481–490 of 546 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yeah, if you do shit like this you are Schrödinger's rapist, i.e. completely dependent on consent you do not know you have.
I have a hard time believing a jury would convict someone of sexual assault for placing someone's hand on their penis if they were already (consensually) fingering that person.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Is it sexual assault if I do that to my girlfriend of 5 years? Do you need to read a how-to book in order to seduce your girlfriend of 5 years?
How is that relevant? You are essentially using a shame argument. The answer is yes, everybody needs to become much better seductors. Why? Take a look at the divorce statistics and then imagine what they would look like if people were receptive to their parters needs (and actually cared about them). My guess is low, single digits and almost no messy divorces.
Regardless of that, the book is not about managing long-term relationships. Ostensibly, it's about how to get relationships started in the first place. Therefore, whether a given interaction may or may not be appropriate with a girlfriend of 5 years is irrelevant to the conversation. That was my point.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Is it sexual assault if I do that to my girlfriend of 5 years? Do you need to read a how-to book in order to seduce your girlfriend of 5 years?
How is that relevant? You are essentially using a shame argument. The answer is yes, everybody needs to become much better seductors. Why? Take a look at the divorce statistics and then imagine what they would look like if people were receptive to their parters needs (and actually cared about them). My guess is low, single digits and almost no messy divorces.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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 relig…
Feminism is absolutely Marxism. Why are the struggles of men in society ignored and belittled, while the struggles of women have entire university departments dedicated to them? Why is inequality only decried in one direction? Because we are not witnessing an earnest attempt to make society better. Rather, it is Marxists acting out class conflict. The uberclass must be defeated by the underclass. When you hear the wo…
> Why is inequality only decried in one direction? Because we are not witnessing an earnest attempt to make society better. Rather, it is Marxists acting out class conflict. The uberclass must be defeated by the underclass.
Social inequality on various axes are decried. Racism, classism, gender phobia, sexism, and other injustices are constantly the focus of criticisms, new policy efforts, academic study, and cultural discussion. Classism and sexism are intersectional and related, but that doesn't mean that is one and only one form of analysis and criticism.
> When you hear the word "oppression" think Marxism and class conflict.
Analysis of class and oppression isn't just Marxism, there have been decades and decades of new thought and discussion on those topics.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You are aware rape usually occurs in private settings. Just because some one has decided to go to a private place with you does not mean they've given consent. And this kind of behavioural priming will gear men to steam roll over someone who isn't giving consent, hence sexual assault.
He doesn't say "Now, get her somewhere no one can hear her. Be sure to have your duct tape handy and then force your hand down her pants..." It's a piece of advice on how to start being physical with a girl you're dating. So many guys will have a girl that's interested over to drink and watch a movie and just sit there a couch cushion away. Put yourself in your 16-20 year old shoes.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Now we're getting somewhere in this conversation. What you're advocating is that we should universally change established cultural norms to protect the very small minority who might be actually harmed by a misread signal. Most people wouldn't agree. Most people can accept the fact that miscommunications happen and brush it off as a fact of navigating a complex social world. It's unfortunate for those that can't do th…
What I'm saying is that this kind of thing isn't necessarily an established cultural norm and that even if there is an established cultural norm people have a right to their physical space and safety. If we are willing to discards the concerns of marginalized people then we as a society are only ever going to support dominant groups and paradigms, which is not useful for handling systemic inequalities like racism, sexism, etc.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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…
From your comments in this thread I strongly get the feeling that you have never had sex. So for the people who have not had sex I'll try to describe how it goes. If you are fingering somebody and then make a move to insert your penis, there is plenty of opportunity for that person to say no or pull away, if she/he does not want it. It's not like you make a lightning fast move and before your partner has a chance to…
In instances of sexual assault, this is not at all true and there are a variety of complicating factors that go into sexual assault situations that negate this statement. Just reading the stories of sexual assault survivors is enough to illustrate how not true this is.
> If every man followed the methods that you describe here and elsewhere in the thread, the human race would die out in one generation.
Ah yes, taking care and being sure of consent certainly means the death of humankind.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Agreed. The more dangerous precedent is that they are willing to cave to a vocal group who may or may not be right. Without defending the material, because I frankly can't, I am troubled to see Kickstarter imposing its own value judgements on projects, and even worse than that, now subject themselves to the value judgements of whichever populace can prove to be the most vocal.
Private company. They are free to cave in to demands from a vocal minority if they so choose. They are free to ban anything remotely non-religious or atheistic, if they so choose. If you feel so strongl about it, start your own company that will publish and market products in line with your values, get together with like-minded people to start an advocacy group and most importantly, vote with your dollars and encoura…
And individuals are free to criticize them for their decision. If they indeed caved to the demands of a vocal subgroup of people, then it is only logical for people that didn't like this decision to voice their own opinions, perhaps inspiring another vocal subgroup: fighting fire with fire.