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

471–480 of 546 posts

Re: We were wrong

#471

Post by lotharbot »

tomp wrote: post #262
jmduke wrote: post #217

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Or it could be instructions for the kind of a sex that millions of straight couples have every day. It all depends on the quote's context, right? This is a book on seduction, not a book on long-term relationships. I'm not defending the OP, but don't be intentionally dense.

So how do you get into a long-term relationship if not by seducing your partner?

There are long-term relationships where sex is one of the later steps, after there's already some form of long-term commitment. There are a lot of things that can happen well before the "seduction" step -- talking, mutual interests, shared experiences, and so on.

Re: We were wrong

#472

Post by hackinthebochs »

6d0debc071 wrote: post #467
hackinthebochs wrote: post #464

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Do you think that women just want men to randomly walk up to them in the street and kiss them? This is the absolute most obtuse reading of the situation you could have mustered. And this is the problem with this entire debate: those who are arguing against these "seduction" techniques must resort to strawmen and imagined scenarios to show how awful this is. Unfortunately, this is the stuff that social interaction is…

> This is the absolute most obtuse reading of the situation you could have mustered. And this is the problem with this entire debate: those who are arguing against these "seduction" techniques must resort to strawmen and imagined scenarios to show how awful this is. I didn't even attempt to portray that as his argument. I said that if you don't then there must, of necessity, be some communication going on. -le sigh-…

>If you don't, then there's obviously some communication that's meant to be going on.

Yes, nonverbal communication.

>The guide puts the onus for that on the woman. If she doesn't want it, then she has to MAKE you stop:

There are plenty of ways to do this. When a guy first opens the conversation, you can simply blow him off. If you seem receptive and he tries to flirt, again you can create space to nonverbally let him know you're not interested. Etc, etc.

All of these things are standard in social interactions. You guys are the ones that are twisting this into somehow being assault. This IS IN FACT the stuff that social interactions are made of. You can prefer that it weren't the case, but it is sad that you would block me for simply stating a fact.

Re: We were wrong

#473

Post by jules »

king_jester wrote: post #450
Samuel_Michon wrote: post #335

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. She’s been standing in line at an ice cream truck, it’s finally her turn, and now you, the guy behind the counter, are asking her whether you should make her some ice cream. ’No, I’m here to get movie tickets!’

> 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 understand what's happening they have your penis in them. If you're doing it right, you reach for a condom, you open the package, put the condom on, adjust your partners' position, and tease before entering, and finally you enter. In this whole process there are a great number of opportunities for your partner to (verbally or non-verbally) indicate that she/he does not want it.

If every man followed the methods that you describe here and elsewhere in the thread, the human race would die out in one generation.

Re: We were wrong

#474

Post by super-serial »

DanBC wrote: post #414

I wish there was a moderate MRA group, that wasn't full of hateful idiots.

Go to Japan. Gender roles are ingrained into the culture and women are naturally feminine.

A lot of MRA groups seem to fight the hate with more hate... maybe these guys just need a change of scenery.

Re: We were wrong

#475

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…

Also, having thought about it slightly more, I think you're confusing "unwanted sex" with "non-consensual sex". Neither is a good thing, but there is a strong different, especially in terms of legality and trauma.

Men and women have unwanted sex all the time. They do it because they don't want to let their partner down, because they think it is their "job", because they want to get something, because they are bored, because they want to feel wanted, because they just want to feel loved, because they haven't in a long time, etc. -- not always the best reasons. Typically, those feelings can be resolved in other ways.

We, as lovers, should strive to reduce the number of unwanted sex events as possible, and to do so requires an open bidirectional communication channel. However, while it may be sad that women are more prone to agreeing to unwanted sex, this is not the same thing as //raping// someone. I think it's really important to make the difference, because for one we say that the relationship is a bit off, in the other, we lock a person up and mark them for life.

Re: We were wrong

#476

Post by figglesonrails »

malandrew wrote: post #431
tomp wrote: post #406

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's highly inappropriate for you to refer to "kissing someone", even if it's unwelcome, as "rape". Sexual assault, that's ok, even though I don't agree with it. But calling it rape is very disrespectful, maybe even insulting, to the victims of actual, violent penis-in-vagina rape.

"violent penis-in-vagina" rape is not the only kind. Most people completely forget that more men are raped every day in the US than women.

Men more than women? I'm not disagreeing or agreeing, but [citation needed]. I've never heard of that being true, so I'd like more information. I mean, the fact that we typical think of rape as man-on-woman kind of speaks to our perceived frequency, yes?

Re: We were wrong

#477

Post by jaredsohn »

figglesonrails wrote: post #476
malandrew wrote: post #431

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"violent penis-in-vagina" rape is not the only kind. Most people completely forget that more men are raped every day in the US than women.

Men more than women? I'm not disagreeing or agreeing, but [citation needed]. I've never heard of that being true, so I'd like more information. I mean, the fact that we typical think of rape as man-on-woman kind of speaks to our perceived frequency, yes?

From some googling, here's an article from 2008 that suggests this:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2012/feb/...

Essentially, it says that prison rape accounts for the majority of rape in the US and those victims are predominantly male.

Re: We were wrong

#478

Post by figglesonrails »

jaredsohn wrote: post #477
figglesonrails wrote: post #476

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Men more than women? I'm not disagreeing or agreeing, but [citation needed]. I've never heard of that being true, so I'd like more information. I mean, the fact that we typical think of rape as man-on-woman kind of speaks to our perceived frequency, yes?

From some googling, here's an article from 2008 that suggests this: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2012/feb/... Essentially, it says that prison rape accounts for the majority of rape in the US and those victims are predominantly male.

Ah prison rape. Yes, I hadn't considered that, but that would make sense. I'm not sure that prison statistics are really relevant to the original topic though, as far as defining what typical interactions are like, but does seem like interesting trivia.

Re: We were wrong

#479

Post by angersock »

driverdan wrote: post #389
angersock wrote: post #193

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Take your exposed penis, and thrust it into her vagina." wait wait wait that's what ive been doing wrong this whole time? and here i was thinking i was just sterile! EDIT: Really, folks? No sense of humor here sometimes, I swear. Not to worry--the NSA is keeping record of jokes for all posterity!

This isn't Reddit. Pointless humor posts are discouraged and downvoted.

Eh, it depends, honestly. HN shouldn't be srs bznz all the time.

Re: We were wrong

#480

Post by newnewnew »

king_jester wrote: post #456
newnewnew wrote: post #243

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. 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 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 word "oppression" think Marxism and class conflict.

Post reply on HN