Look at all these HNers defending sexual assault.
So just because some people are asking "Hey, is there something intrinsically wrong with these guides or what?" they're defending sexual assault.
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.
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.
Anyone who defends you is defending murder.
http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:40tT3ne...
Search for 'permission' to find him directly telling the reader not to ask for consent.
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 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?
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.
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.
Sexual acts, taken out of the context of mutually-interested intercourse, do very much resemble assault. It's a funny sort of fact of life.
Put even more coarsely, to quote probably one or more very confused offspring having happened upon unlocked doors "Why are mommy and daddy wrestling?"
> 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.
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.
Guess you better go tell a bunch of little girls that they aren't allowed to like whatever their favorite female Disney protagonist happens to be.
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 girlor is it LAND CULTURE?
perhaps it is MER CULTURE??
(I haven't seen that movie in a long while.)
It might even, gasp, be possible that women wants to have sex with men. Have you considered that.
Doesn't seem to have slowed down the twitter / tumblr hysteria at all, though.
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.