attracts ideologues of all stripes, of which you appear to be one.
> "Women are sensitive, fragile, inferior creatures who require constant, vigilant protection from honorable men.
> Kudos to Kickstarter for adhering to feminist principles."
You're attacking a straw man with ad-hominems.
More importantly, you're glossing over the fact that women legitimately face threats and concerns that are significantly different from those of men. It's disingenuous to paint this as a plot by evil feminists.
Relevant :
"More than one in three women worldwide have experienced physical
or sexual violence, a report by the World Health Organization
and other groups says.
It says 38% of all women murdered were killed by their partners,
and such violence is a major contributor to depression and other
health problems." [1]
Well, it probably helps that male rape culture is in full effect. In the UK, it's legally not even possible for a woman to rape a male. Most US organizations won't count it either--the FBI found almost a 50/50 ratio of male and female rape victims, but a man being raped didn't count as rape because it "didn't count as rape." If there is a rape culture, I'm not entirely sure it's a female rape culture. Raping a female is basically condemned by everyone at this point. Case in point: national outrage over the Steubenville thing.
Domestic violence rates have been for years known to be roughly 50/50 between the sexes. Some studies have even found that women are slightly more likely than men to initiate violence.
Of course, only women get societal support and access to domestic violence shelters. My father was warned by the police that if he ever called them when my mother was beating him, the police would be forced to arrest him instead (due to the domestic violence laws pushed through by feminists in the VAWA).
I've read almost all of the author's comments on reddit and he writes like a man who respects women deeply but also understands that a lot of men do not understand how to talk to and deal with women.
I understand that 'seduction' is a band brand, one which people react negatively to when the see it, but by looking at the material you will probably find that it isn't offensive at all.
The quotes are taken out of context and are not a good sample of the material. The truth is, most women are so bored at a bar and in life with the guys they meet, they are probably bigger beneficiaries of the material than the guys who read it.
Women have been the target of systematic oppression for millenia, of which sexual violence has been a primary tool. Are you open to the possibility that that might not be over quite yet? That that might actually be deserving of a little sensitivity?
Men have been the target of systematic oppression for millenia, too, you know.
Throughout all of history, it's men that have been forced to fight and die in wars without any choice in the matter. There's a lot of raping of males that goes on in Africa during their various wars, but any coverage will inevitably focus on women instead (due to funding issues--no one cares about a male rape victim).
Do you think that women in the meanwhile, has been just poor victims?
Don't forget that women are generally way ahead of men in human skills.
Men and women have, their own forms of dominance.
I agree that physical dominance is despicable, but don't think that the forms of dominance were going only in a single direction.
No. This is ludicrous revisionism, and you should be ashamed for saying it.
You do not get to treat a group of people as property for thousands of years, and then when they finally claw a measure of autonomy back from you say, "Well, that about evens the score."
>You do not get to treat a group of people as property for thousands of years
Ignoring the fact that your scenario is absurd hyperbole, and men had things just as shit as women did, the you in question wasn't involved. Nobody in this discussion ever owned a woman. Pretending they committed some horrible crime to justify your prejudice is pathetic.
Ignoring the fact that the status of women as property was a literal and legal fact for thousands of years...
I don't subscribe to such a convenient ethics, I'm afraid. The enormous power I derive from the society I live in I owe, in good part, to racial slavery, to the genocide of the people who lived where I live now, and, yes, to the systematic oppression of women, all in the name of the very nation I now consider myself a part of. By my privilege, I owe a moral debt to those murdered, enslaved, and terrorized people, and if it cannot be repaid it should at least be atoned for.
I could likewise say that I do not enslave children, while I purchase products made by those who do; but I do not believe that is the path to a better world.
>Ignoring the fact that the status of women as property was a literal and legal fact for thousands of years
No, it wasn't. You are deliberately conflating the life of some women to that of women period. It would be every bit as absurd and dishonest to claim that "the status of men as property was a literal and legal fact for thousands of years" because some men were slaves.
> By my privilege, I owe a moral debt to those murdered, enslaved, and terrorized people, and if it cannot be repaid it should at least be atoned for.
Yes, I know that your beliefs are hilarious. I am not suggesting that I do not understand them, but rather that they are in fact ridiculous. You can not atone for someone else's actions, and even if you could, being a whiney, hypersensitive bully on the internet is not atoning for anything.
And I understand you don't feel any culpability for evil done by others in your name and for your benefit. I suppose we will have to agree to disagree.
What evil was done in my name, or for my benefit? You are deliberately conflating someone incidentally benefiting from something with it being done to benefit them. Your consistent, deliberate dishonesty speaks volumes about your faith in your beliefs.
The tension in feminism between sexual liberation, on the one hand, and repression of male sexuality on the other is remarkable. And make no doubt, feminism is now included in the official religion of our day. How long before "misogynist" tweets are banned on twitter? Before "misogynists" are kicked off of facebook? And don't worry gentlemen, it is not violating your freedom of speech because these are private companies controlling every means of communication you have...
We are slouching towards a soft tyranny of the mind, driven by the marxist ideology that each member of an "inferior" group has the right to not be offended.
A woman is twice as likely to give you her number if you touch her on her shoulder or arm when you first meet her. Touch is a powerful social lubricant[1].
Is that psychology experiment now a hatefact that we must unlearn? Perhaps we should fire the psychologist who did the experiment.
> The tension in feminism between sexual liberation, on the one hand, and repression of male sexuality on the other is remarkable.
Male sexuality isn't the domination of women and feminism makes no attempt to quash people's sexuality. This is pretty close to attributing social strata and gender roles to biological determinism, which is totally false.
> And make no doubt, feminism is now included in the official religion of our day.
Feminism has not been and is not a religion. Further, given the existing statistical data about social inequality, we can most certainly say that feminism is NOT a mainstream point of view for must people in the United States.
> How long before "misogynist" tweets are banned on twitter? Before "misogynists" are kicked off of facebook?
Given how much misogynistic stuff is on both facebook and twitter, never. But rest assured people will call you out for misogynistic crap and they are right to do so.
> And don't worry gentlemen, it is not violating your freedom of speech because these are private companies controlling every means of communication you have...
The nature of capitalism and corporatism w.r.t. the internet is another discussion to have.
> We are slouching towards a soft tyranny of the mind, driven by the marxist ideology that each member of an "inferior" group has the right to not be offended.
Feminism is not Marxism, except maybe that women as a class have a right to control the output of their labor (like all laboring classes), but that's another kind of discussion. If you believe that people challenging misogyny and kickstarter projects like this that promote rape and sexual assault is some kind of encroachment of your life, then you are part of the problem.
Feminism is absolutely Marxism. Why are the struggles of men in society ignored and belittled, while the struggles of women have entire university departments dedicated to them? Why is inequality only decried in one direction? Because we are not witnessing an earnest attempt to make society better. Rather, it is Marxists acting out class conflict. The uberclass must be defeated by the underclass.
When you hear the word "oppression" think Marxism and class conflict.
The struggles of men are studied, having women's studies courses doesn't detract from that in any way. The liberation concepts at the heart of feminism are just as applicable to men as women, but women experience personal and institutional issues differently and therefore have their own study and community. In term of academia, for a very long time women were actively kept out, so it is not surprising that women have created academic space for themselves within that system (not saying that academia is perfect).
> Why is inequality only decried in one direction? Because we are not witnessing an earnest attempt to make society better. Rather, it is Marxists acting out class conflict. The uberclass must be defeated by the underclass.
Social inequality on various axes are decried. Racism, classism, gender phobia, sexism, and other injustices are constantly the focus of criticisms, new policy efforts, academic study, and cultural discussion. Classism and sexism are intersectional and related, but that doesn't mean that is one and only one form of analysis and criticism.
> When you hear the word "oppression" think Marxism and class conflict.
Analysis of class and oppression isn't just Marxism, there have been decades and decades of new thought and discussion on those topics.
When companies reject racist manuals, they're not taking the position that non-whites are "inferior and in need of protection". They're simply making the ethical choice, to the dismay of the people who enjoy racist sorts of things.
Same goes for the misogynist manuals they're now taking the ethical stance against.
So much for your ad hominem. I'd give Kickstarter kudos, except ethics are what people are supposed to have.
Seduction manuals aren't morally wrong, though, (they may be factually wrong and/or sleazy, but not morally) but racism is.
Think of the difference between a book on the history of racism, with very explicit quotes, long, in dept conversations with racists, scientists and policy makers, the authors own experience in these groups, etc and the latest publication from the KKK.
A seduction guide is the first. "Rapists Quarterly" is the second.
What you think isn't interesting, but I would like to see a comprehensive, well formulated argument as to why you think that; indeed I have commented extensively in this thread to find such an argument, but mostly its that all the other arguments just shame language (rape culture, you have a problem. I will be sincerely please if you could provide a good argument against my position.
Morality is a very complex topic that possibly can't be proven by logic anyway. Why is racism immoral, other than the fact that we, as a society, have decided that it's immoral?
I think seduction manuals are immoral because they essentially treat women like min-maxers do video games--do this, and your chance of success is raised by X%, follow this procedure to succeed, etc. It makes women into vending machines that, if the buttons are properly pressed in the right succession, will theoretically result in a prize--sex--being dispensed. I think that treating people like that is immoral. Can I prove this logically? Can I claim that this is a universal truth? Of course not, but the same is true for every moral stance.
Not facilitating the promotion of sexism and materials that essentially advocates for sexual assault isn't a statement on any gender, but rather the company is not there to support oppression.
Is it misogynist to learn what women like in a partner and attempt to be that? Isn't that making a world more according to women's preferences? How is that "hatred of women"?
If the author is wrong, and you write a better manual, many men struggling with the modern dating world will gladly buy your more effective book. But we aren't arguing fact, are we? We're arguing religion.
Women are, funnily enough, female members of the species homo sapiens and there is a lot of scientific evidence on what they find attractive in a potential mate.
Show me this evidence. If that is really your attitude towards women then it's no wonder you feel the need to read a book like this. Try a little respect for your fellow people, you'll have much more fulfilling experiences with women if you stop believing what science tells you and actually take an interest in the people around you
There's nothing this society hates more than beta males. Your comment confirms it. God forbid a guy ain't a natural with women and needs some advice. He's probably deformed, deranged, and dangerous.
My problem isn't with people needing advice to get laid, god knows I was terrible with women in my youth. What I don't appreciate is guides that focus entirely on how to get women into bed via what is effectively trickery and misogyny. It should be teaching fundamental respect, social awareness, equality, consent, self-appreciation - these are the qualities that will allow you to form lasting connections with people (and not just women). Yeah, these tricks might help you get a drunk girl into bed but she'll probably regret it afterwards and so will you!
Preaching to the wrong crowd. I love science, but I can't stand it when people try to apply 'logic and reeeason' to social concepts like this one. It's pseudoscience at best. We're human, not vulcan, after all...
How about the millions of people who didn't complain? Just because a handful of people who literally spend their entire lives seeking things to be offended by complained about something, doesn't mean their opinion is the majority, or more valid than anyone else's.
The problem I have with attitudes like this is that you're completely disregarding other people's opinions because you're not offended. If you're not part of the group being discriminated against then of course you're not offended - but that doesn't mean that people who do find it sexiest, discriminatory, offensive and oppressive have any less of a valid opinion. In fact I'd argue that it makes their opinion more valid. it's not hard just not to be an arsehole to other people.
No, I am not disregarding their opinions. They are perfectly entitled to their opinions. I am saying their opinions are not objectively correct simply because they are taking the active position of complaining, while people who aren't upset obviously don't make a lot of noise about how indifferent they are.
Also, nobody is being oppressed or discriminated against in this situation.
Is this a joke? Inferior? Women like to have sex just like men do. But many women, especially in their early 20s, are often reluctant to take the first step. So a man needs to take action. That's what the whole fuss is about.
And all seduction guides do is offer advise on how to do that, but somehow what is acceptable for every issue of Cosmo (and a fair number of mens magazines) isn't acceptable for a guide on kickstarter.
It's sarcasm. 'Women are sensitive, fragile, inferior creatures who require constant, vigilant protection from honorable men.' and therefore we must ban this kickstarter.
EDIT: Apparently the OP was being sarcastic, and I failed to read deep enough into the ASCII characters. But if he hadn't been sarcastic, I would've still said what I said below.
What the hell? I had to read this over 6 times to make sure I was understanding it correctly.
"Women are sensitive, fragile, inferior creatures who require constant, vigilant protection from honorable men."
That right there ladies and gentlemen, is the thinking that permeates and sustains misogyny throughout our world.
I understand that the original poster had good intentions, but the way is high and his eyes are definitely upon the ground.
Women are not sensitive, fragil, or inferior. Please avoid false blanket statements like this.
Sarcasm means you're not supposed to believe it. You were right the first five times you read it; you should have stopped there. I don't see any way in which this sarcasm was done poorly.
If you read the writings of the Guide's author and do not recognize that it is misogynistic and advocating sexual assault, you have a problem. That problem is that you are mistaking sexual assault for "taking the first step."
You do not need to resort to pulling out your dick and forcibly placing the woman's hand on it in order to "make a move." There's literally hundreds of other things that aren't sexual assault that you could do before resorting to that.
If you believe that's a reasonable "move" to make, then you not only have no imagination, but your judgment of what's acceptable behavior is way, way off. It doesn't matter if this is a woman who you're behind closed doors with for the first time, that's not a normal, acceptable "move". That kind of thing is for people already in an established, ongoing relationship with a solid foundation of consent.
Without that consent, it is assault.
I strongly urge all of you who "do not see the problem" with the author's writings to do more research into exactly what consent is, and what women (as a whole, obviously it varies from individual to individual) see as acceptable, expected behavior.
If women are loudly saying "This is assault.", you need to take them at their word, because it is their judgment, it is their consent that matters. Not yours.
Sincerely,
A married, 34 year old HNer who is ashamed of this community right now.
EDIT:
I thought this was obvious but I have already read all the comments in this thread and all the "context" the excusers are providing. If you think pointing me to that again is refuting my points, then you didn't understand what I wrote.