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

491–500 of 546 posts

Re: We were wrong

#491

Post by jack-r-abbit »

jules wrote: post #473
king_jester wrote: post #450

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…

For a time in college (and bit after) my "move" during make-outs was to grab a condom and hand it to her. What she did with that condom at that point made very clear her desired outcome. It also gave a little insight into the person. Does she know what to do with it? (not everybody knows how to put on a condom. or maybe knows TOO well.) Does she think we didn't need to use a condom? (uh... ya... WE DO!) Looking back, it seems a little un-suave but it was sufficiently effective for me.

The last time I pulled that move, it was met with "uh... we don't need this... yet." Fair enough... we hit the brakes a bit. She's my wife now. :)

Re: We were wrong

#492

Post by cbendeb »

tomjen3 wrote: post #442
arrrg wrote: post #349

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.

Morality is a very complex topic that possibly can't be proven by logic anyway. Why is racism immoral, other than the fact that we, as a society, have decided that it's immoral?

I think seduction manuals are immoral because they essentially treat women like min-maxers do video games--do this, and your chance of success is raised by X%, follow this procedure to succeed, etc. It makes women into vending machines that, if the buttons are properly pressed in the right succession, will theoretically result in a prize--sex--being dispensed. I think that treating people like that is immoral. Can I prove this logically? Can I claim that this is a universal truth? Of course not, but the same is true for every moral stance.

Re: We were wrong

#493

Post by theorique »

WA wrote: post #159
ebbv wrote: post #107

Dear 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…

Thank you for bringing a voice of reason to an otherwise frantic and hysterical thread.

Re: We were wrong

#494

Post by dwb »

ebbv wrote: post #107

Dear 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…

Very well articulated. Thank $deity this is the top comment. I was about to turn away from HN in disgust. Agreed with every word.

Re: We were wrong

#495

Post by jules »

king_jester wrote: post #488
jules wrote: post #473

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> 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. 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 illustrat…

> 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.

Well, yeah, you it is possible do a lightning move. My whole point is that you shouldn't do that. That would indeed be sexual assault.

So if I may ask, do you have personal experience with dating/sex? You don't have to answer if you don't want to. I agree with your position in theory, and I actually did what you suggest at first. The problem is that it doesn't work in practice, which is why I stopped doing that.

Re: We were wrong

#496

Post by Samuel_Michon »

king_jester wrote: post #489
Samuel_Michon wrote: post #458

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

That kind of statement serves as a justification for action even if someone objects to what you did. This is literally the kind of thing rapists say about the sexual assaults they committed.

A thief will say he stole a Rolex because he wanted it. That’s the same motivation as someone who buys the watch in a store, and yet, the two are not the same.

The difference between a rapist and a date is that one stops after you told him/her to stop, and the other doesn’t.

Re: We were wrong

#497

Post by dwb »

Helianthus wrote: post #355
scarmig wrote: post #311

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is obviously a world of difference between verbal aggressing and physical aggressing. Verbally, different situations call for different things: when people need to know that what they're arguing for is unacceptable in a very bad way, you speak to them with contempt. The hardcore PUA crowd will shake it off, but people at its periphery better understand that it's a bad thing. But physically, aggressing against s…

>There is obviously a world of difference between verbal aggressing and physical aggressing. That's cute, honey. Why don't you leave the real talk to us men? I hope you see my point, but to make it more clear: boundaries are boundaries, and disrespect is disrespect. You are making an argument about magnitude, and I am making an argument about conflict. Now I'm going to break a rule about respecting victims, and I hop…

Borderline victim blaming. It is the aggressor's fault that they rubbed up against your hand. That you didn't stand up to them by being loud or whatever doesn't come into it. If you did and scared them off, so much the better – but it shouldn't have happened in the first place and that's what we should focus on, not giving excuses ("they should have said no!") to the perpetrators.

Just because you like loud women doesn't mean they should be so. Quiet women exist and are totally cool. They shouldn't be assaulted either.

Re: We were wrong

#498

Post by dirkgadsden »

tomjen3 wrote: post #237
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.

And it is easy to see that whenever women are mentioned, or connected, people like you feel like you don't need to back up your assertions with facts, quotes, figure or any kind of argument. Hn is an intellectual place. That means that we sometimes discuss news that requires you to read and understand the other sides point of view, not merely dismiss it out of hands with a few choice words that are chosen to silence…

"on display in these comments" is a pretty clear reference to a source. The people here defending the whole PUA genre are defending an objectification of women. The PUA approach treats women as objects that are to be manipulated to achieve the end the PUA desires. Defending such an objectification is a hallmark of male privilege throughout history, and furthermore is a type of misogyny and characteristic of rape culture.

Re: We were wrong

#499

Post by dirkgadsden »

papsosouid wrote: post #358
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.

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.

Re: We were wrong

#500

Post by dwb »

kristofferR wrote: post #134
ebbv wrote: post #107

Dear 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…

You do realize that you're saying exactly the same thing about consent that the book is, right? The misquoted parts is from the chapter about when you're already in a relationship, and ready to get physical.

The concept of consent does not vanish when you're in a relationship, and if you need a guide – especially one that advocates being dominant – then heaven help you.
Post reply on HN