We were wrong • Hacker News Board

Re: We were wrong

#351

Post by hackinthebochs » Fri, Jun 21, 2013, 5:31 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…

>Touching someone without their permission is just something you shouldn't be doing.

I think its pretty clear reading the comments on this post who has actual experience in typical social settings and who doesn't. (Hint: you don't)

Re: We were wrong

#352

Post by tomp » Fri, Jun 21, 2013, 5:32 PM UTC

Cushman wrote: post #340

angersock wrote: post #314

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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."

Well, that's exactly what I believe that the author of the book was saying, if one reads his text with a slightly different, more realistic, bias. He wrote the book exactly because many men, after having heard lectures from people like you, fail to notice and act upon even the most enthusiastic non-verbal consent.

Re: We were wrong

#353

Post by Samuel_Michon » Fri, Jun 21, 2013, 5:33 PM UTC

scarmig wrote: post #330

Samuel_Michon wrote: post #305

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 t…

Really? Please. Read the damn quote: Every woman you flirt with. Touch them immediately. Be shameless in your physicality. When a girl rejects your advances, she knows that you desire her, and it arouses her physically and psychologically. Stop trying to evade what the quote says and trying to find some legalistic way of misreading its plain meaning.

I don’t know what you think ‘touching’ entails, but I think you’re reading too much into it. He didn’t write “Every woman you meet, grab her crotch!’. If you touch someone’s shoulder, that hardly qualifies as sexual harassment.

Re: We were wrong

#354

Post by solarmist » Fri, Jun 21, 2013, 5:33 PM UTC

I can't believe I haven't seen a single comment about non-verbal communication. No, a girl doesn't want you to ask for a kiss (it comes off as incredibly lacking in self confidence), but she better be touching you, smiling a lot (at you not just in general), laughing at your jokes, playing with her hair and/or many other things that show you she's saying she wants you to go further.

Everyone here is talking exclusively about verbal communication, but in courting non-verbal communication is the key context. Women are masters of it, but most men are only barely aware of it and that's where most of the problems in these kinds of materials come from and how well authors teach inept men how to read and respond to body language is what really separates a decent "dating" guide from a misogynistic "how to get charged with sexual assault" guide.

The Guide's author is a horrible writer and only makes passing references to reading non-verbal communication, but builds all of his "techniques" upon it. That's why they are all so horrible.

If you're chatting with a girl and she's smiling, playing with her hair and glancing down when you make prolonged eye contact you're probably okay to brush against her arm or touch her shoulder or elbow or even if you're bold pick her up and put her in your lap (but that'd force a girl to immediately decide if she likes you or to reject you).

In contrast if you're talking at a girl and she answers in the minimum length sentences, won't look at you, and has her arms crossed then touching her in anyway is going to make her want to get the hell away form you.

Similarly if you're in your bedroom because she came home with you when you invited her, you've been making out and her shirt is off then opening your pants and putting her hand on your penis probably isn't the smoothest thing, but probably isn't a deal breaker for her at that point either.

Again opposed to you sharing a taxi with her and asking her 10 times if you can come up for coffee/tea/drink then once you're inside her place and pulling your penis out, that's probably going to get you thrown out at the very least if not having the cops called on you.

This guide focuses exclusively on what the guy should "do" which, without a similar guide on how to know how and when to "do" those things, will lead to bad out comes if not sexual assault. It's written from the perspective of an instruction manual for a video game/passive object (the girl), which is a lot of what misogyny is all about, do A then B then C and you save the princess.

Re: We were wrong

#355

Post by Helianthus » Fri, Jun 21, 2013, 5:34 PM UTC

scarmig wrote: post #311

Helianthus wrote: post #276

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>You boys need a lesson in basic empathy. Don't talk down to me. >Now, don't skip that scenario: I want you to stop and think about it in detail. How would it make you feel? Do you feel turned on? Do you feel violated? I take control of the situation by removing myself from the situation or making a scene. And I get over it. Look, I'm queer and I'm actually pretty sympathetic to the anti-seddit et al crowd. But the n…

There is obviously a world of difference between verbal aggressing and physical aggressing. Verbally, different situations call for different things: when people need to know that what they're arguing for is unacceptable in a very bad way, you speak to them with contempt. The hardcore PUA crowd will shake it off, but people at its periphery better understand that it's a bad thing. But physically, aggressing against s…

>There is obviously a world of difference between verbal aggressing and physical aggressing.

That's cute, honey. Why don't you leave the real talk to us men?

I hope you see my point, but to make it more clear: boundaries are boundaries, and disrespect is disrespect.

You are making an argument about magnitude, and I am making an argument about conflict.

Now I'm going to break a rule about respecting victims, and I hope you respect that it's for the purposes of argument:

>In a crowded bus, a guy continually rubbed his hand against my hand despite my trying to move away and escape him.

So shout at him. Lay into him like you're laying into me ("you're a bad person if you think it's acceptable"--as if I even said such a thing!) and make it devastatingly clear that you won't stand for it.

You don't owe anything to the status quo, the peace of mind of other people on the bus, the rules of decorum, _anything._

It's not a solution because it's unrealistic due to inherited gender roles blah blah (and don't lay into me about _that_, Ms. "you boys"), but I really wish more women were just _loud_ about things like this.

I _like_ loud women.

Re: We were wrong

#356

Post by figglesonrails » Fri, Jun 21, 2013, 5:34 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…

This advice leads to sexual assault? Come on. Yeah, in the strictest sense, you do not have a legal right to her bubble of space and she can charge you for sexual assault for leaning in for a kiss.

OR, she can be a normal, non-litigious person and reject you. She can say "no", turn her head, take a step back, etc. and you know what, she won't be worse for the wear, mentally or physically. I promise!

I mean, at that rate, a girl could indicate that she wants you to rub her off, but charge you for sexual assault because Simon Didn't Say Touch My Breasts. Good god, please let this never happen to anyone.

Please, stop spreading advice that any and all action must be done with full and explicit consent. American society doesn't value that. Watch romance movies sometime. This is what girls grow up with. This is how many girls wish to be treated. They know how to operate in those scenarios. They understand the roles of each and have predefined expectations long before you meet them. They want their lives to play out like the most romantic scenes from their favorite movies. They want spontaneous adventure. They want unexpected trips and kisses in the rain. They want to stare in your eyes and for you to lean in. Defy these norms at your own risk.

I mean, fundamentally, what you are saying is just that: go against cultural norms because it's better for the girl that way. Says who? You? Her? "Society"? Feminists? Movies? I, for one, do not buy this line of thinking.

In the beginning, I expect relationships with people who aren't too sure about each other might well be represented by a series of try { } catch { } and throw CourtshipAdvanceNotAcceptedExceptions. Fine, this is par for the course. This is quite a bit different from throwing a lawsuit.

The people you should worry about are the ones who after rejection occurs, grab their victim and proceed to force their actions anyways.

Re: We were wrong

#357

Post by gregd » Fri, Jun 21, 2013, 5:34 PM UTC

bmelton wrote: post #235

gregd wrote: post #224

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're confusing censorship with boycotting. I don't care if his book gets published...just by nobody I do business with.

I really don't think I am. The actions of the petitioners (or at least the threats thereof, whether or not they were made) could have been seen as boycotting, at some point, in the future, but the actions of Kickstarter terminating an already funded project and refunding the donated moneys is a notion far closer to censorship than to boycotting.

Kickstarter isn't censoring anybody. They don't have a military to enforce the censorship. They didn't refund the money. They made a donation to RAINN instead. The POS still gets to publish his book and the backers still get their copy.

There is no censorship in saying, you don't get to use my platform for that.

Re: We were wrong

#358

Post by papsosouid » Fri, Jun 21, 2013, 5:34 PM UTC

dirkgadsden wrote: post #80

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.

Odd you should say so. My wife is a programmer, and distances herself from the online computing world not because of "misogyny", but because of this insane crowd of privileged people who insist on pretending to be victims in her name.

Re: We were wrong

#359

Post by cgranade » Fri, Jun 21, 2013, 5:35 PM UTC

garethadams wrote: post #49

maximilianburke wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When the guide is written like a rape manual, yes, yes it is. It features quotes like: "Pull out your cock and put her hand on it. Remember, she is letting you do this because you have established yourself as a LEADER. Don't ask for permission, GRAB HER HAND, and put it right on your dick." (from: http://www.reddit.com/r/seduction/comments/1dvnem/above_the_... ) The whole thing is disgusting, degrading, and has no pl…

That particular comment is taken from a part of the guide where you're already with a girl in "a private, intimate setting". It's assuming that you're with someone who's already comfortable around you. It's not saying that you should get naked in a nightclub with someone you've just met.

So you're supposed to wait until you're alone with a woman before you sexually assault and/or rape her? That's not an improvement, and doesn't negate that it's still very much so a rape manual.

Re: We were wrong

#360

Post by tomp » Fri, Jun 21, 2013, 5:36 PM UTC

scarmig wrote: post #330

Samuel_Michon wrote: post #305

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 t…

Really? Please. Read the damn quote: Every woman you flirt with. Touch them immediately. Be shameless in your physicality. When a girl rejects your advances, she knows that you desire her, and it arouses her physically and psychologically. Stop trying to evade what the quote says and trying to find some legalistic way of misreading its plain meaning.

And where is the suggestion that you should keep touching her when she rejects your advances?