Live data from Hacker News

We were wrong

kickstarter.com

281–290 of 546 posts

Re: We were wrong

#281
post #159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 immediatel…

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).

Re: We were wrong

#282

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Freedom of Speech goes out the window when you start dealing with private enterprise. Kickstarter doesn't have the power to "ban" anything more than you or I. They're just addressing the kind of content they don't want to be promoting, which is totally within their rights.

There don't seem to be any direct competitors to kickstarter, so when kickstarter chooses to ban something from their site, they ban it from getting kickstarted. Just because they don't use violence doesn't mean they don't have power, or that their power doesn't come with responsibility.

The deep irony is that the people complaining about the book's supposed abuse of "male power over women", completely fail to acknowledge Kickstarter's power over its users, even though both the same concept.

Re: We were wrong

#283

It's easy to see why there aren't more women in computing with the mountain of rape culture, misogyny, and male privilege on display in these comments.

Because opinion here isn't dictated? Feel free to express your own opinions on the matter, but don't start with the slander because you dislike the opinion of others.

Re: We were wrong

#284

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

A woman is twice as likely to give you her number if you touch her on her shoulder or arm when you first meet her. Touch is a powerful social lubricant[1].

Is that psychology experiment now a hatefact that we must unlearn? Perhaps we should fire the psychologist who did the experiment.

[1] http://www.spring.org.uk/2011/04/10-psychological-effects-of...

Re: We were wrong

#285

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…

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.

Re: We were wrong

#286
Wait, I'm going to sidestep the whole book's ultra-crazy content and ask a kind of really obvious logistic question:

Why the hell was he doing a kickstarter for a book he could easily publish online for 0 money down and only cost him the time to write it and maybe get a copy editor?

The content of this book, and most similar unpopular material, is designed for the internet. That's how 50 Shades of Gray got its start, and there's been underground sex and erotica content for decades online. Doing a kickstarter just seems like a blatant scam or complete laziness, either are an indication that he won't finish the book.

So why the hell was he doing a kickstarter? Idiot.

Re: We were wrong

#287

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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,…

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.

Re: We were wrong

#288

Earlier quoted context omitted.

brilliant analogy apart from the bit where this guide actually does advocate sexual assault.

According to who? Your opinion? Did you even read the author's defense?

Yes of course I have. I have also read the guides on reddit where he tells the reader to sexually assault their partner.

Re: We were wrong

#289

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sorry, but if you're using a Disney film as an example of a good portrayal of women, you've already lost.

Ummmm... wut? I'm not using a Disney film as an example of a good portrayal of women, and neither is the author of the seduction book. The implication is that the Disney movie, made and marketed for children, has a song called "Kiss the girl" which is about as rape-y as the advice in the seduction manual. Which is to say not at all.

The whole premise of The Little Mermaid is paternalistic and problematic.

Re: We were wrong

#290
post #201

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.

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.

It doesn't matter where it is, or how often it is. People don't want both sides, they want to be outraged.
Post reply on HN