You start by saying that if you disagree with you you're a misogynist pig, and any discussion of the merits is wrong. Just think about times you've read other people say that, and try and think it over.
We were wrong
341–350 of 546 posts
Re: We were wrong
#342Earlier quoted context omitted.
Is it misogynist to learn what women like in a partner and attempt to be that? Isn't that making a world more according to women's preferences? How is that "hatred of women"? If the author is wrong , and you write a better manual, many men struggling with the modern dating world will gladly buy your more effective book. But we aren't arguing fact, are we? We're arguing religion.
Yes, because women, funnily enough, are individual human beings with their own tastes and desires.
Women are, funnily enough, female members of the species homo sapiens and there is a lot of scientific evidence on what they find attractive in a potential mate.
Re: We were wrong
#343Earlier quoted context omitted.
Ask 100 women if they find it romantic to be kissed without being asked or if they want to be asked first. I'm pretty sure the answer is: being kissed, don't ask. The author writes on reddit: IMPORTANT NOTE ON RESISTANCE: If at any point a girl wants you to stop, she will let you know. If she says "STOP," or "GET AWAY FROM ME," or shoves you away, you know she is not interested. It happens. Stop escalating immediatel…
This is such a load of shit. There are so many circumstances in which someone may feel powerless to say something or engage in a resistive act, or may be physically incapable of doing so that the time. Rapists use the justification of lack of "acceptable" resistive force all the time, there is no place for this kind of comment.
There is at least a thousand ways to say no, and only a few of them requires the use of a word.
And there may be times where women feel powerless, but unless they actually are powerless (that is the man wouldn't respect it if they said no) feeling has little and less to do with real world.
Also please remove your last sentence. HN is a place that values discussions with a high intellectual content and it cheapens your argument.
Re: We were wrong
#344Earlier 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…
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.
Re: We were wrong
#345Earlier quoted context omitted.
Of course, because some women want dominance from men, it means that all women loves it. If you unpermittedly invade the personal space of 100 women, and only 10 complain about it, then it's only 10% sexual harassment, right?
By the same reasoning, if some women do NOT want "dominance from men" then all "dominance" is sexual assault?
To establish that dominance is not sexual assault, you should communicate. Simply to impose a dominant behaviour in case of doubt is not a GOOD strategy and may be sexual assault.
Re: We were wrong
#346Dear fellow HN dwellers, If you read the writings of the Guide's author and do not recognize that it is misogynistic and advocating sexual assault, you have a problem. That problem is that you are mistaking sexual assault for "taking the first step." You do not need to resort to pulling out your dick and forcibly placing the woman's hand on it in order to "make a move." There's literally hundreds of other things that…
Ask 100 women if they find it romantic to be kissed without being asked or if they want to be asked first. I'm pretty sure the answer is: being kissed, don't ask. The author writes on reddit: IMPORTANT NOTE ON RESISTANCE: If at any point a girl wants you to stop, she will let you know. If she says "STOP," or "GET AWAY FROM ME," or shoves you away, you know she is not interested. It happens. Stop escalating immediatel…
> Ask 100 women if they find it romantic to be kissed without being asked or if they want to be asked first. I'm pretty sure the answer is: being kissed, don't ask.
Your answer seems to assume the consent of these women. Do you still think it's more romantic, even if they don't want to be kissed at all?
Re: We were wrong
#347Earlier quoted context omitted.
There's a big difference between "resistive force" and saying no. Anyone can say no, at least in situations in which both partners are of equal power. In situations where one partner has greater power than the other, it's usually illegal for them to be intimate anyways (teacher/student, employer/employee). Also, if you, say, kiss someone without their explicit consent, I think it's pretty obvious when they are not ki…
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-act-man-pay-child-s... [2]: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LlFAd4YdQks
Re: We were wrong
#348Earlier quoted context omitted.
> You do not need to resort to pulling out your dick and forcibly placing the woman's hand on it in order to "make a move." There's literally hundreds of other things that aren't sexual assault that you could do before resorting to that. Is it sexual assault if I do that to my girlfriend of 5 years? In many contexts it would be sexual assault, but in many it wouldn't be. I think you're just assuming it's sexual assau…
> 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.
Re: We were wrong
#349Earlier quoted context omitted.
When companies reject racist manuals, they're not taking the position that non-whites are "inferior and in need of protection". They're simply making the ethical choice, to the dismay of the people who enjoy racist sorts of things. Same goes for the misogynist manuals they're now taking the ethical stance against. So much for your ad hominem. I'd give Kickstarter kudos, except ethics are what people are supposed to h…
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.
Re: We were wrong
#350Earlier quoted context omitted.
Puritans in 1600, no. Puritan America in the 2000's, sex is a very taboo subject, especially when it comes to women.
This was clearly, obviously, blatantly not in response to anyones hangups about sex in general. Not wanting to be associated with creepy, rapey stuff written by and for creepy, rapey people is hardly Puritanical, it's more like being a human being.
Perhaps you meant to reply to the parent or grandparent? I'm merely pointing out that "Puritan America" does not mean "1600's Puritans That Just Happen To Be Living In What Will Become America". I could not get the site to load to read the book, so I cannot make judgement on the content.