We were wrong • Hacker News Board

Re: We were wrong

#441

Post by king_jester » Fri, Jun 21, 2013, 6:45 PM UTC

rlt wrote: post #338

king_jester wrote: post #234

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It doesn't matter how many dates you've been on, if you do this and the person didn't want that you are committing an assault. You don't get a license to do something just because you invested some amount of time or energy into dating, saying otherwise is a direct promotion of rape (remember, the majority of rapes are committed by someone known to the survivor).

That advice is also for after you've been (consensually) kissing, fondling, fingering, etc. At some point the meaning of "sexual assault" will be so diluted it's meaningless.

> At some point the meaning of "sexual assault" will be so diluted it's meaningless.

Sexual assault is crystal clear, you can do whatever you want with your partner(s) with consent, nobody cares at that point. The minute you take past activity as a license to do what you want without someone's permission is the minute you cross the line into assault.

Re: We were wrong

#442

Post by tomjen3 » Fri, Jun 21, 2013, 6:45 PM UTC

arrrg wrote: post #349

tomjen3 wrote: post #215

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Seduction manuals aren't morally wrong, though, (they may be factually wrong and/or sleazy, but not morally) but racism is. Think of the difference between a book on the history of racism, with very explicit quotes, long, in dept conversations with racists, scientists and policy makers, the authors own experience in these groups, etc and the latest publication from the KKK. A seduction guide is the first. "Rapists Qu…

I think seduction manuals are morally wrong.

What you think isn't interesting, but I would like to see a comprehensive, well formulated argument as to why you think that; indeed I have commented extensively in this thread to find such an argument, but mostly its that all the other arguments just shame language (rape culture, you have a problem. I will be sincerely please if you could provide a good argument against my position.

Re: We were wrong

#443

Post by Dewie » Fri, Jun 21, 2013, 6:46 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…

You should go to Latin America and tell them that they've been interacting in a universally inappropriate way all this time.

Re: We were wrong

#444

Post by king_jester » Fri, Jun 21, 2013, 6:47 PM UTC

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-…

> 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].

This is completely not accurate. Women are more likely to be murdered by their partners, men have better outcomes in family court when they pursue parental rights, men overwhelmingly commit sexual assaults (against all genders), and men do not experience sexual violence at the hands of police as often as women.

Re: We were wrong

#445

Post by king_jester » Fri, Jun 21, 2013, 6:52 PM UTC

malandrew wrote: post #377

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…

"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 van…

Folks into BDSM are (or should be) overwhelmingly clear about consent, pre-negotiating their play and having things like safe words. That is worlds apart from what the project is advocating, which is to take actions without pre-negotiated consent and to ignore objections made by your partner. Anybody in the scene will tell you that engaging in that kind of shit without clearing it ahead of time (esp. way ahead of time in a non-sexual situation) is someone who is committing real actual rape.

Re: We were wrong

#446

Post by king_jester » Fri, Jun 21, 2013, 6:55 PM UTC

figglesonrails wrote: post #398

scarmig wrote: post #330

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 hate to break it to you, but humans (and animals!) value touch very, very much. Flirting without touching is not as effective at creating a bond. Generally, I'd say this advice is fairly sound, if your goal is to make another human being feel more connected to you. But of course, touching someone when they aren't interested does not create a bond, because they weren't interested in the first place. So yeah, if your…

The project doesn't say touch is good, it associates that any time you touch a woman and she rejects that advance or tries to distance herself, she is actually just really aroused and should totally keep going. That is: IGNORE WOMEN'S OBJECTIONS TO YOUR VIOLATING OF THEIR SPACE, CONTINUE TO VIOLATE THEIR SPACE. This is literally the mindset of rapists.

Re: We were wrong

#447

Post by papsosouid » Fri, Jun 21, 2013, 6:58 PM UTC

Cushman wrote: post #425

papsosouid wrote: post #375

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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.

What evil was done in my name, or for my benefit? You are deliberately conflating someone incidentally benefiting from something with it being done to benefit them. Your consistent, deliberate dishonesty speaks volumes about your faith in your beliefs.

Re: We were wrong

#448

Post by king_jester » Fri, Jun 21, 2013, 7:00 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…

> So, instead we find ourselves in this curious place where young men who mean well want to get with young women who also mean well. Unfortunately, the women are brought up expecting that the men will do the work, initiate everything, and the men are increasingly told that hey need to--to be safe and respectful, mind you!--wait for explicit confirmation of every step.

This is so laden with sexism it cannot be taken seriously. No, most women are not brought up expecting men to do all courtship and it silly to assume so. Further, in the context of how men treat women the dominant social narrative is sexual violence perpetrated by men your problem as a victim, so the reality is that the kickstarter project in question advocates taking advantage of this narrative to get sex without clear consent, which is outright rape.

Re: We were wrong

#449

Post by xtrumanx » Fri, Jun 21, 2013, 7:00 PM UTC

turtlerose wrote: post #324

king_jester wrote: post #261

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What you are describing is still sexual violence. Forcing someone into a form of contact they didn't consent to, even if there has been some other kind of intimate contact, is still sexual violence. A lot of sexual assaults occur in this way.

So trying to kiss a girl that you've been out on several dates with is sexual assault?

According to what I've gleaned from the folks against this book, you need explicit verbal consent before proceeding with that kiss even if the girl in question has been with you for several years. If not, you may possibly be unwittingly sexually assaulting her because she was too afraid to say no. Even if she kisses you back, she may be doing so out of fear.

So the key takeaway is; you can never be sure if you're raping someone or if you had implied verbal consent so if you don't have explicit verbal consent, stay the hell away from her.

And for you shy people who don't have the courage to ask your partners for verbal consent and never get asked; it's better to be celibate than a potential rapist.

Re: We were wrong

#450

Post by king_jester » Fri, Jun 21, 2013, 7:02 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.

Uh, this is literally the difference between raping someone and not raping someone. A lot of people have different levels of comfort with intimate activity, some people may not want to have more than a certain level of contact. Just going for it and not talking about it puts the burden on your partner, which in our society puts that person in a position of being an uptight downer or just suffering through an experience they don't want (yes this is acquaintance rape and it is a real thing).