Earlier quoted context omitted.
I wouldn't know, I'm a male computer scientist.
There's a term for people like you, but it's not very flattering.
Is that supposed to be an insult? It's not very good.
We were wrong
541–546 of 546 posts
Re: We were wrong
#542Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 ‘Driv…
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)
I would agree. Until now, I've always considered the physical fact of the girl being "into it" as consent. I've never been wrong yet.
I suppose it's possible that a girl could physically participate in moving a sexual interaction forward while simultaneously not wanting to do so, but that suggests immaturity, inconsistency, and possible mental illness rather than any kind of behavior that should be recommended for anybody.
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).
That's a bit different from "mainstream" culture - it's interesting to hear that expectations are similar (aside from actual PiV sex).
Re: We were wrong
#543Earlier quoted context omitted.
Odd you should say so. My wife is a programmer, and distances herself from the online computing world not because of "misogyny", but because of this insane crowd of privileged people who insist on pretending to be victims in her name.
Nice straw-man, since I never claimed to be a victim (I was merely making an observation). Also citing your wife's individual experience is a red herring since she alone does not represent a large sample size.
I didn't say anything about you or what you claim. Resorting to the logical fallacy fallacy is pretty poor in general, but quite ridiculous when you aren't even using the terms correctly.
Re: We were wrong
#544Earlier quoted context omitted.
I would guess that people buying a seduction guide don't really understand 'women' - in that they believe that women are somehow different, unapproachable and alien to them. The misogyny stems from the book not teaching these people that women are equal and worthy of respect, but instead teaching them to ignore consent and be an 'alpha bro' stereotype.
You don't have to disrespect women to understand that they largely want the guy to make the first move. I don't get what all the hate here is about.
To me, that sounds like 'generalisations about women aren't disrespectful to women' - maybe it's a cultural thing or just the social circles I hang around with but I find it sexist.
Re: We were wrong
#545Earlier quoted context omitted.
I would guess that people buying a seduction guide don't really understand 'women' - in that they believe that women are somehow different, unapproachable and alien to them. The misogyny stems from the book not teaching these people that women are equal and worthy of respect, but instead teaching them to ignore consent and be an 'alpha bro' stereotype.
I don't see it as ignoring consent. If you're on a date with a girl and you hold her hand without asking her, that's not sexual assault or being an alpha bro. If you're having a lively conversation and touch her arm, that's not sexual assault or creepiness, it's being a human and engaging the person you're interacting with. We all know douche bags that make girls uncomfortable and push the line. We all hate them. The…
I guess my problem with it is if you're writing a book to educate nervous, timid, perhaps less experienced guys about interactions with people you're attracted to, it'd be nice to educate them in a way that teaches respect and kindness, not objectification
Re: We were wrong
#546Earlier quoted context omitted.
Preaching to the wrong crowd. I love science, but I can't stand it when people try to apply 'logic and reeeason' to social concepts like this one. It's pseudoscience at best. We're human, not vulcan, after all...
Well, the nice thing about science and nature is that they keep working whether or not you think they're applicable.
If the scientific method applied to everyone's personal social problems and stances, why would anyone need this book?