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 immediately and say this line: "No problem. I don't want you to do anything you aren't comfortable with." Memorize that line. It is your go-to when faced with resistance. Say it genuinely, without presumption. All master seducers are also masters at making women feel comfortable. You'll be no different. If a woman isn't comfortable, take a break and try again later.
So I really don't see where this is assault by not asking first.
Thing is, if you try to kiss her and she doesn't want it, she'll turn away and that's it.
2) Rapists and society at large often blame rape victims for not resisting enough. Rapists do not have a problem with a lack of consent and relying on victims to stop their own assault is completely unacceptable. The kickstarter project in question advocated for physically violating actions to be undertaken by would-be assaulters and put the burden of stopping assault on victims and should this kind of thing should never be supported period.
1) I don't think so; strength imbalance maybe, but not power imbalance. In fact, when it comes to sex and intimate relationships, women are usually more trained in socializing and have the upper hand in choosing a mate, and are strongly favoured by the courts [1] and the police [2].
[1]: http://voices.yahoo.com/presumed-fathers-act-man-pay-child-s... [2]: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LlFAd4YdQks
This is completely not accurate. Women are more likely to be murdered by their partners, men have better outcomes in family court when they pursue parental rights, men overwhelmingly commit sexual assaults (against all genders), and men do not experience sexual violence at the hands of police as often as women.
And there may be times where women feel powerless, but unless they actually are powerless (that is the man wouldn't respect it if they said no) feeling has little and less to do with real world.
Also please remove your last sentence. HN is a place that values discussions with a high intellectual content and it cheapens your argument.
Obviously just jamming your dick into her isn't acceptable.
I am pretty sure the answer is more complicated.
> Thing is, if you try to kiss her and she doesn't want it, she'll turn away and that's it.
Well, the problem is sometimes if you are too quick, your greasy lips might end up on her lips, making her smell your foul breath. And even if she turns away, it will not make the first seconds of assault unhappen.
That depends on the man. I don't want someone I don't want to kiss me without asking. I don't want them to kiss me at all, but I'd prefer that they ask than just try it.
Do you think that women just want men to randomly walk up to them in the street and kiss them? If you don't, then there's obviously some communication that's meant to be going on.
The guide puts the onus for that on the woman. If she doesn't want it, then she has to MAKE you stop:
'Don't ask for permission. Be dominant. Force her to rebuff your advances.'
Which is just a really disgusting mindset. Do you think anyone wants to have to make you leave them alone? And you have to acknowledge that some people are going to be too shy to make you stop.
It's an oversimplification to ask whether women would like someone to ask before kissing them. Not all communication is so blatantly verbal.
These sorts of guides don't help the fact that a lot of the boys reading them are poorly socialised to begin with, and are essentially being set up to rape some shy girl who may not feel confident enough to stop you doing something she's not really interested in. And that does a disservice to him and her - because I don't feel like, unless he's a total psycho, he wants to rape someone.
The book's attitude essentially seems to be that the author feels it acceptable to make people very uncomfortable, and risk raping someone, just because he doesn't want to take the chance that he'll turn off a potential date.
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 made of. You're not going to change it by suddenly defining normal interaction as assault.
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-
> Unfortunately, this is the stuff that social interaction is made of. You're not going to change it by suddenly defining normal interaction as assault.
Uck, for a block user function.
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.
He suggests no such thing. He writes about having been on several dates and now you’re alone with her and you’re expected to escalate. His gives some suggestions how to do so, to make it more physical:
“Be playful. Spin her around. Pick her up. Push her away as a tease and then pull her back in. 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.”
Only then does he write: “Don't ask for permission. Be dominant. Force her to rebuff your advances.”
In other words: try something, see what she will allow. She’s definitely going to tell you what she doesn’t want when you try it, but it’s very unlikely that she’s going to tell you what she wants before you try it.
Every woman you flirt with. Touch them immediately. Be shameless in your physicality. When a girl rejects your advances, she knows that you desire her, and it arouses her physically and psychologically.
Stop trying to evade what the quote says and trying to find some legalistic way of misreading its plain meaning.
So yeah, if your goal is play it safe for fear of lawsuits, offense, or rejections, then by all means, do not initiate any physical contact. Expect to be forgettable and for people to tell you "they just didn't feel that spark."
“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.
The difference between a rapist and a date is that one stops after you told him/her to stop, and the other doesn’t.
Your answer seems to assume the consent of these women. Do you still think it's more romantic, even if they don't want to be kissed at all?
> The thing that the commenters on social media are leaving out is that the advice was taken from a section in the guide offering advice on what to do AFTER a man has met a cute girl, gotten her phone number, gone on dates, spent time getting to know her, and now are alone behind closed doors fooling around. If "Don't wait for signs, make the first move" promotes sexual assault, then "Kiss the Girl" from The Little Mermaid was a song about rape.
> And all seduction guides do is offer advise on how to do that, but somehow what is acceptable for every issue of Cosmo (and a fair number of mens magazines) isn't acceptable for a guide on kickstarter.
Also, would all women who have seen the full story and context call it assault? Would they call it assault in real life? Probably not.
The point of this exercise is to be proactive about not hurting people. "Would they call it assault?" is a question that should simply not be on the table.
This isn't a difficult concept.
What I'm saying is that this kind of thing isn't necessarily an established cultural norm and that even if there is an established cultural norm people have a right to their physical space and safety. If we are willing to discards the concerns of marginalized people then we as a society are only ever going to support dominant groups and paradigms, which is not useful for handling systemic inequalities like racism, sexism, etc.
Of course, cultural norms can vary. So it is in fact an established cultural norm in a non-trivial number of places. I would go as far to say its the majority in the western world, but that's irrelevant to the discussion.
>If we are willing to discards the concerns of marginalized people
People who have psychological quirks regarding personal space are not marginalized people by any common definition of that word. People who absolutely do not want anyone breaching their personal space without express written consent yadda yadda usually have good ways to communicate this to the people around them. Perhaps they shouldn't have to, but then perhaps the rest of the world shouldn't have to alter their behavior on account of a very small percentage of people.
But anyways, this discussion has suddenly turned from a question of whether "seduction" techniques is morally reprehensible to whether we are morally obliged to collectively take into consideration the concerns of a very small minority of people. These are two vastly different questions. Under this new understanding of the issue, "seduction" techniques are by default morally neutral. The question becomes whether it is morally obligatory (rather than simply morally praiseworthy) to not use these techniques on the off chance that person will have an abnormal reaction to personal space being breached. This question is very much dependent on the probability of encountering a person who will sustain actual harm from this. I would wager that this probability is extremely low, and a few orders of magnitude lower in your typical social situations (bars, clubs, etc). It seems rather clear that constantly obsessing about this scenario is unnecessary.
Honestly, calling an attempted kiss a sexual assault is really insulting to people who have actually been sexually assaulted. I'm really not fond of how pervasively histrionic things have gotten about it, as of late.
You don't get to decide what everyone's boundaries are just because you want to mandate complete and total obedience to gendered ideology.
Kickstarter is claiming that they won't allow seduction manuals period ("we are prohibiting 'seduction guides,' or anything similar, effective immediately."). They have the right to do that.
If you really need a seduction manual, you need to shop elsewhere.
Sincerely,
A HNer who is ashamed of the lack of reading comprehension of this community right now.
The gist of the controversial advice is "Don't wait for signs before you make your move. Let her be the one who rejects your advances. If she says no, stop immediately and tell her you don't want to do anything that would make her uncomfortable. Try again at a later time if appropriate or cease entirely if she is absolutely not interested."
This is not a defense. This advice leads to sexual assault. You are assuming your partner's consent, and placing the burden on them to reject it. That is the problem.
Without a clear verbal confirmation of consent, or an explicit proactive action, you cannot know if your partner is participating willingly. Failure to reject is not the same thing as consent, and no adult should have difficulty understanding the distinction.
If you follow this advice, you will rape people while believing that they are just shy.
And for what? To avoid the embarrassment of saying, "So do you wanna fuck?" How old are you?
Or are you worried that if you ask a woman "So do you wanna fuck?", she might say no? Do I even need to explain what's wrong with that?
I'm not the person you wrote this to, but I can answer that I am 41 years old, have been married for 11 years and have three children (including a daughter).
When I think of the little scene you've played out there occurring, I see the biggest nerd in the world getting his first chance at making out with a girl when he awkwardly stops and says, "Do you consent to fornication at this time?"
Frankly, your advice makes you sound unbelievably young and inexperienced with women. I have yet to meet a woman that wants you ask permission for every stage of a sexual relationship. In fact, every woman I've talked to about the subject has told me that it's specifically unwanted.
Been there, done--basically--that. Damnedest thing; wouldn't you know that it didn't have the intended effect?
Is it so hard to believe that a woman (or man) may be uncomfortable expressly saying "No" in a given circumstance? Just because you have anecdotal evidence about woman you have talked to does not mean that we should adopt practices that those woman would like the most.
If 1 in 100, 1,000, or even 10,000 people do not like forward advances and feel paralyzed to say no in such circumstances, we should ask for consent because otherwise 1 in however many thousand times it would be rape or assault.
Shockingly, the correct course of action may not actually optimize people's chances of picking up women or men. Yet a culture of rape is a far greater price to pay than having a little more trouble getting dates or having sex. You might, in fact, actually have to ask someone, before touching them or 'shoving your penis in their vagina'.
Also: in that scenario, trying to touch your date’s shoulder or leg, or approaching to kiss her, isn’t rape. It’s an opportunity for her to let you know whether you’ve interpreted her signals correctly.
Most of the time, nothing bad will happen if you depend on non-verbal cues, but in the minority of times your advances may unwanted, and the person feels uncomfortably verbally rebuffing them. In these instances, assault or even rape can and_does_happen.
Simply asking for consent is hardly difficult and the insurance it provides that your partner does in fact like your advances is very valuable.
>Also: in that scenario, trying to touch your date’s shoulder or leg, or approaching to kiss her, isn’t rape. It’s an opportunity for her to let you know whether you’ve interpreted her signals correctly.
How do you know it is not rape (or assault in this circumstance)? Non-verbal queues are not infallible; without asking, you must trust your judgment. While you probably judged correctly, that does not mean it is advisable behavior to proceed without asking.
Furthermore, the risk of being struck by lightning is one you accept when you exit the house. The same is not true in the actual object of the discussion because the victim of your actions will primarily be your would-be partner.
Finally, I find it extremely offense that you assert that the amount of sexual assaults that can be attributed to failure to obtain adequate consent to the chances of being struck by lightning upon exiting your house.
--
Assuming that you do not present the best arguments for your side (at this point, I feel very safe in this assumption), I will acknowledge that, in a committed and well established relationship, it is possible to have sex without first asking for consent. Still, I am reluctant to encourage people to do so, and many sexual assaults occur in committed relationships. It is so easy to ask; I cannot see why someone would refrain from doing so.
EDIT: On further thought, I feel comfortable saying that after having asked consent each time a relationship progresses, that, in a committed relationship,it is safe to rely on non-verbal cues.
In all the scenarios I’ve provided, the girl will have given dozens of non-verbal cues for the guy to act. If the guy then still feels he needs to ask, there’s a real possibility that the girl gets turned off.
If the girl didn’t want to make out, she wouldn't have repeatedly have gone on dates with you, she wouldn't have invited you to her place, she wouldn't have lit candles, she wouldn't have sat on the couch with you, she wouldn't have asked you whether you like the perfume she's wearing, etc etc.
And on the off chance that all these things did happen but she doesn't want to make out, she will have told you by then. She knows way better than you what kind of signals she's giving off.
And lastly, if you misinterpreted her signals and you reach for a kiss, all she has to do is not lean into it. This can happen if you think you’re on a date, while she thinks you're just good friends (she may have thought you were gay). Trying to kiss her clears all that up, and it's better done sooner than later. The longer you wait to kiss her, chances increase she thinks you're not into her.
...really? Sure, whatever, let's go with it. If that's the only way you know how to figure out consent, that's what you need to say. And I bet it will work more often than not, too. The solution is to teach people better ways to find out if their partner consents, not to say it doesn't matter.
But a fifteen year old kid is likely not going to have a great first time no matter what. If you can't imagine a sexually active adult talking about sex in a sexy way, that's very much your problem.
> Frankly, your advice makes you sound unbelievably young and inexperienced with women. I have yet to meet a woman that wants you ask permission for every stage of a sexual relationship. In fact, every woman I've talked to about the subject has told me that it's specifically unwanted.
I'm not here for the dick waving contest, but suffice it to say my experience is not just with talking to women.
It is, of course, somewhat sad that our culture taught us it's inappropriate and shameful to talk about sex, and that we're more comfortable having sex with someone than we are talking about sex. That's also why the most common advice on reddit.com/r/sex is "just talk to him/her".
Btw, you realize, right, that with your comment you're promoting rape (according to your definition)? After all, a woman taking "explicit proactive action" without your explicit verbal consent is, the same as a man would if the situation was reversed, raping him.
Have you ever touched someone without them giving you verbal consent? Rape! Please, that's absurd!
I used to think that, too, as a teenager. Then I had sex with a bunch of people and realized, who gives a fuck? Sex is fun. It's fun when it happens spontaneously, with mutual passion. It's fun when it's discussed and scheduled ahead of time. It's just fun!
As long as both people want to. Then I thought about some of those times things just happened "naturally", and I realized, I'm not really sure if she did want to. That's not fun.
So now, if there's any doubt in my mind whatsoever, I just ask. I'm in a committed, long-term relationship now, and I still ask her regularly if I'm not sure if she wants to. Because I'm even less interested in pressuring someone I really care about into something she doesn't want. And she will do the same for me.
Guess what? Still fun.
> Btw, you realize, right, that with your comment you're promoting rape (according to your definition)? After all, a woman taking "explicit proactive action" without your explicit verbal consent is, the same as a man would if the situation was reversed, raping him.
Yes. It goes both ways, regardless of gender. Did you expect me to disagree with this?
You do, of course, realize the absurdity of your statement here, given this:
"Without a clear verbal confirmation of consent, or an explicit proactive action, you cannot know if your partner is participating willingly."
How does that work, exactly?
Well, the only thing I can say is that I'm glad I live in Europe, where people are still normal and not yet so frigid/distrustful that they need to talk about everything before they do it.
Fortunately, it's like that in the U.S. too for most people. There is a very vocal minority here that is making things way more complicated than they actually are in real life. This was my favorite quote from the person you're responding to:
>I'm in a committed, long-term relationship now, and I still ask her regularly if I'm not sure if she wants to.
This is unbelievable to me. I think the typical woman confronted with this behavior would look for a new boyfriend - one that isn't so amazingly timid. As a married person I can't imagine asking my wife "regularly" for permission to have sex. I know her signals, she knows my signals and if either of us put out a signal the other person isn't up for we volunteer, "Not tonight" and that's the end of it.
To imply that to not receive explicit verbal affirmative permission is equal to rape is unbelievably insulting and delusional.
See, this is the problem. It's not "timid" to talk about sex. I know my girlfriend well, and she knows me, and if we're hanging out together and we're both down to fuck then it's on.
Here's the other thing that happens: I'm in one room playing Starcraft, she's in the other room reading a book, and I start feeling a little randy. I'm not going to wander in there and try to get into her field of view to make eyes at her. If I just walk up and start touching her, and she's not into it, she'll feel irritated and I'll feel rejected and that's not good for us.
So what I do instead is -- and to be clear, this happens about as often the other way around -- I say, hey, do you want to have sex? And she thinks about it for a second, and if she says "yes" we get naked and down to business. If she says "no", no hard feelings, I can go back to my game. If it's in between, like "not really" or "maybe later", we can have a quick chat about it and come to a decision together.
Do you understand what I'm saying here? Me asking my girlfriend if she wants to have sex, and vice versa, means we have way more sex than we would if we both sat around waiting for the "signals". And we really like sex, so this is great for us.
But I guess if you're married with kids, there are other reasons you can't relate to this.
And since I'm here, rid that word "permission" from your vocabulary in this discussion. Permission is asked from a superior. Consent is a mutual arrangement between equals. Therein lies the core of this entire issue.
EDIT: which is to say, it's not wrong that this works for you, this isn't a criticism of that. I think you may be mistaking a local optimum for a global [in the sense of math - so the country/dating pool] optimum because it works so well for you; i.e. the false-consensus effect.
Also, I don't value "having way more sex" over "having extremely hot sex", but this is also just me.
Your advice would not work in my relationship. In fact, it is decidedly unhot to ask a "yes/no" question and I would probably get rolled eyes. It would still work and bluntly convey my intentions, but it would come off as completely un-suave. For us, the language of the body is far more rich, intimate, and revealing to one's true desires. In fact, rarely when we have sex does it start with both parties reaching the same conclusion at the same time. Sometimes, something as simple as a good-bye kiss can turn into a 20-minute delay -- and I wouldn't have it any other way.
Of course, I realize I'm in a really fantastic relationship and most people don't have the luxury of being frank with their partners about their desires. But I'd encourage you to consider those things may not be unrelated.
No, you didn't say "We don't have hot sex". I didn't say "You don't have hot sex" either. Now that you're feeling validated, please consider what was written again, but without getting offended.
You stated what worked for you, and you measured its "workingness" by unambiguousness of the process, the lack of bad feelings on rejection, and (ostensibly most importantly, seeing as how you put it in italics) the quantity. I'm happy for you.
But what if what you are suggesting can come by following your advice //is not what I value//? What if I can achieve what is optimal for my relationship in a different way? What if, and this is crazy but, what if what works for you and what is best for you, isn't best for everyone? -> False consens effect.
I was remarking that I find it interesting that you're defending a particular strategy that works in your relationship and is not a cultural norm (hence, atypical), while at the same time suggesting that all men should act more like you. Too fast there cowboy! If all men woke up tomorrow and acted like that, there might be a few (million?) women who find their choice of mates underwhelming all of a sudden. Why? Because it violates our cultural norms. But at the level of one couple, you and your partner, sure, you have the luxury of making such "optimizations" and being "absolute" about what is best.
There is no need to defend yourself, your sex life, or your relationship. I'm sure you're in a great one; may you two be together forever. Communication is great and key. However, please consider as well that I am not going to follow your advice, and that I, too, am delusional about how awesome my relationship is compared to everyone else's. :) :) :)
> Did you expect me to disagree with this?
I don't understand. Why did you bring it up if you didn't think it was okay for your partner to make an explicit proactive action without clear verbal confirmation of consent?
How often does she ask you?
That’s the context of the quotes, and in the book, it is prefaced by an instruction to stop immediately if she indicates you to do so.
The difference that makes to whether or not she consents -- the "downer" -- is precisely the point.
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!’
This is exactly what I was thinking, but unable to verbalize it so well.
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 burden on your partner, which in our society puts that person in a position of being an uptight downer or just suffering through an experience they don't want (yes this is acquaintance rape and it is a real thing).
If every man followed the methods that you describe here and elsewhere in the thread, the human race would die out in one generation.
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. :)
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 illustrate how not true this is.
> If every man followed the methods that you describe here and elsewhere in the thread, the human race would die out in one generation.
Ah yes, taking care and being sure of consent certainly means the death of humankind.
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.
To me, those are clear evidence of a desire to progress toward sex. (Obviously, if she says stop, do so.)
The question I'm asking is that if both parties are expressing 'forward motion' in terms of their actions and their body language, is it necessary to have verbal consent?
Or are you violating consent if you assume their apparent physical interest substitutes for verbal consent?
Judging by romance flicks set in modern times, teen pop songs, advertising, and women’s magazines, Western culture says ‘no’ — the guy is supposed to pick up on non-verbal hints and take the wheel. (In reality, she’s already put the car into ‘Drive’, but she wants to give the guy the idea he’s in control)
Now, over time I’ve become fairly religious, and last year I’ve vowed not to have sex before marriage, but even with a girl who shares my faith, she expects me to try something (everything up to actual sex). Otherwise, she thinks I’m not into her (no sexual chemistry = no marriage).
I would agree. Until now, I've always considered the physical fact of the girl being "into it" as consent. I've never been wrong yet.
I suppose it's possible that a girl could physically participate in moving a sexual interaction forward while simultaneously not wanting to do so, but that suggests immaturity, inconsistency, and possible mental illness rather than any kind of behavior that should be recommended for anybody.
Now, over time I’ve become fairly religious, and last year I’ve vowed not to have sex before marriage, but even with a girl who shares my faith, she expects me to try something (everything up to actual sex). Otherwise, she thinks I’m not into her (no sexual chemistry = no marriage).
That's a bit different from "mainstream" culture - it's interesting to hear that expectations are similar (aside from actual PiV sex).
They do not want sex to be like that, go ahead, ask a woman. They want spontaneity, they want a man to take control, they want to feel desired.
Actually demanding that consent be explicitly verbal suggests that you're a white knight who hasn't been with a lot of woman.
OR, she can be a normal, non-litigious person and reject you. She can say "no", turn her head, take a step back, etc. and you know what, she won't be worse for the wear, mentally or physically. I promise!
I mean, at that rate, a girl could indicate that she wants you to rub her off, but charge you for sexual assault because Simon Didn't Say Touch My Breasts. Good god, please let this never happen to anyone.
Please, stop spreading advice that any and all action must be done with full and explicit consent. American society doesn't value that. Watch romance movies sometime. This is what girls grow up with. This is how many girls wish to be treated. They know how to operate in those scenarios. They understand the roles of each and have predefined expectations long before you meet them. They want their lives to play out like the most romantic scenes from their favorite movies. They want spontaneous adventure. They want unexpected trips and kisses in the rain. They want to stare in your eyes and for you to lean in. Defy these norms at your own risk.
I mean, fundamentally, what you are saying is just that: go against cultural norms because it's better for the girl that way. Says who? You? Her? "Society"? Feminists? Movies? I, for one, do not buy this line of thinking.
In the beginning, I expect relationships with people who aren't too sure about each other might well be represented by a series of try { } catch { } and throw CourtshipAdvanceNotAcceptedExceptions. Fine, this is par for the course. This is quite a bit different from throwing a lawsuit.
The people you should worry about are the ones who after rejection occurs, grab their victim and proceed to force their actions anyways.
(Context for this is for your bog-standard straight courting scenario--I do not feel qualified to comment on how courting for any other gender scenario works.)
~
In an ideal world, everybody would communicate honestly and openly. You could sit down with a girl, and have a conversation like so:
"Hi, I think you're attractive and I enjoy your company. Would you be interested in pursuing a relationship, or if not, perhaps a shorter-term physical engagement?" "Yes/No/Not interested."
This is, needless to say, not how 99.999% of the population works--as I, and I suspect others, have found to our dismay. Negotiating these sorts of things is not just a TCP ack sequence or something.
The fact is that even were roles reversed, that is just not what we would consider a compelling user experience. Expecting explicit handshaking for every step of the relationship cycle is something only emotional robots expect.
In an ideal world, the following things would be true:
1. People know what they want in a relationship.
2. People know how to convey what they want accurately to other people, especially in terms of arousal or courting.
3. People are free to signal availability or interest without repercussion, and accept rejection just as easily.
These three things are obviously far, far from the case.
~
There are very much conflicting cultural mores about how courtship is supposed to work.
On the one hand, we have hundreds and thousands of years of precedent (and perhaps biology, though I personally hope this is not the case) suggesting that the man is the one to initiate actions, and that the woman, if disinterested, will make her rejection known. Strictly speaking, we've got a bit more barbarous history behind us than that, but let's assume decent folk here to keep life simple.
On the other hand, we've got this recent push for more explicit confirmation for consent and for the more equitable distribution of first-move-making between the man and the woman.
These two things do not go together, and even worse, trying to come to a synthesis for your average inexperienced guy is a road which easily runs to ruin.
So, instead we find ourselves in this curious place where young men who mean well want to get with young women who also mean well. Unfortunately, the women are brought up expecting that the men will do the work, initiate everything, and the men are increasingly told that hey need to--to be safe and respectful, mind you!--wait for explicit confirmation of every step.
In programming terms, we are setting up for a deadlock.
Perhaps even more troubling, the hilariously large impact of social networks and whatnot mean that gossip is worse than ever, and there is no room to make mistakes if you are one of these young men. Worse, media is constantly reinforcing some awful blend of these two mores, making both sides seek after a state of affairs that simply does not exist.
There's some more issues I've seen, but you get the gist.
Believe it or not, one goal of this policy is more, and better sex.
I assert, though, that the climate today makes it very treacherous to do so--and that even if it didn't, there still is a chicken-and-egg problem in learning how to do it. Vocaroo and similar services seem to be a starting point for folks these days.
Honestly it isn't something you just know how to do (especially if you are prone to over-analysis of your actions), and the chance of making a lot of trouble for yourself is non-trivial.
This is the problem with your argument. I'll admit it, I don't explicitly "ask consent" and there have been times where there was "no doubt in my mind", and yet, I was rejected. :(
But if I was rejected, then I've clearly committed sexual assault in the most strict sense.
It's called "misreading a situation". You may think something is enthusiastic consent, but it isn't. Hence, why I will continue to ignore your advice and "live dangerously" by attempting to interpret the situation and predict the other partner's desires by other subjective and unreliable means such as body language and the nebulous concept of "where we are in our relationship".
That's an easy choice for me.
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 other words, and perhaps contrary to the way you believe it should be, THE LAW REQUIRES YOU TO EXPRESS YOUR DISCOMFORT OR ELSE THERE IS NO PLAUSIBLE WAY THE OTHER PERSON COULD KNOW. Sorry. :(
If a person has sex but later decides they weren't really that into their partner, wished that they didn't, wished that they had stopped it earlier -- it's not rape. Regret and the discomfort / dissonance that comes from it is a far cry from traumatic, forced rape.
2) You know long before you were "accidentally raping" someone whether or not they were consenting.
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 – yet again – on women to rein in the libidos of men who presumably can’t control themselves… and in many ways can put them at a disadvantage. Women are often socialized to be non-direct for fear of causing offense; many women are frequently uncomfortable with being up front with saying “No, I don’t want this.” http://www.doctornerdlove.com/2013/03/enthusiastic-consent/
This is much more complex than you make it out to be, and that's precisely what obliges us to set guidelines that encourage folks not to rape rather than assuming not-rape as the default.
In summary, let's keep rape as a reserved term for obvious and gratuitous violations. This "accidentally raped" is kind of stupid.
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.
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.
Or does it have to be given via verbal instructions?
If a girl is touching you back, tugging at your clothes, unzipping your fly - is that some form of communication? Or is it meaningless?
This is so laden with sexism it cannot be taken seriously. No, most women are not brought up expecting men to do all courtship and it silly to assume so. Further, in the context of how men treat women the dominant social narrative is sexual violence perpetrated by men your problem as a victim, so the reality is that the kickstarter project in question advocates taking advantage of this narrative to get sex without clear consent, which is outright rape.
How? Serious question.
The issue of whether this book is misogynist or not doesn't really matter. You can still buy it if you want or any other legal material you want to buy. Just not on Kickstarter. There are many stores that don't sell things I want to buy.
Meanwhile, I don't think it is wrong to sell books to men to help them learn what women want to succeed in the confusing world of dating. If you can write a better book, one filled with sexy ways to ask permission for each escalation, then thousands of men will buy it.
The real problem is that the science of attraction doesn't match well with feminism. And men want to know the truth. A woman is twice as likely to give you her number if you touch her on the arm at your first meeting[1]. Are we supposed to surpress this hatefact? Or fire the psychologist who did the study?
[1]http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/15534510701316177...
Without the source document, though, it's not really easy to say either way.
I'm also not impressed with the author's writing in any event.
Nope. The author of the book who was promoting his project on reddit provided the linked the above pastebin text himself.
[0] http://www.reddit.com/r/seduction/comments/1dvnem/above_the_...
Context was obvious if you read the few lines around the quoted "trouble" text
Is it sexual assault if I do that to my girlfriend of 5 years?
In many contexts it would be sexual assault, but in many it wouldn't be. I think you're just assuming it's sexual assault because you don't like the idea of a book that teaches people how to "pick up women"
FYI, the context behind that sentence is:
> offering advice on what to do AFTER a man has met a cute girl, gotten her phone number, gone on dates, spent time getting to know her, and now are alone behind closed doors fooling around
It is if she says it is. That's the whole point, you don't decide, the circumstances don't decide, only she can decide.
My point was that I would hope I don't have to ask permission after 5 years without it being sexual assault, therefore whether that action is sexual assault is context dependent.
That said, this book advocates doing physically violating things to all women you would date in a short term time period, which is the kind of thing a serial rapist does.
Do you need to read a how-to book in order to seduce your girlfriend of 5 years?
The answer is yes, everybody needs to become much better seductors. Why? Take a look at the divorce statistics and then imagine what they would look like if people were receptive to their parters needs (and actually cared about them). My guess is low, single digits and almost no messy divorces.
Regardless of that, the book is not about managing long-term relationships. Ostensibly, it's about how to get relationships started in the first place. Therefore, whether a given interaction may or may not be appropriate with a girlfriend of 5 years is irrelevant to the conversation. That was my point.
The counter-article writer doesn't make clear that he's picked quotes from all over the guide, they aren't all "the first thing you should do" quotes
I really can't believe I'm getting into this argument when a much more interesting discussion is whether platforms have a responsibility to be open to all comers, but alas.
You boys need a lesson in basic empathy.
Imagine you're in a bar, and a super built gay guy reeking of booze comes up to you and sits uncomfortably close to you. His face is inches away from yours but as you try to pull away he scoots himself forward. His hand brushes lightly on yours. After a couple minutes of ignoring your obvious lack of interest he places his hand on your inner thigh, which you brush away and tell him he's being a creep, and walk away to a different area. But he KNOWS that even as you reject his advances you're really getting turned on, that you're aroused physically and psychologically. So he follows you, sits next to you, and picks you up and puts you on his lap.
Now, don't skip that scenario: I want you to stop and think about it in detail. How would it make you feel? Do you feel turned on? Do you feel violated?
Incidentally, not everyone here who disagrees with you is a cismale.
Please save the patronizing condescension for your tumblr blog.
When people hit on me, and/or won't leave me alone, I'm perfectly capable of telling them to piss off if I'm not interested. This goes for a gay guy, straight guy, straight girl, gay girl--whatever.
Don't talk down to me.
>Now, don't skip that scenario: I want you to stop and think about it in detail. How would it make you feel? Do you feel turned on? Do you feel violated?
I take control of the situation by removing myself from the situation or making a scene. And I get over it.
Look, I'm queer and I'm actually pretty sympathetic to the anti-seddit et al crowd.
But the notion that I'm supposed to care about every person's feelings around me is nonsensical. It's exactly the kind of sentiment that you're violating by lecturing your audience. You're _deliberately_ provoking an uncomfortable reaction and prioritizing your own emotions above those of others.
And I'm going to tell you to shove off, and get over it.
This isn't about rape, the violent action and definable crime. It's about communication in a social space. And you can't communicate if you can't aggress, as you have _just demonstrated_.
Nearly that exact scenario has happened to me. Multiple times: in bars, people hounding me playing a non-consensual game of grabass. In a crowded bus, a guy continually rubbed his hand against my hand despite my trying to move away and escape him.
That's bad, and you're a bad person if you think it's acceptable. Comparing "being mean to people online" to sexual assault is ridiculous and offensive.
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 hope you respect that it's for the purposes of argument:
>In a crowded bus, a guy continually rubbed his hand against my hand despite my trying to move away and escape him.
So shout at him. Lay into him like you're laying into me ("you're a bad person if you think it's acceptable"--as if I even said such a thing!) and make it devastatingly clear that you won't stand for it.
You don't owe anything to the status quo, the peace of mind of other people on the bus, the rules of decorum, _anything._
It's not a solution because it's unrealistic due to inherited gender roles blah blah (and don't lay into me about _that_, Ms. "you boys"), but I really wish more women were just _loud_ about things like this.
I _like_ loud women.
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.
At some point the meaning of "sexual assault" will be so diluted it's meaningless.
Sexual assault is crystal clear, you can do whatever you want with your partner(s) with consent, nobody cares at that point. The minute you take past activity as a license to do what you want without someone's permission is the minute you cross the line into assault.
Reminds me of this comedian. In one of his clips he talks about how he hates people recording his gigs on mobile phones etc, etc because then they are free to selectively show parts of a skit: http://youtu.be/Z3fZutYufGE?t=26m15s
Context means everything.
The misquoted parts is from the chapter about when you're already in a relationship, and ready to get physical.
Seduction is not inherently misogynistic, even if some seducers are misogynists. And whether an action is "sexual assault" or not is heavily context dependent.
Let me ask you this... every time you go to kiss your spouse, do you ask "May I kiss you" first? If not, then by the standard you are setting, you are assaulting them every time you initiate a kiss.
Context: this is part of the penultimate chapter, which is about what to do when you’ve gone on several dates with a woman and now you’re alone with her. Many women expect men to take the first step, the chapter explains how to interpret the signs and act on them. One of the first sentences of the chapter is:
“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 immediately”
The part about taking out your dick is after the sections about kissing, fondling and fingering. NOT taking out your dick at this point would be more curious.
The chapter in question so you can judge for yourself: http://www.reddit.com/r/seduction/comments/1dvnem/above_the_...
Now, I don‘t particularly like the tone of this guide and I don’t think it‘s very insightful or well-written, but it’s definitely not anything new or out of line. In the genre, I personally prefer the writings of David DeAngelo.
Congrats on being married and 34????
"If women are loudly saying "This is assault.", you need to take them at their word, because it is their judgment, it is their consent that matters. Not yours."
We live in a world where not everyone is resonable. Anyone suggesting you forcibly put someones hand on your penis as a courting move is not resonable. However there are also many woman who are also not resonable and you shouldn't simply back them up just because they're woman.
I also haven't read the book, so have no real opinion on it's content.
If I do the same thing in a bedroom with a woman who I've already been (consensually) fondling, is it?
At some point there's implied consent to continue moving forward. If not, then I fear there are hundreds of millions of sexual assaults every day.
That quote was never given as 'taking the first step'. It was given as "how to begin when you're finally alone in the bedroom with mutual consent for sex". That is obvious even after only reading the one part of his 'guide' that includes this quote.
"all the "context" the excusers are providing."
dogmatism - "the tendency to lay down principles as incontrovertibly true, without consideration of evidence or opinion of others"
There's a difference between understanding and agreeing. Just because somebody doesn't agree with your flawed, poorly thought out emotion based opinion doesn't mean they don't understand where it comes from. You're doing what so many people accuse conservative christians of doing - you're trying to silence a dissenting opinion because it makes you feel bad. That makes you an authoritarian of the worst sort; the kind that would gladly burn any book you find offensive.
Amen brother.
Of course, men who don't have experience with not having the power to consent struggle with this idea.
A fellow married HNer in his 30s.
"Without that consent, it is assault."
I've lived abroad several times in different places and the behavior of women in certain culture actively promotes/encourages the behavior being promoted by this book. For example, I've lived in Rio de Janeiro (and several places in the US) and there in particular you are expected, by the women, to behave in the manner promoted by this book otherwise you simply won't meet women when going out to many night venues. Seriously, the nice guy approach will net you not one number in a nightclub/dance club in Rio, you actually have to "manhandle" women to enter into a conversation. I'm a decent looking guy and normally don't have too much difficulty meeting women, but when I was in Rio, my US-acceptable "passivity" relative to the culture norm in Rio, got me absolutely no where there. It was only when I forced myself to be physically assertive that women started responding well and flirting back and I started getting dates.
With this in mind, I honestly would not be surprised if the backlash we are seeing here is indicative of a cultural echo chamber that finds this behavior reprehensible that is also ignorant of of the existance of cultural spaces in the US where this behavior is not only acceptable but welcomed by women, and that this guide is geared towards men who frequent those cultural spaces. Examples of cultural spaces in the US where this behavior is expected by women are probably the same spaces that the cast of Jersey Shore and their real life analogues frequent. Watch this video of interviews with people on a certain beach on the Jersey shore and try to tell me that these assertive "mating practices" are not only acceptable but welcome: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5weU2olAl-E . What is unfortunate is that behavior that is acceptable in those spaces bleeds intquo the common cultural spaces where this is not acceptable behavior.
Anyways, I'm neither defending nor supporting this kickstarter, but merely saying that a lot of the people on their high horse need to realize the relativism of culture and that some things that may be wildly offensive to many women may actually be encouraged by certain subsets of women in certain cultural spaces. With this in mind, public outcry and censorship of material you may find objectional can sometimes suppress culture and you need to be aware of when you may be doing so.
I think Neil Gaiman's thoughts "Why defend freedom of icky speech" is particularly relevant here.
http://journal.neilgaiman.com/2008/12/why-defend-freedom-of-...
I personally would prefer that this speech be protected even if I don't agree with it, but that Kickstarter require that the author write a chapter on the importance of being discriminatory in practicing this behavior in cultural spaces where it is not acceptable and helping them identify women that don't welcome these advances in those cultural spaces where they may be acceptable.
I honestly find it shocking that so many people on HN are having such difficulty accepting the principal of expressly verbalized consent. Surely we can move on from the notion that men need to "be dominant" and "force her to rebuff your advances".
While a particular culture may call for certain shifts in attitude, that does not mean verbalized consent is not important.
>I think Neil Gaiman's thoughts "Why defend freedom of icky speech" is particularly relevant here.
I think a key distinction between the subject of Gaiman's thoughts and the material at hand is that "Above the Game" purports to offer advice applicable to real word scenarios. This advice, however, will, unquestionably, lead to sexual assault if followed (not in every case, but in some).
I would certainly find it dubious for the United States Government to condemn the book, but I feel that Kickstarter's stance is defensible from the position of not wanting to be associated with such dangerous and callous material.
"While a particular culture may call for certain shifts in
attitude, that does not mean verbalized consent is not
important."
"but I feel that Kickstarter's stance is defensible from
the position of not wanting to be associated with such
dangerous and callous material."
With centralized electronic payments and centralized crowdfunding platforms we've lost the neutrality of money and that is a threat to a free and open society.
Good god this. Until these guys can explain why we must suddenly ignore a million years of hardwired non-verbal communication, their argument is completely moot.
This ability to read feedback and adapt to a cultural context is exactly what the guide should teach. I know you say you're not defending the Kickstarter, but you're criticizing criticism of it, so the exact content of what we're talking about is very relevant. If you take a look at what the guide says, you'll know this has nothing to do with an "echo chamber" and has everything to do with sexual assault.
Consider the audience of seduction guides. They wouldn't be reading explicit guidance on how to verbally and physically interact with women if they had any understanding of the boundaries and expectations in their own culture. They should be learning how to read feedback from women and how to map out the boundaries in their culture and in each individual interaction with a woman. Instead, the guide advocates specific ways of physically handling women to people who are not remotely capable of figuring out whether those actions are appropriate in context or whether they constitute sexual assault.
Even worse, the guide teaches them that their "nice" impulses, their desire to respect women and their fear of making them angry by being openly sexual, are sabotaging them and making them less attractive to women. This is often true, but it's horribly irresponsible to teach people to interact in physically assertive ways while also teaching them to distrust their inhibitions against sexual aggression. If your inhibitions against sexual aggression prevent you from touching a woman while you talk to her, then your inhibitions need to be recalibrated. However, you absolutely cannot physically interact with women unless you have some trustworthy sense of how to avoid unacceptable behavior.
In other words, what the readers are in desperate need of is a way to figure out when they're making small or large mistakes, and when they're actually doing well. This would liberate them to start learning by trial and error. Instead, the guide actually says that men are notoriously bad at reading women, and you should never let any "signs" hold you back from the proper course of "ALWAYS BE ESCALATING!" What level of "resistance" is explicit enough to pay attention to? (Seriously, this is from a section titled "IMPORTANT NOTE ON RESISTANCE.") "If she says 'STOP,' or 'GET AWAY FROM ME,' or shoves you away, you know she is not interested." It then gives you a line to memorize -- seriously, a line to memorize for this situation -- and says, "If a woman isn't comfortable, take a break and try again later. All that matters is that you continue to try to escalate physically until she makes it genuinely clear that it's not happening."
Because "STOP" and "GET AWAY FROM ME" don't mean it's genuinely not happening -- they just mean you should try again later. Is this really good advice to give people who in all likelihood are already not that great at figuring out when they're assaulting somebody?
The kicker: "From now on you must ASSUME that she is attracted to you and wants to be ravished." Ravish means rape. It only sounds nicer because it is associated with an indistinct, rose-tinted past when rape could be considered classy under the right circumstances. (It is also used as a metaphor for overwhelming emotion, but the key to that image is the experience of being carried away against one's will, and once again the usage comes from a time when the concept of rape wasn't so intrinsically offensive as it is now.)
"GET AWAY FROM ME" means try again later, and you have to assume every woman wants to be "ravished" by you. This is not ambiguous material; this is material that teaches a model of interaction in which sexual assault is a commonplace side effect.
What you naively don't know, is that in this field, the culture is very far from reality. Some ahem "people" would scream horror to things that they would secretly do.
It's nothing new under the sun.
Either you mean that or your writing is appalling.
That could be instructions for rape. 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?
Right?
So stop taking quotes out of context from the author.
> If women are loudly saying "This is assault.", you need to take them at their word, because it is their judgment, it is their consent that matters. Not yours.
Your language is intentionally misleading. What matters is the woman with whom you're interacting. Feminist internet commenters can neither give consent nor take it away. And the author is severely explicit about respecting consent. His quotes are being butchered.
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.
"That could be instructions for rape. 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?
Just to be clear, please don't take my comment as excusing the problems people have raised here, but as simply an impartial anthropological description of the reality of the world.
If he worded what he wanted to say correctly and with the proper context, why remove them?
Why refuse to speak to the police without an attorney present if you have nothing to hide? Your question is no more fair than that one. If I were stirring up a "shit storm" by offending people about a hot-button topic I would certainly start deleting everything I could. Seriously, the guy got a measly $16,000 for this and people were threatening to ruin his life over it.
Regardless of whether what I did was wrong or not I would've deleted it all, refunded the $16,000 and disappeared for a while.
You comparing being interviewed by the police without an attorney present and what I said is ludicrous.
[1]: http://www.reddit.com/r/seduction/comments/1dvnem/above_the_...
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!
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 aren't sexual assault that you could do before resorting to that.
If you believe that's a reasonable "move" to make, then you not only have no imagination, but your judgment of what's acceptable behavior is way, way off. It doesn't matter if this is a woman who you're behind closed doors with for the first time, that's not a normal, acceptable "move". That kind of thing is for people already in an established, ongoing relationship with a solid foundation of consent.
Without that consent, it is assault.
I strongly urge all of you who "do not see the problem" with the author's writings to do more research into exactly what consent is, and what women (as a whole, obviously it varies from individual to individual) see as acceptable, expected behavior.
If women are loudly saying "This is assault.", you need to take them at their word, because it is their judgment, it is their consent that matters. Not yours.
Sincerely,
A married, 34 year old HNer who is ashamed of this community right now.
EDIT:
I thought this was obvious but I have already read all the comments in this thread and all the "context" the excusers are providing. If you think pointing me to that again is refuting my points, then you didn't understand what I wrote.