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

331–340 of 546 posts

Re: We were wrong

#331

Post by lewispollard »

newnewnew wrote: post #250
lewispollard wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well of course the misogynist doesn't believe he's misogynistic. Why should his opinion matter more than the hundreds of people who complained?

Is it misogynist to learn what women like in a partner and attempt to be that? Isn't that making a world more according to women's preferences? How is that "hatred of women"? If the author is wrong , and you write a better manual, many men struggling with the modern dating world will gladly buy your more effective book. But we aren't arguing fact, are we? We're arguing religion.

Yes, because women, funnily enough, are individual human beings with their own tastes and desires.

Re: We were wrong

#332

Post by tomjen3 »

ebbv wrote: post #107

Dear fellow HN dwellers, 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…

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.

Re: We were wrong

#333

Post by Zelphyr »

zedshaw wrote: post #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,…

Brilliant actually. Look at all the people talking about his book now.

Re: We were wrong

#334

Post by dkokelley »

AnIrishDuck wrote: post #248
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…

> For one, he cannot yell "Fire" in a crowded theater unless there actually is a fire. This meme really needs to die. The "fire in a crowded theater" standard hasn't been relevant for half a century [1]. > He also cannot advocate or call for illegal activity by others (such as "Go and mug that guy walking down the street"). This sounds like the "imminent lawless action" standard [2]. IANAL, but it seems that the "imm…

Regarding "fire in a crowded theater", I don't see how it's any less relevant that it was in the past, regardless of the context it was first used in. The concept is that I say something false in order to cause a panic and through the panic cause harm. (Admittedly I only skimmed the article linked. If I missed where the article specifically addresses this, I apologize.)

Regarding the second point, the "imminent lawless action", this is where having a good lawyer would come in to play. It's a matter of definitions and arguing for a definition to side your way.

Kickstarter might not be breaking any constitutional laws, but that doesn't prevent them from being sued or even having a judgement declared against them. Again, this goes to the use of a good lawyer to make arguments for defining the role Kickstarter played. Are they an active participant, or just a neutral 3rd party (like perhaps a bank where a criminal stored stolen money).

I'm not saying that this is the only reason, or even the main reason that Kickstarter wants to prohibit something like this. I'm only saying that I believe legal liability is a legitimate concern in this case.

Re: We were wrong

#335

Post by Samuel_Michon »

Cushman wrote: post #287
Samuel_Michon wrote: post #267

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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!’

Re: We were wrong

#336

Post by mwfunk »

Anderkent wrote: post #170
mwfunk wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This was clearly, obviously, blatantly not in response to anyones hangups about sex in general. Not wanting to be associated with creepy, rapey stuff written by and for creepy, rapey people is hardly Puritanical, it's more like being a human being.

But judging this content as creepy and rapey is quite puritanical. All this screams about rape for something that sums up to "you're about to have sex? Don't ask her to grab your dick, guide her hand to it".

No, it is not.

Re: We were wrong

#337

Post by gregd »

gregd wrote: post #277
tomp wrote: post #266

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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_...

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.

Re: We were wrong

#338

Post by rlt »

king_jester wrote: post #234
garethadams wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

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).

That advice is also for after you've been (consensually) kissing, fondling, fingering, etc.

At some point the meaning of "sexual assault" will be so diluted it's meaningless.

Re: We were wrong

#339

Post by papsosouid »

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…

See, this is exactly the sort of ridiculous, reactionary nonsense at the heart of these crusades. No, touching someone's shoulder is not rape. You may define yourself as the moral minority, selflessly protecting everyone from imaginary evils, but your opinion is a tiny, minuscule, insignificant minority. Virtually everyone disagrees with you.

Re: We were wrong

#340

Post by Cushman »

angersock wrote: post #314
Cushman wrote: post #279

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 sched…

"It's fun when it happens spontaneously" You do, of course, realize the absurdity of your statement here, given this: "Without a clear verbal confirmation of consent, or an explicit proactive action, you cannot know if your partner is participating willingly." How does that work, exactly?

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."
Post reply on HN