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

451–460 of 546 posts

Re: We were wrong

#451

Post by king_jester »

shawabawa3 wrote: post #169
Metrop0218 wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Is it sexual assault if I do that to my girlfriend of 5 years?" It is if she says it is. That's the whole point, you don't decide, the circumstances don't decide, only she can decide.

And the book says "If she says no, stop immediately". My point was that I would hope I don't have to ask permission after 5 years without it being sexual assault, therefore whether that action is sexual assault is context dependent.

Long term relationships are different from early dating, you have your own communication and boundaries with your long term partner that are really different than when you are first starting out. However, domestic rape is real and yes you can totally sexually assault your partner and you do not have automatic consent just because you've been in a relationship.

That said, this book advocates doing physically violating things to all women you would date in a short term time period, which is the kind of thing a serial rapist does.

Re: We were wrong

#452

Post by figglesonrails »

Cushman wrote: post #437
figglesonrails wrote: post #421

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 o…

Excerpts from a random hit on the subject of enthusiastic consent, in re: Stubenville: In the aftermath of the guilty verdict, several people observed that many of the teens at the party didn’t realize that this was rape. To them, the fact that the victim was unconscious didn’t mean anything. “I didn’t know this was rape,” said one witness. “It wasn’t violent.” ... In many ways, the focus on “no” puts the burden – ye…

Seems pretty straightforward to me. There are legal requirements for an action to be considered rape. -- In the first case, it really is quite trivial. Unconscious is not making a choice. Hence, "mentally competent". I suppose you could accidentally rape someone if you didn't know what rape meant, but if someone only told you "rape is sex without consent" and you fucked an unconscious person, surely if they took 2 seconds to think about it, they'd realize there is (and can be) no consent. I'm sure the people didn't really think it was perfectly fine to have sex with them. -- In the second case, it may be true that women have a more difficult time saying "no", but that doesn't absolve them of responsibility. Perhaps it is a failing that more women have sex when they don't really want to (but never express it), but legally, it would not be rape, so I don't see why this is being brought up. I agree that this scenario is unfortunate and but it doesn't warrant locking up a person. Yes, we should all strive to be sensitive to the needs of our partners, but realistically, some girls even feign consent when they really mean "I don't care much for it" or "if you'll cheer up afterwards" or "if you'll like me more" -- i.e. disinterest or questionable motives.

In summary, let's keep rape as a reserved term for obvious and gratuitous violations. This "accidentally raped" is kind of stupid.

Re: We were wrong

#453

Post by king_jester »

tomp wrote: post #380
Cushman wrote: post #167

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

Survivors of sexual assault and rape may most certainly call an unwelcome kiss sexual assault and it may be a hugely triggering thing that causes a relapse. You don't get to decide what someone's boundaries are just because you want something from them.

Re: We were wrong

#454

Post by king_jester »

scarmig wrote: post #207
garethadams wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

”5) Get CLOSE to her, damn it! To quote Rob Judge, “Personal space is for pussies.” I already told you that the most successful seducers are those who can’t keep their hands off of women. Well you’re not gonna be able to do that if you aren’t in close! ” “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…

Please don't try to combat sexism with homophobia, you aren't helping anyone.

Re: We were wrong

#456

Post by king_jester »

newnewnew wrote: post #243
hacker789 wrote: post #28

Women are sensitive, fragile, inferior creatures who require constant, vigilant protection from honorable men. If it becomes necessary to take a few quotes out of context in our noble quest to protect the fairer sex, so be it. Kudos to Kickstarter for adhering to feminist principles. > The thing that the commenters on social media are leaving out is that the advice was taken from a section in the guide offering advic…

The tension in feminism between sexual liberation, on the one hand, and repression of male sexuality on the other is remarkable. And make no doubt, feminism is now included in the official religion of our day. How long before "misogynist" tweets are banned on twitter? Before "misogynists" are kicked off of facebook? And don't worry gentlemen, it is not violating your freedom of speech because these are private compan…

> The tension in feminism between sexual liberation, on the one hand, and repression of male sexuality on the other is remarkable.

Male sexuality isn't the domination of women and feminism makes no attempt to quash people's sexuality. This is pretty close to attributing social strata and gender roles to biological determinism, which is totally false.

> And make no doubt, feminism is now included in the official religion of our day.

Feminism has not been and is not a religion. Further, given the existing statistical data about social inequality, we can most certainly say that feminism is NOT a mainstream point of view for must people in the United States.

> How long before "misogynist" tweets are banned on twitter? Before "misogynists" are kicked off of facebook?

Given how much misogynistic stuff is on both facebook and twitter, never. But rest assured people will call you out for misogynistic crap and they are right to do so.

> And don't worry gentlemen, it is not violating your freedom of speech because these are private companies controlling every means of communication you have...

The nature of capitalism and corporatism w.r.t. the internet is another discussion to have.

> We are slouching towards a soft tyranny of the mind, driven by the marxist ideology that each member of an "inferior" group has the right to not be offended.

Feminism is not Marxism, except maybe that women as a class have a right to control the output of their labor (like all laboring classes), but that's another kind of discussion. If you believe that people challenging misogyny and kickstarter projects like this that promote rape and sexual assault is some kind of encroachment of your life, then you are part of the problem.

Re: We were wrong

#457

Post by tanderson11 »

Samuel_Michon wrote: post #429
tanderson11 wrote: post #419

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Even using one of the most ridiculous straw-man arguments I have ever seen, you still fail to make your point. Surely the benefits of being able to participate in the immense amount of activities that exist outside your house is worth the risk. In other words, the benefits outweigh the costs. Asking consent comes at negligible cost. Correct me if I am wrong, but I tend to think rape and assault is worse than opening my mouth.

Furthermore, the risk of being struck by lightning is one you accept when you exit the house. The same is not true in the actual object of the discussion because the victim of your actions will primarily be your would-be partner.

Finally, I find it extremely offense that you assert that the amount of sexual assaults that can be attributed to failure to obtain adequate consent to the chances of being struck by lightning upon exiting your house.

--

Assuming that you do not present the best arguments for your side (at this point, I feel very safe in this assumption), I will acknowledge that, in a committed and well established relationship, it is possible to have sex without first asking for consent. Still, I am reluctant to encourage people to do so, and many sexual assaults occur in committed relationships. It is so easy to ask; I cannot see why someone would refrain from doing so.

EDIT: On further thought, I feel comfortable saying that after having asked consent each time a relationship progresses, that, in a committed relationship,it is safe to rely on non-verbal cues.

Re: We were wrong

#458

Post by Samuel_Michon »

king_jester wrote: post #446
figglesonrails wrote: post #398

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Nothing of the sort was written. The text in question:

“Even when a girl rejects your advances, she KNOWS that you desire her. That's hot. It arouses her physically and psychologically.”

Which may or may not be true, but nowhere did the author suggest to the reader that he should carry on after the girl objects. He strongly advises against it.

Re: We were wrong

#459

Post by silverlake »

blocking_io wrote: post #157
merlincorey wrote: post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From the author: > 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. If "Don't wait for signs, make the first move" promotes sexual assault, then "Kiss the Girl"…

Sorry, but if you're using a Disney film as an example of a good portrayal of women, you've already lost.

I was just curious about this Disney song everyone mentions. It's actually kinda' weird:

  Yes, you want her
  Look at her, you know you do
  It’s possible she wants you, too
  There is one way to ask her
  It don’t take a word
  Not a single word
  Go on and kiss the girl

Re: We were wrong

#460

Post by hackinthebochs »

king_jester wrote: post #438
hackinthebochs wrote: post #351

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Touching someone without their permission is just something you shouldn't be doing. I think its pretty clear reading the comments on this post who has actual experience in typical social settings and who doesn't. (Hint: you don't)

Ah of course, respecting people's physical boundaries makes me anti-social.

Respecting people's physical boundaries does NOT mean verbally requesting permission to enter their personal airspace! Why must you guys pretend non verbal communication doesn't exist?
Post reply on HN