Yes, because there is something intrinsically wrong with these guides.

I think what you're experiencing here is a crowd that isn't satisfied with claims of intrinsic wrongness that don't include evidence. You do realize that you're not allowed to just state opinions as facts, right? That's not really how arguments work around here.

This is a direct quote from a guide written by the author of the guide under discussion:

Never, ever, ever, wait for a SIGN before you escalate! You will miss out on the vast majority of chances if you sit around waiting for SIGNS. Men are notoriously bad at reading women's minds and body language. Don't think that you're any different. From now on you must ASSUME that she is attracted to you and wants to be ravished. It's a difference in mindset that makes champs champs and chumps chumps…

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

The author advises his readers to assume that their partner consents to sexual activity. This is a recipe for sexual assault. At some point one of his readers will misread the signs put out by a partner and they will sexually assault them.

> The author advises his readers to assume that their partner consents to sexual activity.

And this is a direct misinterpretation of what the author said. The author states:

> From now on you must ASSUME that she is attracted to you and wants to be ravished.

There is a difference. The author says that you should assume the woman is attracted to you, not that she is consenting to sexual activity. It's pretty damn clear. He further states that if a girl says no at any point, you stop.

> The author states:

> > From now on you must ASSUME that she is attracted to you and wants to be ravished.

> There is a difference. The author says that you should assume the woman is attracted to you, not that she is consenting to sexual activity.

That's not really the most natural reading of what you quote the author as having written. If that's really what the author intended, the word choice ("you must ASSUME she ... wants to be ravished") is quite poor.

  ravish 
    tr.v. rav·ished, rav·ish·ing, rav·ish·es 
    (1) To seize and carry away by force. 
    (2) To force (another) to have sexual intercourse; rape.
    (3) To overwhelm with emotion; enrapture. See Synonyms at enrapture. 

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/ravish

No you are misreading it. The author is saying do not think that she does not want to have sex. As in, get rid of any doubt in your mind.

That kind of arguments are not worthy of HN. Nothing here is beyond debate (it may be of topic but that is different), nothing, no matter how strongly you feel about it is beyond debate here and shutting down a debate and declaring the other a monster simply for opening a debate is tantamount to admitting that you hold believes that you are so weakly tied to that you can't defend them.

I am not shutting down the debate. I am not declaring anyone a monster. I am merely pointing out that if you are defending the guide, you are defending a sexual assault manual. That is the reality of the situation.

Now you go a head and do it again - simply declaring your point of view as fact is shutting down the debate. Please, post your arguments and how you came to your conclusion not just state it (I think schools used to call it show your work).

Here's my comment to someone else.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5919383