“Decide that you’re going to sit in a position where you can rub her leg and back. Physically pick her up and sit her on your lap. Don’t ask for permission. Be dominant. Force her to rebuff your advances.”

I don't know if it should have been removed from Kickstarter, but this is bad, bad behavior that must be discouraged.

As for the "whip your cock out and drag her hand to it" bit, everything's contextual, but for some reason I'm skeptical that people buying a "seduction guide" will grok the very subtle facets of circumstance that might make that consensual.

How exactly do you think people should go about this kind of thing?

That's really all you need. That and volume: if someone isn't interested, don't take it personally and don't force it. Just move onto someone else. Most pairings aren't meant to happen. If you follow my earlier advice and take care of yourself, it will pretty much automatically.

Maybe, but it's also very unrealistic, and I doubt very many people want it. Personally, I would prefer if women simply realized that I am attracted to them, and wouldn't explicitly ask me if I want to fuck, and I'm willing to endure the few awkward encounters where they would misread me.

You portray the potential customer of this as some kind of rapist dreg, but I'm guessing it'd be more like a shy guy who is too timid with women (which he seems to portray himself as as well). In that light I find this delivered in slightly bad taste, but not really something to be up in arms about.

Kickstarter pulled this cause it's not politically correct, and people were upset about some quotes taken out of context. That's also fair, it's their right as a business, but still kind of weak, nice apology or not.

> "Women are sensitive, fragile, inferior creatures who require constant, vigilant protection from honorable men.

> Kudos to Kickstarter for adhering to feminist principles."

You're attacking a straw man with ad-hominems.

More importantly, you're glossing over the fact that women legitimately face threats and concerns that are significantly different from those of men. It's disingenuous to paint this as a plot by evil feminists.

Relevant :

    "More than one in three women worldwide have experienced physical 
    or sexual violence, a report by the World Health Organization 
    and other groups says.

    It says 38% of all women murdered were killed by their partners, 
    and such violence is a major contributor to depression and other 
    health problems." [1]

Domestic violence rates have been for years known to be roughly 50/50 between the sexes. Some studies have even found that women are slightly more likely than men to initiate violence.

Of course, only women get societal support and access to domestic violence shelters. My father was warned by the police that if he ever called them when my mother was beating him, the police would be forced to arrest him instead (due to the domestic violence laws pushed through by feminists in the VAWA).

I've read almost all of the author's comments on reddit and he writes like a man who respects women deeply but also understands that a lot of men do not understand how to talk to and deal with women.

I understand that 'seduction' is a band brand, one which people react negatively to when the see it, but by looking at the material you will probably find that it isn't offensive at all.

The quotes are taken out of context and are not a good sample of the material. The truth is, most women are so bored at a bar and in life with the guys they meet, they are probably bigger beneficiaries of the material than the guys who read it.

Throughout all of history, it's men that have been forced to fight and die in wars without any choice in the matter. There's a lot of raping of males that goes on in Africa during their various wars, but any coverage will inevitably focus on women instead (due to funding issues--no one cares about a male rape victim).

Life is hard for everyone, male and female.

Do you think that women in the meanwhile, has been just poor victims? Don't forget that women are generally way ahead of men in human skills.

Men and women have, their own forms of dominance. I agree that physical dominance is despicable, but don't think that the forms of dominance were going only in a single direction.

You do not get to treat a group of people as property for thousands of years, and then when they finally claw a measure of autonomy back from you say, "Well, that about evens the score."

Ignoring the fact that your scenario is absurd hyperbole, and men had things just as shit as women did, the you in question wasn't involved. Nobody in this discussion ever owned a woman. Pretending they committed some horrible crime to justify your prejudice is pathetic.

I don't subscribe to such a convenient ethics, I'm afraid. The enormous power I derive from the society I live in I owe, in good part, to racial slavery, to the genocide of the people who lived where I live now, and, yes, to the systematic oppression of women, all in the name of the very nation I now consider myself a part of. By my privilege, I owe a moral debt to those murdered, enslaved, and terrorized people, and if it cannot be repaid it should at least be atoned for.

I could likewise say that I do not enslave children, while I purchase products made by those who do; but I do not believe that is the path to a better world.

No, it wasn't. You are deliberately conflating the life of some women to that of women period. It would be every bit as absurd and dishonest to claim that "the status of men as property was a literal and legal fact for thousands of years" because some men were slaves.

> By my privilege, I owe a moral debt to those murdered, enslaved, and terrorized people, and if it cannot be repaid it should at least be atoned for.

Yes, I know that your beliefs are hilarious. I am not suggesting that I do not understand them, but rather that they are in fact ridiculous. You can not atone for someone else's actions, and even if you could, being a whiney, hypersensitive bully on the internet is not atoning for anything.

We are slouching towards a soft tyranny of the mind, driven by the marxist ideology that each member of an "inferior" group has the right to not be offended.

Right not to be groped or sexually assaulted, you mean. They're offensive, but much more than that too.

Is that psychology experiment now a hatefact that we must unlearn? Perhaps we should fire the psychologist who did the experiment.

[1] http://www.spring.org.uk/2011/04/10-psychological-effects-of...

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 religion of our day.

Feminism has not been and is not a religion. Further, given the existing statistical data about social inequality, we can most certainly say that feminism is NOT a mainstream point of view for must people in the United States.

> How long before "misogynist" tweets are banned on twitter? Before "misogynists" are kicked off of facebook?

Given how much misogynistic stuff is on both facebook and twitter, never. But rest assured people will call you out for misogynistic crap and they are right to do so.

> And don't worry gentlemen, it is not violating your freedom of speech because these are private companies controlling every means of communication you have...

The nature of capitalism and corporatism w.r.t. the internet is another discussion to have.

> We are slouching towards a soft tyranny of the mind, driven by the marxist ideology that each member of an "inferior" group has the right to not be offended.

Feminism is not Marxism, except maybe that women as a class have a right to control the output of their labor (like all laboring classes), but that's another kind of discussion. If you believe that people challenging misogyny and kickstarter projects like this that promote rape and sexual assault is some kind of encroachment of your life, then you are part of the problem.

When you hear the word "oppression" think Marxism and class conflict.

> 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.

Social inequality on various axes are decried. Racism, classism, gender phobia, sexism, and other injustices are constantly the focus of criticisms, new policy efforts, academic study, and cultural discussion. Classism and sexism are intersectional and related, but that doesn't mean that is one and only one form of analysis and criticism.

> When you hear the word "oppression" think Marxism and class conflict.

Analysis of class and oppression isn't just Marxism, there have been decades and decades of new thought and discussion on those topics.

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 have.

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 Quarterly" is the second.

Also nicely done working an adhomium in there.

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.

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.

http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/homo-consumericus/201007...

A light touch on the forearm also increases the chances of getting a number:

http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/15534510701316177

That's a start for ya.

There's nothing this society hates more than beta males. Your comment confirms it. God forbid a guy ain't a natural with women and needs some advice. He's probably deformed, deranged, and dangerous.

You can't be serious.

Someone on Hacker News advocating not to believe in science? Really?

Also, nobody is being oppressed or discriminated against in this situation.

What the hell? I had to read this over 6 times to make sure I was understanding it correctly.

"Women are sensitive, fragile, inferior creatures who require constant, vigilant protection from honorable men."

That right there ladies and gentlemen, is the thinking that permeates and sustains misogyny throughout our world.

I understand that the original poster had good intentions, but the way is high and his eyes are definitely upon the ground.

Women are not sensitive, fragil, or inferior. Please avoid false blanket statements like this.