We were wrong • Hacker News Board

Re: We were wrong

#371

Post by tomp » Fri, Jun 21, 2013, 5:41 PM UTC

theorique wrote: post #318

Cushman wrote: post #287

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Does this consent have to be verbal, or does active participation count? (e.g. Kissing back, tugging at or removing your clothing, unzipping your fly, etc) To me, those are clear evidence of a desire to progress toward sex. (Obviously, if she says stop, do so.)

Well, maybe active participation counts, but only if YOU give her verbal consent. Or that's the way I understand their argument...

Re: We were wrong

#372

Post by 300bps » Fri, Jun 21, 2013, 5:42 PM UTC

tomp wrote: post #320

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…

> Yes. It goes both ways, regardless of gender. Did you expect me to disagree with this? Well, the only thing I can say is that I'm glad I live in Europe, where people are still normal and not yet so frigid/distrustful that they need to talk about everything before they do it.

>Well, the only thing I can say is that I'm glad I live in Europe, where people are still normal and not yet so frigid/distrustful that they need to talk about everything before they do it.

Fortunately, it's like that in the U.S. too for most people. There is a very vocal minority here that is making things way more complicated than they actually are in real life. This was my favorite quote from the person you're responding to:

>I'm in a committed, long-term relationship now, and I still ask her regularly if I'm not sure if she wants to.

This is unbelievable to me. I think the typical woman confronted with this behavior would look for a new boyfriend - one that isn't so amazingly timid. As a married person I can't imagine asking my wife "regularly" for permission to have sex. I know her signals, she knows my signals and if either of us put out a signal the other person isn't up for we volunteer, "Not tonight" and that's the end of it.

To imply that to not receive explicit verbal affirmative permission is equal to rape is unbelievably insulting and delusional.

Re: We were wrong

#373

Post by bmelton » Fri, Jun 21, 2013, 5:42 PM UTC

gregd wrote: post #357

bmelton wrote: post #235

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

From Wikipedia: "Censorship is the suppression of speech or other public communication which may be considered objectionable, harmful, sensitive, or inconvenient as determined by a government, media outlet, or other controlling body."

Kickstarter exercising their control to restrict the publication of this material meets the clinical definition of censorship, even though they aren't the government. Again, I'm not saying that it wasn't within their rights to do so; it was, but being within their right doesn't make it something else.

You are right, however. I misread the statement that the project was defunded as that the moneys had been returned. The statement that they make though, at least to me, indicates that they would have defunded the project if they hadn't missed the window.

If that was their intent, I am no less saddened by it. If their actual intent was to miss the window on purpose, and then issue this apology, I am no less saddened by it.

Re: We were wrong

#374

Post by xauronx » Fri, Jun 21, 2013, 5:43 PM UTC

mindstab wrote: post #257

angersock wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

According to the author, that was taken from a section on what to do once already in a private setting: "The thing that the commenters on social media are leaving out is that the advice was taken from a section in the guide offering advice on what to do AFTER a man has met a cute girl, gotten her phone number, gone on dates, spent time getting to know her, and now are alone behind closed doors fooling around." Out of…

You are aware rape usually occurs in private settings. Just because some one has decided to go to a private place with you does not mean they've given consent. And this kind of behavioural priming will gear men to steam roll over someone who isn't giving consent, hence sexual assault.

He doesn't say "Now, get her somewhere no one can hear her. Be sure to have your duct tape handy and then force your hand down her pants..."

It's a piece of advice on how to start being physical with a girl you're dating. So many guys will have a girl that's interested over to drink and watch a movie and just sit there a couch cushion away. Put yourself in your 16-20 year old shoes.

Re: We were wrong

#375

Post by papsosouid » Fri, Jun 21, 2013, 5:44 PM UTC

Cushman wrote: post #365

papsosouid wrote: post #319

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>You do not get to treat a group of people as property for thousands of years Ignoring the fact that your scenario is absurd hyperbole, and men had things just as shit as women did, the you in question wasn't involved. Nobody in this discussion ever owned a woman. Pretending they committed some horrible crime to justify your prejudice is pathetic.

Ignoring the fact that the status of women as property was a literal and legal fact for thousands of years... I don't subscribe to such a convenient ethics, I'm afraid. The enormous power I derive from the society I live in I owe, in good part, to racial slavery, to the genocide of the people who lived where I live now, and, yes, to the systematic oppression of women, all in the name of the very nation I now consider…

>Ignoring the fact that the status of women as property was a literal and legal fact for thousands of years

No, it wasn't. You are deliberately conflating the life of some women to that of women period. It would be every bit as absurd and dishonest to claim that "the status of men as property was a literal and legal fact for thousands of years" because some men were slaves.

> By my privilege, I owe a moral debt to those murdered, enslaved, and terrorized people, and if it cannot be repaid it should at least be atoned for.

Yes, I know that your beliefs are hilarious. I am not suggesting that I do not understand them, but rather that they are in fact ridiculous. You can not atone for someone else's actions, and even if you could, being a whiney, hypersensitive bully on the internet is not atoning for anything.

Re: We were wrong

#376

Post by lewispollard » Fri, Jun 21, 2013, 5:44 PM UTC

papsosouid wrote: post #323

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?

How about the millions of people who didn't complain? Just because a handful of people who literally spend their entire lives seeking things to be offended by complained about something, doesn't mean their opinion is the majority, or more valid than anyone else's.

The problem I have with attitudes like this is that you're completely disregarding other people's opinions because you're not offended. If you're not part of the group being discriminated against then of course you're not offended - but that doesn't mean that people who do find it sexiest, discriminatory, offensive and oppressive have any less of a valid opinion. In fact I'd argue that it makes their opinion more valid. it's not hard just not to be an arsehole to other people.

Re: We were wrong

#377

Post by malandrew » Fri, Jun 21, 2013, 5:45 PM UTC

hacker789 wrote: post #181

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…

"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…

   "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?

Exactly. I highly recommend anyone that disagrees or doesn't believe this statement to watch the interviews commonly found at the end of any BDSM kink.com videos. Those interviews at the end are enlightening for anyone with a narrow vanilla view of how sex should be. Different sexual practices and preferences are really no different than the spectrum of music preferences out there and equally valid.

Re: We were wrong

#378

Post by xauronx » Fri, Jun 21, 2013, 5:45 PM UTC

rlt wrote: post #308

king_jester wrote: post #254

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

Or anywhere in the public for that matter.

Re: We were wrong

#379

Post by angersock » Fri, Jun 21, 2013, 5:45 PM UTC

Cushman wrote: post #344

angersock wrote: post #285

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 lik…

The phrase you're looking for is "enthusiastic consent". You're not looking for a signed contract. You're looking to have absolutely no doubt in your mind that your partner genuinely wants to do what you want to do. That just happens to be about a thousand times easier if you can talk about it like a (sexy) grownup. Believe it or not, one goal of this policy is more, and better sex.

I don't disagree that being able to talk openly about these things is good.

I assert, though, that the climate today makes it very treacherous to do so--and that even if it didn't, there still is a chicken-and-egg problem in learning how to do it. Vocaroo and similar services seem to be a starting point for folks these days.

Honestly it isn't something you just know how to do (especially if you are prone to over-analysis of your actions), and the chance of making a lot of trouble for yourself is non-trivial.

Re: We were wrong

#380

Post by tomp » Fri, Jun 21, 2013, 5:45 PM UTC

Cushman wrote: post #167

cm2012 wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

First off, I'm also married and have never read a seduction book. However, I'd like to quote some other comments from this thread to refute you. > The thing that the commenters on social media are leaving out is that the advice was taken from a section in the guide offering advice on what to do AFTER a man has met a cute girl, gotten her phone number, gone on dates, spent time getting to know her, and now are alone b…

> Also, would all women who have seen the full story and context call it assault? Would they call it assault in real life? Probably not. The point of this exercise is to be proactive about not hurting people. "Would they call it assault?" is a question that should simply not be on the table. This isn't a difficult concept.

Yes, because sensible people (men and women) wouldn't call a well-meaning, but miscalibrated and thus unwelcome kiss sexual assault.