We were wrong • Hacker News Board

Re: We were wrong

#381

Post by blocking_io » Fri, Jun 21, 2013, 5:46 PM UTC

tomjen3 wrote: post #368

blocking_io wrote: post #293

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am not shutting down the debate. I am not declaring anyone a monster. I am merely pointing out that if you are defending the guide, you are defending a sexual assault manual. That is the reality of the situation.

Now you go a head and do it again - simply declaring your point of view as fact is shutting down the debate. Please, post your arguments and how you came to your conclusion not just state it (I think schools used to call it show your work).

Here's my comment to someone else.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5919383

Re: We were wrong

#382

Post by tomp » Fri, Jun 21, 2013, 5:47 PM UTC

Cushman wrote: post #279

tomp wrote: post #260

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. It is, of course, somewhat sad that our culture taught us it's inappropriate and shameful to talk about sex, and that we're more comfortable having sex with someone than we are talking about sex. That's also why the most comm…

> 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…

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

How often does she ask you?

Re: We were wrong

#383

Post by figglesonrails » Fri, Jun 21, 2013, 5:47 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.

"No doubt in your mind that..." != "It is true that..."

This is the problem with your argument. I'll admit it, I don't explicitly "ask consent" and there have been times where there was "no doubt in my mind", and yet, I was rejected. :(

But if I was rejected, then I've clearly committed sexual assault in the most strict sense.

It's called "misreading a situation". You may think something is enthusiastic consent, but it isn't. Hence, why I will continue to ignore your advice and "live dangerously" by attempting to interpret the situation and predict the other partner's desires by other subjective and unreliable means such as body language and the nebulous concept of "where we are in our relationship".

Re: We were wrong

#384

Post by blocking_io » Fri, Jun 21, 2013, 5:47 PM UTC

merlincorey wrote: post #364

blocking_io wrote: post #288

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Please link to said guide and describe exactly how to navigate to this section.

Here you go:

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:40tT3ne...

Search for 'permission' to find him directly telling the reader not to ask for consent.

Re: We were wrong

#385

Post by zedshaw » Fri, Jun 21, 2013, 5:47 PM UTC

Zelphyr wrote: post #333

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.

Looked like he already had people talking about it, and this was definitely not planned. It's a stroke of pure luck not genius.

Re: We were wrong

#386

Post by Cushman » Fri, Jun 21, 2013, 5:49 PM UTC

Samuel_Michon wrote: post #335

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.

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!’

> 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.

Consent to mutual masturbation is not consent to intercourse. If things are really going that well, asking her if she wants to have sex should elicit an enthusiastic "YES!"

But sometimes it does not, and in those situations my desire not to seem obtuse is overpowered by my desire to not rape people.

Re: We were wrong

#387

Post by tanderson11 » Fri, Jun 21, 2013, 5:49 PM UTC

300bps wrote: post #296

Cushman wrote: post #231

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…

>And for what? To avoid the embarrassment of saying, "So do you wanna fuck?" How old are you? I'm not the person you wrote this to, but I can answer that I am 41 years old, have been married for 11 years and have three children (including a daughter). When I think of the little scene you've played out there occurring, I see the biggest nerd in the world getting his first chance at making out with a girl when he awkwa…

> In fact, every woman I've talked to about the subject has told me that it's specifically unwanted.

Is it so hard to believe that a woman (or man) may be uncomfortable expressly saying "No" in a given circumstance? Just because you have anecdotal evidence about woman you have talked to does not mean that we should adopt practices that those woman would like the most.

If 1 in 100, 1,000, or even 10,000 people do not like forward advances and feel paralyzed to say no in such circumstances, we should ask for consent because otherwise 1 in however many thousand times it would be rape or assault.

Shockingly, the correct course of action may not actually optimize people's chances of picking up women or men. Yet a culture of rape is a far greater price to pay than having a little more trouble getting dates or having sex. You might, in fact, actually have to ask someone, before touching them or 'shoving your penis in their vagina'.

Re: We were wrong

#388

Post by tomp » Fri, Jun 21, 2013, 5:50 PM UTC

A woman has never asked me if I wanted to have sex... Rape? Sexual assault? Come on!

Re: We were wrong

#389

Post by driverdan » Fri, Jun 21, 2013, 5:51 PM UTC

angersock wrote: post #193

hacker789 wrote: post #181

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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…

"Take your exposed penis, and thrust it into her vagina." wait wait wait that's what ive been doing wrong this whole time? and here i was thinking i was just sterile! EDIT: Really, folks? No sense of humor here sometimes, I swear. Not to worry--the NSA is keeping record of jokes for all posterity!

This isn't Reddit. Pointless humor posts are discouraged and downvoted.

Re: We were wrong

#390

Post by thatswrong0 » Fri, Jun 21, 2013, 5:51 PM UTC

blocking_io wrote: post #306

dionidium wrote: post #195

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> The author advises his readers to assume that their partner consents to sexual activity.

And this is a direct misinterpretation of what the author said. The author states:

> From now on you must ASSUME that she is attracted to you and wants to be ravished.

There is a difference. The author says that you should assume the woman is attracted to you, not that she is consenting to sexual activity. It's pretty damn clear. He further states that if a girl says no at any point, you stop.