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

501–510 of 546 posts

Re: We were wrong

#501

Post by dirkgadsden »

Chris2048 wrote: post #283
dirkgadsden wrote: post #80

It's easy to see why there aren't more women in computing with the mountain of rape culture, misogyny, and male privilege on display in these comments.

Because opinion here isn't dictated? Feel free to express your own opinions on the matter, but don't start with the slander because you dislike the opinion of others.

Slander is spoken falsehood, I think you meant libel. Also something is only a falsehood if it is false, and much of the writings here are quite characteristic of misogyny, rape culture (esp. apologetics), and male privilege as commonly used in SWE.

Re: We were wrong

#502

Post by Samuel_Michon »

tanderson11 wrote: post #457
Samuel_Michon wrote: post #429

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> Asking consent comes at negligible cost.

In all the scenarios I’ve provided, the girl will have given dozens of non-verbal cues for the guy to act. If the guy then still feels he needs to ask, there’s a real possibility that the girl gets turned off.

If the girl didn’t want to make out, she wouldn't have repeatedly have gone on dates with you, she wouldn't have invited you to her place, she wouldn't have lit candles, she wouldn't have sat on the couch with you, she wouldn't have asked you whether you like the perfume she's wearing, etc etc.

And on the off chance that all these things did happen but she doesn't want to make out, she will have told you by then. She knows way better than you what kind of signals she's giving off.

And lastly, if you misinterpreted her signals and you reach for a kiss, all she has to do is not lean into it. This can happen if you think you’re on a date, while she thinks you're just good friends (she may have thought you were gay). Trying to kiss her clears all that up, and it's better done sooner than later. The longer you wait to kiss her, chances increase she thinks you're not into her.

Re: We were wrong

#503

Post by theorique »

tomp wrote: post #371
theorique wrote: post #318

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Does this consent have to be verbal, or does active participation count? (e.g. Kissing back, tugging at or removing your clothing, unzipping your fly, etc) To me, those are clear evidence of a desire to progress toward sex. (Obviously, if she says stop, do so.)

Well, maybe active participation counts, but only if YOU give her verbal consent. Or that's the way I understand their argument...

Presumably, if "A" (male) is pushing forward and initiating sexual action, he's consenting ... the question is whether "B" (female) is also consenting.

The question I'm asking is that if both parties are expressing 'forward motion' in terms of their actions and their body language, is it necessary to have verbal consent?

Or are you violating consent if you assume their apparent physical interest substitutes for verbal consent?

Re: We were wrong

#504

Post by theorique »

Cushman wrote: post #344
angersock wrote: post #285

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

The phrase you're looking for is "enthusiastic consent". You're not looking for a signed contract. You're looking to have absolutely no doubt in your mind that your partner genuinely wants to do what you want to do. That just happens to be about a thousand times easier if you can talk about it like a (sexy) grownup. Believe it or not, one goal of this policy is more, and better sex.

One of the key questions is, can consent be given via physical actions and body language?

Or does it have to be given via verbal instructions?

If a girl is touching you back, tugging at your clothes, unzipping your fly - is that some form of communication? Or is it meaningless?

Re: We were wrong

#505

Post by balsam »

philliphaydon wrote: post #164

I'll probably get down voted for this, but reading through what was written, and based on the fact woman LOVE the book, 50 shades of grey. I'm kind of lost as to why on one side everyones offended, and on the other side its what they desire... Yet get offended.

This book: purportedly gives power to men. 50 shades of grey: describes a powerful man ceding power to a woman. Conclusion: politics brings out the extremes in people.

Re: We were wrong

#506

Post by Samuel_Michon »

theorique wrote: post #503
tomp wrote: post #371

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, maybe active participation counts, but only if YOU give her verbal consent. Or that's the way I understand their argument...

Presumably, if "A" (male) is pushing forward and initiating sexual action, he's consenting ... the question is whether "B" (female) is also consenting. The question I'm asking is that if both parties are expressing 'forward motion' in terms of their actions and their body language, is it necessary to have verbal consent? Or are you violating consent if you assume their apparent physical interest substitutes for verba…

> The question I'm asking is that if both parties are expressing 'forward motion' in terms of their actions and their body language, is it necessary to have verbal consent?

Judging by romance flicks set in modern times, teen pop songs, advertising, and women’s magazines, Western culture says ‘no’ — the guy is supposed to pick up on non-verbal hints and take the wheel. (In reality, she’s already put the car into ‘Drive’, but she wants to give the guy the idea he’s in control)

Now, over time I’ve become fairly religious, and last year I’ve vowed not to have sex before marriage, but even with a girl who shares my faith, she expects me to try something (everything up to actual sex). Otherwise, she thinks I’m not into her (no sexual chemistry = no marriage).

Re: We were wrong

#507

Post by hackinthebochs »

king_jester wrote: post #487
hackinthebochs wrote: post #470

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 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. 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…

>What I'm saying is that this kind of thing isn't necessarily an established cultural norm

Of course, cultural norms can vary. So it is in fact an established cultural norm in a non-trivial number of places. I would go as far to say its the majority in the western world, but that's irrelevant to the discussion.

>If we are willing to discards the concerns of marginalized people

People who have psychological quirks regarding personal space are not marginalized people by any common definition of that word. People who absolutely do not want anyone breaching their personal space without express written consent yadda yadda usually have good ways to communicate this to the people around them. Perhaps they shouldn't have to, but then perhaps the rest of the world shouldn't have to alter their behavior on account of a very small percentage of people.

But anyways, this discussion has suddenly turned from a question of whether "seduction" techniques is morally reprehensible to whether we are morally obliged to collectively take into consideration the concerns of a very small minority of people. These are two vastly different questions. Under this new understanding of the issue, "seduction" techniques are by default morally neutral. The question becomes whether it is morally obligatory (rather than simply morally praiseworthy) to not use these techniques on the off chance that person will have an abnormal reaction to personal space being breached. This question is very much dependent on the probability of encountering a person who will sustain actual harm from this. I would wager that this probability is extremely low, and a few orders of magnitude lower in your typical social situations (bars, clubs, etc). It seems rather clear that constantly obsessing about this scenario is unnecessary.

Re: We were wrong

#509

Post by prodigal_erik »

king_jester wrote: post #241
cgag wrote: post #213

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Excuse me miss may I please sit close to you and touch you? May I kiss you now? How exactly do you think people should go about this kind of thing?

Are you dense? If someone was OK with that kind of intimate contact at that moment asking would result in a 'yes'.

The answer only would have been "yes" until you demonstrated that you actually needed to ask. Being timid and insecure destroys attraction and respect. The world would be a lot better if we didn't work that way, but we do.

Re: We were wrong

#510

Post by Crake »

king_jester wrote: post #453
tomp wrote: post #380

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

They may...or if they've recovered, they may not. The goal is usually to become able to react to things normally again, not become permanently stuck in damaged victim status for forever. People do manage to get over their triggers with counseling, medication, & time.

Honestly, calling an attempted kiss a sexual assault is really insulting to people who have actually been sexually assaulted. I'm really not fond of how pervasively histrionic things have gotten about it, as of late.

You don't get to decide what everyone's boundaries are just because you want to mandate complete and total obedience to gendered ideology.

Post reply on HN