It is not necessarily illegal means, but simply means that the government do not want to expose in open court. Perhaps this is because they are illegal, or perhaps revealing the source of intelligence could compromise an active intelligence operation. The NSA does not want its methods exposed in open court. You will probably say that this is because they are illegal. But an equally plausible explanation is that revealing details of their capabilities is of benefit to their adversaries.
The chapter linked appears to be called "Physical Escalation and Sex" and seems to be very late in the book.
Consent is assumed in the situation because of all the stuff leading up to it. Like the getting the number, the going out on dates, talking a lot, and finally ending up alone with them in their or your own residence.
Are you sure you've had sexual congress with a woman before? As many other posters are pointing out in this thread, most real women absolutely do not want to be asked for permission every step of the way.
Furthermore, the author includes quite a bit of text about respecting when consent is explicitly withdrawn, which is something I hope we can all agree is a good thing, without getting lost in, "but you should discuss it first". Most people don't, and that's the reality we live in.
>Consent is assumed in the situation because of all the stuff leading up to it. Like the getting the number, the going out on dates, talking a lot, and finally ending up alone with them in their or your own residence.
Consent should never be assumed. Just fucking ask. This chapter is explicitly talking about transitioning from a non-sexual to a sexual relationship. Assuming that your partner wants this to happen is a recipe for sexual assault.
> Consent should never be assumed. Just fucking ask. This chapter is explicitly talking about transitioning from a non-sexual to a sexual relationship. Assuming that your partner wants this to happen is a recipe for sexual assault.
I think you're mistaken, and I think you're inexperienced with women. Most women absolutely do not want to be asked every step of the way. Many women I have been with have specifically enjoyed it when I have done things such as not ask them but pick them up and place them in my lap, then kiss them.
If someone withdraws their consent, and you do not respect, that makes you a rapist. Consent is typically withdrawn when she says things like "no", which the guide you are calling a rape-manual specifically notes to respect.
You're being disingenuous. No one who already is not a rapist and respects consent, can hear, and read body language is going to continue in the face of withdrawn consent.
Finally, how do you know the "talking a lot" step doesn't establish explicit verbal consent prior to the event?
I don't think you've read much PUA material. A lot of it is about trying to have sex with a partner who does not (at least initaially) want to have sex. Escalating physically until they say no, lying and saying you'll stop and then escalating again. Charitably it is about convincing someone to have sex with you, uncharitably it is wearing them down until they give up resisting.
There have been clear descriptions of rape which have been posted by redditors on the PUA subreddit, which the poster apparently did not realise were rape.
If consent is not violated, it's not rape. You can't assume that consent is not established... which is what you're doing. Convincing someone they raped their girlfriend or their boyfriend raped them is pretty reprehensible, but I am aware that it goes on.
I don't actually recommend following the lead of these so called Pick Up Artists... but I don't think they were trying to teach anyone to rape. Apparently we should agree to disagree on that point.
I'm not using a Disney film as an example of a good portrayal of women, and neither is the author of the seduction book.
The implication is that the Disney movie, made and marketed for children, has a song called "Kiss the girl" which is about as rape-y as the advice in the seduction manual. Which is to say not at all.
So, the male computer scientist now feels qualified to tell little girls what is and isn't ok for them to like. I thought you didn't like men telling women what to do?
I was just curious about this Disney song everyone mentions. It's actually kinda' weird:
Yes, you want her
Look at her, you know you do
It’s possible she wants you, too
There is one way to ask her
It don’t take a word
Not a single word
Go on and kiss the girl
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.
> > 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.
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).
If you are white, cis and male, you need to understand how that affects positively how society treats you. Because society treats you better than any other group. Then you need to think about how that shapes your opinions so that you can understand the complaints of the less privileged.
For example, if you are a white New Yorker, you might say "stop and frisk is fine, I never get stopped so they must only be stopping criminals". However, once you realise that the police disproportionately stop black people, you are better able to understand black people's complaints about the policy. It's nothing sinister or hateful. It's a way to critically evaluate ones own biases.
It's not a way to critically evaluate biases, the way you and others use it today. It's a way to insult people for the sexuality, sex, or ethnicity they were born to. Do you really want to behave in the same way the people on Fox News do?
Do you really think that removing the 'rich Corinthian leather' (which Steve Jobs loved) from iCal is a bad thing? If anything, I think the real world textures are more childish.
The new visual language means design is more important. You can't hide bad design with gloss and shadows. This is obviously bad for the Dribble crowd who often seem to favour style over substance, making the common mistake that design is about making something look good.
Design is how it works and functions, yes. But visual design is a major facet of that too. A large part of app design is the visual aesthetics. It's what helps make people download your app. It's most of what keeps them coming back for more. It matters too.
