We were wrong • Hacker News Board

Re: We were wrong

#261

Post by king_jester » Fri, Jun 21, 2013, 4:51 PM UTC

shawabawa3 wrote: post #77

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.

Actually it's completely context dependant. The context, which is conveniently being ignored in most of the discussion, is that at this point you are already "fooling around", at which point it might actually be a fairly reasonable thing to do. It also says "If she says no, stop immediately"

What you are describing is still sexual violence. Forcing someone into a form of contact they didn't consent to, even if there has been some other kind of intimate contact, is still sexual violence. A lot of sexual assaults occur in this way.

Re: We were wrong

#262

Post by tomp » Fri, Jun 21, 2013, 4:51 PM UTC

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.

So how do you get into a long-term relationship if not by seducing your partner?

Re: We were wrong

#263

Post by newnewnew » Fri, Jun 21, 2013, 4:51 PM UTC

loumf wrote: post #226

jenius wrote: post #201

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Woah, really big difference here. I wish this was up towards the top of the comments so people got both sides of the issue before pointing fingers.

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…

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?

[1]http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/15534510701316177...

Re: We were wrong

#264

Post by scarmig » Fri, Jun 21, 2013, 4:52 PM UTC

newnewnew wrote: post #243

hacker789 wrote: post #28

Women are sensitive, fragile, inferior creatures who require constant, vigilant protection from honorable men. If it becomes necessary to take a few quotes out of context in our noble quest to protect the fairer sex, so be it. Kudos to Kickstarter for adhering to feminist principles. > The thing that the commenters on social media are leaving out is that the advice was taken from a section in the guide offering advic…

The tension in feminism between sexual liberation, on the one hand, and repression of male sexuality on the other is remarkable. And make no doubt, feminism is now included in the official religion of our day. How long before "misogynist" tweets are banned on twitter? Before "misogynists" are kicked off of facebook? And don't worry gentlemen, it is not violating your freedom of speech because these are private compan…

Right not be offended?

Right not to be groped or sexually assaulted, you mean. They're offensive, but much more than that too.

Re: We were wrong

#265

Post by Cushman » Fri, Jun 21, 2013, 4:52 PM UTC

newnewnew wrote: post #243

hacker789 wrote: post #28

Women are sensitive, fragile, inferior creatures who require constant, vigilant protection from honorable men. If it becomes necessary to take a few quotes out of context in our noble quest to protect the fairer sex, so be it. Kudos to Kickstarter for adhering to feminist principles. > The thing that the commenters on social media are leaving out is that the advice was taken from a section in the guide offering advic…

The tension in feminism between sexual liberation, on the one hand, and repression of male sexuality on the other is remarkable. And make no doubt, feminism is now included in the official religion of our day. How long before "misogynist" tweets are banned on twitter? Before "misogynists" are kicked off of facebook? And don't worry gentlemen, it is not violating your freedom of speech because these are private compan…

Male sexuality is not about violence, and repression of violence is not repression of male sexuality. Signed, a man.

Re: We were wrong

#266

Post by tomp » Fri, Jun 21, 2013, 4:52 PM UTC

gregd wrote: post #240

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…

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?

Actually, he didn't. Open [1] and search for "permission" and "dick". It's all right there.

[1]: http://www.reddit.com/r/seduction/comments/1dvnem/above_the_...

Re: We were wrong

#267

Post by Samuel_Michon » Fri, Jun 21, 2013, 4:52 PM UTC

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…

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.

Re: We were wrong

#268

Post by bmelton » Fri, Jun 21, 2013, 4:53 PM UTC

loumf wrote: post #251

bmelton wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

And again, all perfectly within their rights to do.

Barnes and Noble not selling every book though has less to do with the content of any particular book and more to do with its overall sales figures, I imagine. Not stocking the Kama Sutra because it's offensive is a problem (which is probably best suited to Davis Kidd booksellers); not stocking the Kama Sutra because it doesn't sell is a business decision.

I have no idea how YouTube manages their videos, so I can't comment on that.

HN is community moderated, and that's a feature, not a bug.

All of the above though are different entirely from a project being approved, fully funded, then removed after the fact as a response to a vocal opposition group.

Re: We were wrong

#269

Post by dkokelley » Fri, Jun 21, 2013, 4:54 PM UTC

iandanforth wrote: post #222

dkokelley wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A couple of points: 1) The project creator has freedom of speech to a point. For one, he cannot yell "Fire" in a crowded theater unless there actually is a fire. He also cannot advocate or call for illegal activity by others (such as "Go and mug that guy walking down the street"). This is where the line of protected speech gets blurred. Reading some excerpts from his works it's clear that he advocates for aggressive…

1) I think you may be incorrect about the advocating of illegal acts thing, but neither am I a lawyer so lets agree on "they could get sued out of existence." Totally valid. 2)A larger point is that the public/private divide is a false dichotomy. We have our lives and we want to be able to express ourselves. So my point is that the difference between the government and kickstarter banning something is one of degree b…

You may be correct on 1), but take a look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandenburg_v._Ohio There are a few tests that have to be met. The key piece is "The Court held that government cannot punish inflammatory speech unless that speech is directed to inciting, and is likely to incite, imminent lawless action."

On point 2), I still think there is a clear difference in kind between government and private entity bans. The government can enforce their bans with legal threat of violence (i.e. You can go to prison). Another point of distinction is that within private spaces there may be implicit endorsement by the private space owner. For instance you have the public right to promote a political candidate, but if you do it by planting a sign on my lawn, it is implied that I endorse that candidate. I may not want to make that endorsement and restrict you from posting your sign, but that is not nearly the same as the government saying "No one may publish endorsements for Communist Party members".

Re: We were wrong

#270

Post by king_jester » Fri, Jun 21, 2013, 4:55 PM UTC

So many of the comments here are trying to justify this project's content by saying this are things to do when you are with something you've already been dating/wooing. I just want to say that the majority of sexual assaults are perpetrated by someone the victim knows and that ANY kind of intimate contact does not justify further contact that someone has not consented to. Saying otherwise is an attempt to justify rape.