That particular comment is taken from a part of the guide where you're already with a girl in "a private, intimate setting". It's assuming that you're with someone who's already comfortable around you. It's not saying that you should get naked in a nightclub with someone you've just met.

So you're supposed to wait until you're alone with a woman before you sexually assault and/or rape her? That's not an improvement, and doesn't negate that it's still very much so a rape manual.

Are you saying you consider that "rape", even if the subjects were already kissing and fondling?

I wonder how many people outraged at this have explicitly asked for permission before every step of physical escalation in every one of their relationships.

Yeah, if you do shit like this you are Schrödinger's rapist, i.e. completely dependent on consent you do not know you have.

I have a hard time believing a jury would convict someone of sexual assault for placing someone's hand on their penis if they were already (consensually) fingering that person.

I’ve no doubt it would be hard to convict – but that doesn’t change anything about whether you are a rapist or not (or at least guilty of sexual assault).

At the same time... if this same content was written as fiction, with the viewpoint character/hero accomplishing his goals through these same methods and relaying that same philosophy through dialogue or internal monologue, would it be (as) problematic?

Of course it wouldn't. Is that surprising? Fiction is different from a how-to manual and should be treated as such. It's not just the literal words in a particular paragraph, it's also the surrounding context.

I agree the context matters, but there's a long history of equivocating the fictional and instructional, on the part of people who try to draw these lines with regards to speech. [1]

I simply don't think the line is as clear-cut, for many of those who were outraged at Kickstarter. I think the company may have inadvertently stepped out onto a PR tight-rope.

[1] Note the use of words like 'murder simulator'/'rape simulator' or the outrage and claims of sexism/homophobia/stereotyping whenever there's a fictional representation of a character or situation that happens to (however briefly) conform to some stereotype.

You're asking whether it would be as problematic if it were a different book? I guess it depends. It's not like fiction/nonfiction is a switch that you can toggle without making other substantive changes.

Maybe I'm a horrible person, but I don't think taking someone's hand and placing it on your dick is such a horrible, disgusting thing to do when you're in a situation like the one described in that post.

Keep in mind that in the original post it only happens after dating, kissing, fondling and fingering without protest. At that point, if you describe the next step between two consenting adults out of context it's going to sound "rapey".

I don't see how that's a 'rape manual' quote if it is clearly in a section labelled sex. I.e. you both already have the expectation of sex - are in a bedroom or whatever. It's obviously clear that he doesn't suggest such behaviour in a different context.

That quote was in a section about sex.

The lack of context given in the blog post is what seems to have fueled this groupthink storm.