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

421–430 of 546 posts

Re: We were wrong

#421

Post by figglesonrails »

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.

This is so wrong on many levels, but briefly:

1) The legal definition of rape (at least in most states?) makes it such that one cannot "accidentally" do it.

Keywords: "[by means of] force", "duress", "physical resistance", "objected verbally".

A woman who was: * Not forced * Had no duress * Not physically resisting * Not verbally objecting * Mentally capable of making decisions

...is considered to be consenting. In other words, and perhaps contrary to the way you believe it should be, THE LAW REQUIRES YOU TO EXPRESS YOUR DISCOMFORT OR ELSE THERE IS NO PLAUSIBLE WAY THE OTHER PERSON COULD KNOW. Sorry. :(

If a person has sex but later decides they weren't really that into their partner, wished that they didn't, wished that they had stopped it earlier -- it's not rape. Regret and the discomfort / dissonance that comes from it is a far cry from traumatic, forced rape.

2) You know long before you were "accidentally raping" someone whether or not they were consenting.

Re: We were wrong

#422

Post by merlincorey »

blocking_io wrote: post #384
merlincorey wrote: post #364

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The chapter linked appears to be called "Physical Escalation and Sex" and seems to be very late in the book.

Consent is assumed in the situation because of all the stuff leading up to it. Like the getting the number, the going out on dates, talking a lot, and finally ending up alone with them in their or your own residence.

Are you sure you've had sexual congress with a woman before? As many other posters are pointing out in this thread, most real women absolutely do not want to be asked for permission every step of the way.

Furthermore, the author includes quite a bit of text about respecting when consent is explicitly withdrawn, which is something I hope we can all agree is a good thing, without getting lost in, "but you should discuss it first". Most people don't, and that's the reality we live in.

Re: We were wrong

#423

Post by hamax »

tomp wrote: post #347
king_jester wrote: post #326

Earlier quoted context omitted.

1) Power imbalance exists in general between men and women, in favor of men 2) Rapists and society at large often blame rape victims for not resisting enough. Rapists do not have a problem with a lack of consent and relying on victims to stop their own assault is completely unacceptable. The kickstarter project in question advocated for physically violating actions to be undertaken by would-be assaulters and put the…

2) Rapists don't care about Kickstarter banning a seduction manual; they aren't seducing. 1) I don't think so; strength imbalance maybe, but not power imbalance. In fact, when it comes to sex and intimate relationships, women are usually more trained in socializing and have the upper hand in choosing a mate, and are strongly favoured by the courts [1] and the police [2]. [1]: http://voices.yahoo.com/presumed-fathers-…

Bot of your citations are totally irrelevant to the issue of power imbalance in private settings.

Re: We were wrong

#424

Post by malandrew »

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…

    "all the "context" the excusers are providing."
To call everyone participating in civil discourse in this thread as merely "the excusers" is an admission of dogmatism, regardless of your statement of "having already read of all the comments in this thread". The discussion does not end because you say it ends with your comment as the last word on the matter.

dogmatism - "the tendency to lay down principles as incontrovertibly true, without consideration of evidence or opinion of others"

Re: We were wrong

#425

Post by Cushman »

papsosouid wrote: post #375
Cushman wrote: post #365

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 th…

And I understand you don't feel any culpability for evil done by others in your name and for your benefit. I suppose we will have to agree to disagree.

Re: We were wrong

#426

Post by kamjam »

garethadams wrote: post #128
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'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

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UoI3O2HE9qg

Reminds me of this comedian. In one of his clips he talks about how he hates people recording his gigs on mobile phones etc, etc because then they are free to selectively show parts of a skit: http://youtu.be/Z3fZutYufGE?t=26m15s

Context means everything.

Re: We were wrong

#427

Post by hamax »

tomjen3 wrote: post #343
king_jester wrote: post #230

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is such a load of shit. There are so many circumstances in which someone may feel powerless to say something or engage in a resistive act, or may be physically incapable of doing so that the time. Rapists use the justification of lack of "acceptable" resistive force all the time, there is no place for this kind of comment.

There is at least a thousand ways to say no, and only a few of them requires the use of a word. And there may be times where women feel powerless, but unless they actually are powerless (that is the man wouldn't respect it if they said no) feeling has little and less to do with real world. Also please remove your last sentence. HN is a place that values discussions with a high intellectual content and it cheapens you…

You're trying to shift the burden here. Consent is not opt-out it's opt-in.

Re: We were wrong

#428

Post by tomp »

hamax wrote: post #423
tomp wrote: post #347

Earlier quoted context omitted.

2) Rapists don't care about Kickstarter banning a seduction manual; they aren't seducing. 1) I don't think so; strength imbalance maybe, but not power imbalance. In fact, when it comes to sex and intimate relationships, women are usually more trained in socializing and have the upper hand in choosing a mate, and are strongly favoured by the courts [1] and the police [2]. [1]: http://voices.yahoo.com/presumed-fathers-…

Bot of your citations are totally irrelevant to the issue of power imbalance in private settings.

Yes, they're only relevant in situations when other parties are called upon to resolve a conflict that started in a private setting.

Re: We were wrong

#429

Post by Samuel_Michon »

tanderson11 wrote: post #419
Samuel_Michon wrote: post #405

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 co…

Isn't a culture where rape and sexual assault happens a pretty steep price to pay for the allure and romantic nature of non-verbal communication? Most of the time, nothing bad will happen if you depend on non-verbal cues, but in the minority of times your advances may unwanted, and the person feels uncomfortably verbally rebuffing them. In these instances, assault or even rape can and_does_happen. Simply asking for c…

If I leave my house, I might get struck by lightning. I’d better not leave my house ever again.

Re: We were wrong

#430

Post by 6d0debc071 »

WA wrote: post #159
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…

Ask 100 women if they find it romantic to be kissed without being asked or if they want to be asked first. I'm pretty sure the answer is: being kissed, don't ask. The author writes on reddit: IMPORTANT NOTE ON RESISTANCE: If at any point a girl wants you to stop, she will let you know. If she says "STOP," or "GET AWAY FROM ME," or shoves you away, you know she is not interested. It happens. Stop escalating immediatel…

> Ask 100 women if they find it romantic to be kissed without being asked or if they want to be asked first. I'm pretty sure the answer is: being kissed, don't ask.

That depends on the man. I don't want someone I don't want to kiss me without asking. I don't want them to kiss me at all, but I'd prefer that they ask than just try it.

Do you think that women just want men to randomly walk up to them in the street and kiss them? If you don't, then there's obviously some communication that's meant to be going on.

The guide puts the onus for that on the woman. If she doesn't want it, then she has to MAKE you stop:

'Don't ask for permission. Be dominant. Force her to rebuff your advances.'

Which is just a really disgusting mindset. Do you think anyone wants to have to make you leave them alone? And you have to acknowledge that some people are going to be too shy to make you stop.

It's an oversimplification to ask whether women would like someone to ask before kissing them. Not all communication is so blatantly verbal.

These sorts of guides don't help the fact that a lot of the boys reading them are poorly socialised to begin with, and are essentially being set up to rape some shy girl who may not feel confident enough to stop you doing something she's not really interested in. And that does a disservice to him and her - because I don't feel like, unless he's a total psycho, he wants to rape someone.

The book's attitude essentially seems to be that the author feels it acceptable to make people very uncomfortable, and risk raping someone, just because he doesn't want to take the chance that he'll turn off a potential date.

Post reply on HN