Hacker News Reader

Comment by vacri | Hacker News Reader

I'm not sure where you get that from. Puritans have never been big on the rights of women.

The rights of women? Women have a right to not have a book published? Really?

I could make the parallel argument for The Anarchist's Cookbook, and the difference between publication and action, but what's the point? Gender politics has been extraordinarily effective at driving reason out of such discussions.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/puritan

2: one who practices or preaches a more rigorous or professedly purer moral code than that which prevails

Puritans in 1600, no. Puritan America in the 2000's, sex is a very taboo subject, especially when it comes to women.

This was clearly, obviously, blatantly not in response to anyones hangups about sex in general. Not wanting to be associated with creepy, rapey stuff written by and for creepy, rapey people is hardly Puritanical, it's more like being a human being.

But judging this content as creepy and rapey is quite puritanical.

All this screams about rape for something that sums up to "you're about to have sex? Don't ask her to grab your dick, guide her hand to it".

No, it is not.

Perhaps you meant to reply to the parent or grandparent? I'm merely pointing out that "Puritan America" does not mean "1600's Puritans That Just Happen To Be Living In What Will Become America". I could not get the site to load to read the book, so I cannot make judgement on the content.

They seem to have a problem with the notion of sex, though.

Sex-negative feminists and sex-negative Christians have a weirdly large amount of things in common at times.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com