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.
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.