We were wrong • Hacker News Board

Re: We were wrong

#401

Post by newslyhorrified » Fri, Jun 21, 2013, 5:59 PM UTC

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…

>If you believe that's a reasonable "move" to make, then you not only have no imagination, but your judgment of what's acceptable behavior is way, way off. It doesn't matter if this is a woman who you're behind closed doors with for the first time, that's not a normal, acceptable "move". That kind of thing is for people already in an established, ongoing relationship with a solid foundation of consent.

Reading these comments has absolutely horrified me. I just realized that I have been sexually assaulted dozens of times and even raped on multiple occasions.

I was raped by a 17 year old girl when I was just 16 - and a virgin. She bought me alcohol, got me drunk, and while I was laying on my back on the couch, she got on top of me and without asking, pulled my pants down and enveloped my penis with her vagina. She didn't even ask my consent, which I did not give.

On more than one occasion, I have had a woman, without asking, touch my penis through my clothes and even put her hand down my pants. I remember one incident now in which, while confined in a car where I could not easily escape, a woman started grabbing my legs and crotch and although I repeatedly and seriously protested, she did not stop.

Multiple times a woman has grabbed my hand and forcibly moved it to her breasts, buttocks, and crotch, without seeking consent. More than one woman has sat down on my lap without asking permission. Numerous times women at bars have kissed me without asking permission.

When people talk about a Rape Culture, I guess this is what they mean.

Should I seek counselling?

Re: We were wrong

#402

Post by anonygirl » Fri, Jun 21, 2013, 5:59 PM UTC

gregd wrote: post #240

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…

The bullshit excuse I keep seeing about " taking quotes out of context " is making me mad. The author himself, removed those specific passages from his Reddit thread when the shit storm started brewing. If he worded what he wanted to say correctly and with the proper context, why remove them?

Some people are not comfortable with shit storms. I certainly wouldn't be. That doesn't necessarily mean they are wrong.

Re: We were wrong

#403

Post by evanmoran » Fri, Jun 21, 2013, 6:00 PM UTC

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…

To further explain the "fire" point above: What isn't obvious is that, while obviously immoral, the fire example is actually not a good way to test if something should be free speech protected.

Quoting from the article: "The "shouting fire" standard seems to require that the to-be-censored speech be (1) false, (2) said under circumstances in which there is no opportunity for reasoned reflection or debate, and (3) the cause of actual harm by those who hear it."

The problem is people who dislike free speech can argue that yelling "false" things shouldn't be protected. This is leads to selective enforcement.

The more narrowed definition was added in Brandenburg v Ohio tto something is protected under free speech unless it has a likelihood of inciting "Imminent lawless action".

Re: We were wrong

#404

Post by tomp » Fri, Jun 21, 2013, 6:00 PM UTC

Metrop0218 wrote: post #114

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…

"it is their judgment, it is their consent that matters. Not yours." Amen brother.

That's true, but if she lacks consent, she should also voice it/make it clear at some point (disregarding obviously illegal power-imbalanced situations such as student/teacher, boss/worker, ...). Someone shouldn't be charged with rape just because their partner, after passionately and vigorously fucking the whole night, says she actually didn't want to the whole time.

Re: We were wrong

#405

Post by Samuel_Michon » Fri, Jun 21, 2013, 6:04 PM UTC

tanderson11 wrote: post #387

300bps wrote: post #296

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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…

My experience is that women tend to communicate non-verbally much more than men do. For instance, if a women doesn’t like you, you probably won’t be sitting on her couch on a Friday night after having taken her out to dinner.

Also: in that scenario, trying to touch your date’s shoulder or leg, or approaching to kiss her, isn’t rape. It’s an opportunity for her to let you know whether you’ve interpreted her signals correctly.

Re: We were wrong

#406

Post by tomp » Fri, Jun 21, 2013, 6:04 PM UTC

Cushman wrote: post #393

figglesonrails wrote: post #383

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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…

Just as long as you understand that in this context, "live dangerously" means that you might rape people without meaning to, just because you couldn't think of a sexy way to say, "So do you wanna fuck?" That's an easy choice for me.

It's highly inappropriate for you to refer to "kissing someone", even if it's unwelcome, as "rape". Sexual assault, that's ok, even though I don't agree with it. But calling it rape is very disrespectful, maybe even insulting, to the victims of actual, violent penis-in-vagina rape.

Re: We were wrong

#407

Post by tanderson11 » Fri, Jun 21, 2013, 6:04 PM UTC

malandrew wrote: post #362

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…

"Without that consent, it is assault." I hate to be contrarian, because by the standards in most cultural spaces in the US I wholeheartedly agree with that statement, but I've traveled enough to know that there are exceptions to the exceptions people are taking with this material when you take culture differences into account. The majority of women in the majority of cultural spaces we on HN frequent of are saying it…

The cultural acceptability and effectiveness of the asking for consent is incidental to the issue at stake.

I honestly find it shocking that so many people on HN are having such difficulty accepting the principal of expressly verbalized consent. Surely we can move on from the notion that men need to "be dominant" and "force her to rebuff your advances".

While a particular culture may call for certain shifts in attitude, that does not mean verbalized consent is not important.

>I think Neil Gaiman's thoughts "Why defend freedom of icky speech" is particularly relevant here.

I think a key distinction between the subject of Gaiman's thoughts and the material at hand is that "Above the Game" purports to offer advice applicable to real word scenarios. This advice, however, will, unquestionably, lead to sexual assault if followed (not in every case, but in some).

I would certainly find it dubious for the United States Government to condemn the book, but I feel that Kickstarter's stance is defensible from the position of not wanting to be associated with such dangerous and callous material.

Re: We were wrong

#408

Post by bayesianhorse » Fri, Jun 21, 2013, 6:05 PM UTC

anaptdemise wrote: post #256

bayesianhorse wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It really really depends on the context and how you define "force". This doesn't even come close to mild sado maso. A kiss can be sexual assault, especially against minors. But even strangling (which I don't do and never did to a woman) can be part of consential sex. It's really sensitive subject. Let's not talk about fifty shades of gray... "Consent" isn't discussed enough. For example prostitution is widely seen as…

>For example prostitution is widely seen as consential, despite tons of evidence that prostitution hardly ever is a conscious, free career choice, and rape is rape no matter how much you pay to the pimp But you are entering the realm of misogyny again. The, "Oh, no one would wilfully chose this profession society finds immoral, they must be a victim of happenstance." It is a difficult thing to get around now days.

No. I'm not saying "no woman wilfully chooses". What I meant was that there is tons of evidence that completely wilful choice of prostitution is the exception, not the norm.

I'm also alleging that no "client" of prostitutes can know if the woman gets beaten regularly, was forced into prostitution, is coerced not to leave or was hooked on drugs. I don't believe a drug addict can consent to paid sex.

I don't believe illegal immigrants who were smuggled into a country and "indentured" can wilfully consent to prostitution. But their patrons choose to think so, and they look the other way.

Re: We were wrong

#409

Post by malandrew » Fri, Jun 21, 2013, 6:06 PM UTC

angersock wrote: post #285

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…

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…

This is my favorite comment here. I wish I could upvote both for the insight and eloquence as well as the ACK comment and deadlock comment.

Re: We were wrong

#410

Post by papsosouid » Fri, Jun 21, 2013, 6:06 PM UTC

lewispollard wrote: post #376

papsosouid wrote: post #323

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 val…

No, I am not disregarding their opinions. They are perfectly entitled to their opinions. I am saying their opinions are not objectively correct simply because they are taking the active position of complaining, while people who aren't upset obviously don't make a lot of noise about how indifferent they are.

Also, nobody is being oppressed or discriminated against in this situation.