We were wrong • Hacker News Board

Re: We were wrong

#301

Post by ownagefool » Fri, Jun 21, 2013, 5:08 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…

The problem with this advice is that the majority of woman in the majority of cultures will pretty much be put off by you asking.

They do not want sex to be like that, go ahead, ask a woman. They want spontaneity, they want a man to take control, they want to feel desired.

Actually demanding that consent be explicitly verbal suggests that you're a white knight who hasn't been with a lot of woman.

Re: We were wrong

#302

Post by roc » Fri, Jun 21, 2013, 5:08 PM UTC

loumf wrote: post #71

roc wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

At the same time... if this same content was written as fiction, with the viewpoint character/hero accomplishing his goals through these same methods and relaying that same philosophy through dialogue or internal monologue, would it be (as) problematic?

Of course it wouldn't. Is that surprising? Fiction is different from a how-to manual and should be treated as such. It's not just the literal words in a particular paragraph, it's also the surrounding context.

I agree the context matters, but there's a long history of equivocating the fictional and instructional, on the part of people who try to draw these lines with regards to speech. [1]

I simply don't think the line is as clear-cut, for many of those who were outraged at Kickstarter. I think the company may have inadvertently stepped out onto a PR tight-rope.

[1] Note the use of words like 'murder simulator'/'rape simulator' or the outrage and claims of sexism/homophobia/stereotyping whenever there's a fictional representation of a character or situation that happens to (however briefly) conform to some stereotype.

Re: We were wrong

#303

Post by Helianthus » Fri, Jun 21, 2013, 5:08 PM UTC

DanielBMarkham wrote: post #249

META: I know it's wrong to talk about flagging, but I think it's also important for the community for people to try to bring up good reasons to flag posts. I read the linked article, I skimmed many of these comments, and hell if I got anything useful at all from them. Dating standards and decisions about misogyny and important topics, but they're also highly subjective. We HN'ers could argue until the cows come home…

Provided HN is going to remove categories of posts, I've always advocated banning gender discussion from HN. It's just not the forum for it, and it's the same circle of discussion you see on r/politics.

HN is a "cultivated" free speech zone, which is another way to say it's an arbitrarily censored forum where some legitimately objectionable material is filtered away, some good material is lost through false positives, and we _still_ frequently have garbage content and constantly moan about it because the "cultivated" part is supposed to mean we only see gold.

To state plainly what I see in this topic: white men talking about feminism presumptuously. White knighting; "as a man, I..."; mansplaining.

They're all terms I hate because they totally box out men from participation, which is destructive and actually its own topic.

But they apply here.

Re: We were wrong

#304

Post by tomjen3 » Fri, Jun 21, 2013, 5:08 PM UTC

dirkgadsden wrote: post #136

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…

This isn't a legal issue. You can write all you want promoting rape culture. Kickstarter, as a private company, is well within their rights and Terms of Service to pull your project if they find it in bad taste. And they should most definitely be commended for deciding that rape-culture-promotion is inappropriate.

Did I say it was a legal issue? No, it is a PR issue, or rather, it can become a PR issue. It may be my right to tell my neighbor he is an idiot and that I hate him, but that doesn't mean it is very smart or likely to make me popular.

Re: We were wrong

#305

Post by Samuel_Michon » Fri, Jun 21, 2013, 5:08 PM UTC

scarmig wrote: post #271

WA wrote: 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…

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.

Re: We were wrong

#306

Post by blocking_io » Fri, Jun 21, 2013, 5:08 PM UTC

dionidium wrote: post #195

blocking_io wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

I think what you're experiencing here is a crowd that isn't satisfied with claims of intrinsic wrongness that don't include evidence. You do realize that you're not allowed to just state opinions as facts, right? That's not really how arguments work around here.

This is a direct quote from a guide written by the author of the guide under discussion:

Never, ever, ever, wait for a SIGN before you escalate! You will miss out on the vast majority of chances if you sit around waiting for SIGNS. Men are notoriously bad at reading women's minds and body language. Don't think that you're any different. From now on you must ASSUME that she is attracted to you and wants to be ravished. It's a difference in mindset that makes champs champs and chumps chumps…

Decide that you're going to sit in a position where you can rub her leg and back. Physically pick her up and sit her on your lap. Don't ask for permission. Be dominant. Force her to rebuff your advances

The author advises his readers to assume that their partner consents to sexual activity. This is a recipe for sexual assault. At some point one of his readers will misread the signs put out by a partner and they will sexually assault them.

Re: We were wrong

#307

Post by earh » Fri, Jun 21, 2013, 5:09 PM UTC

mathattack wrote: post #223

I am a fan of "I'm sorry" posts, though they have become frequent enough to become cliche. When they put a $25K donation behind the apology, then it's a lot more than false humility. "Fourth, today Kickstarter will donate $25,000 to an anti-sexual violence organization called RAINN. It’s an excellent organization that combats exactly the sort of problems our inaction may have encouraged." Well done!

KS got shaken down by a mob for $25K. Well done by the mafia, indeed.

Re: We were wrong

#308

Post by rlt » Fri, Jun 21, 2013, 5:09 PM UTC

king_jester wrote: post #254

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. Tou…

Oh please, we're now comparing touching someone's shoulder in a night club with sexual assault? If you don't want any contact at all with other human beings you probably shouldn't be in a night club.

Re: We were wrong

#309

Post by theorique » Fri, Jun 21, 2013, 5:09 PM UTC

superuser2 wrote: post #112

DannoHung wrote: post #24

Look at all these HNers defending sexual assault.

Is there proof that the guide was promoting sexual assault?

No. It suggested aggressive tactics for communicating your interest in a girl, not sexual assault.

Doesn't seem to have slowed down the twitter / tumblr hysteria at all, though.

Re: We were wrong

#310

Post by apendleton » Fri, Jun 21, 2013, 5:09 PM UTC

effbott wrote: post #218

apendleton wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not sure I agree with the parent poster, but I think he/she is well aware of the distinction you're drawing, and says so up front. Certainly, legal freedom-of-speech protections don't require Kickstarter to host any particular content. But Kickstarter can still espouse freedom of speech as a value they try to uphold in their practices, even if they're under no legal obligation to do so. I think as more and more of ou…

How far do you take this? Kickstarter is a business and needs to make money. Should it be acceptable for people to Kickstart escort businesses, "legal high" websites, or Amway pyramid schemes? All of those things are legal but are seen by the public as being slimy and taboo. Why would Kickstarter want to associate with these people?

Right, I'm not saying the all-free-speech route is the right answer for Kickstarter; in fact, in my personal opinion, it probably isn't. I'm just saying it's a reasonable question to ask, reasonable people can disagree about the answer, and the whole discussion is orthogonal to whether or not the first amendment obligates them to do anything in particular (since it doesn't).