Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

We were wrong

kickstarter.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

251–260 of 546 posts

Re: We were wrong

#251

Post by loumf »

bmelton wrote: post #110
tomjen3 wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

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.

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.

Re: We were wrong

#252

Post by tomjen3 »

blocking_io wrote: post #86
emiljbs wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Oh, wow, really? So just because some people are asking "Hey, is there something intrinsically wrong with these guides or what?" they're defending sexual assault.

Yes, because there is something intrinsically wrong with these guides.

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.

Re: We were wrong

#253

Post by abstractbill »

jmduke wrote: post #217
hacker789 wrote: post #181

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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 ta…

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? This is a book on seduction, not a book on long-term relationships. I'm not defending the OP, but don't be intentionally dense.

You can (and probably should) seduce someone you've been married to for years.

Re: We were wrong

#254

Post by king_jester »

xauronx wrote: post #4

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…

> 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.

Re: We were wrong

#255

Post by eatitraw »

Cushman wrote: post #199
hacker789 wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Oh yes. I'm sure everyone would agree history has been so much easier on men than on women. The world isn't black and white.

Everyone doesn't agree the Holocaust happened, either. It's not hard to understand why.

Why are you so sure that you aren't the one who "denies Holocaust" in this discussion?

Re: We were wrong

#256

Post by anaptdemise »

bayesianhorse wrote: post #75
deong wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Grabbing a woman's hand and forcing her to touch your exposed penis is, I think, sexual violence by almost any reasonable standard.

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…

>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.

Re: We were wrong

#257

Post by mindstab »

angersock wrote: post #108
citricsquid wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.” http://caseymalone.com/post/53339539674/this-is-not-fucking-...

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…

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.

Re: We were wrong

#258

Post by rlt »

BCM43 wrote: post #202
rlt wrote: post #175

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If I'm in a club and I pull my dick out and forcibly place a random woman's hand on it, then of course that's sexual assault. If I do the same thing in a bedroom with a woman who I've already been (consensually) fondling, is it?

If you do it without asking, then yes.

Really? Have you explicitly ask for permission every at every step of physical escalation in every relationship you've ever been in?

At some point there's implied consent to continue moving forward. If not, then I fear there are hundreds of millions of sexual assaults every day.

Re: We were wrong

#260

Post by tomp »

Cushman wrote: post #231
angersock wrote: post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Have some context: http://pastebin.com/zwHYzCZe Sincerely, A HNer who is ashamed of the lack of reading comprehension of this community right now.

This "defense" misses the point. 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…

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!

Post reply on HN