[emingo]

Maybe I was raised by a bunch of rabid dogs...

But after reading the cached page... I really don't understand what the creator did wrong?

He was a guy that I a lot of people can identify with, whom is publishing a book about his experiences?

Is seduction intrinsically bad?

[swombat]

See http://curiousrat.com/kickstarter-allowed-funding-for-a-sexu...

Quoting from the "manual":

> 5) Get CLOSE to her, damn it!

> To quote Rob Judge, “Personal space is for pussies.” I already told you that the most successful seducers are those who can’t keep their hands off of women. Well you’re not gonna be able to do that if you aren’t in close!”

> “All the greatest seducers in history could not keep their hands off of women. They aggressively escalated physically with every woman they were flirting with. They began touching them immediately, kept great body language and eye contact, and were shameless in their physicality. Even when a girl rejects your advances, she KNOWS that you desire her. That’s hot. It arouses her physically and psychologically.

> 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.

This is the bit that's being decried as "intrinsically bad" - not seduction in general - because it advocates invading another person's personal space and touching them when they've expressed they don't want to be touched "because it will arouse her".

[pbhjpbhj]

>touching them when they've expressed they don't want to be touched //

Maybe I'm being an idiot but where did it say that in your quote?

Perhaps it's this line:

>Even when a girl rejects your advances, she KNOWS that you desire her. //

I'd say implicit in that is that "when you have to stop because they've rejected your advance it's fine because they KNOW [blah blah blah]".

To be honest it's Kickstarter's gig, but I think putting someone down in this way for simply advocating diminished personal space in social interactions, seems a bit heavy.

Seriously from the "We were wrong" post I was expecting the "manual" to be telling you how to feed someone rohypnol [memory removal drug] not to touch their back when you're on a date.

>Content promoting or glorifying violence against women or anyone else has always been prohibited from Kickstarter. //

Where's the bit that promotes violence? It must be very obvious in the book otherwise they wouldn't surely be risking libelling the creator by making them out to advocate violence against women.

[Tichy]

A bit further on they also write that the seducer should learn to figure out when NO really means NO. And if humans are wired that way (responding to touch) then it's not the fault of somebody writing a book. There is also scientific research that people are more likely to respond to your requests if you touch them while asking. It's just psychology.

[angersock]

It seems, though, that those are taken out of context--the context being what to do once in an intimate setting and having already established some form of relationship.

So, basically, trying to teach awkward dudes how to start physical stuff if they're too inexperienced to know how.

[khawkins]

All he's saying here is that you should test/push boundaries, not to continue once they've rejected the advances. But, he notes, that even if they reject, it achieves a desired effect which may eventually pay off.

[Alex3917]

> This is the bit that's being decried as "intrinsically bad" - not seduction in general - because it advocates invading another person's personal space and touching them when they've expressed they don't want to be touched "because it will arouse her".

They are banning all projects related to seduction though. This seems a bit excessive, considering even the supreme court basically released a guide to seduction at one point. (C.f. the 'one bite at the apple' rule as it relates to sexual harassment.)

[tomjen3]

Apparently for these people seduction = violence against women.

I haven't seen such a broken thinking process anywhere else. If anything seduction is about giving women what they really want. That said it does have a somewhat, hmm, sketchy reputation which is no doubt related to a combination of loathing for men who have a difficult time getting laid and the extreme marketing tactics that those kinds of guides are usually sold with.

And seduction isn't inheriently bad, but there are still some around who are trying to be politically correct and seduction isn't exactly something you are supposed to talk about in polite company.

[rimantas]

Take a look at some survey on the subject what women want in terms of sexual fantasies. Dominance from men will be high at the top.

[draq]

<irony>Of course, because some women want dominance from men, it means that all women loves it. If you unpermittedly invade the personal space of 100 women, and only 10 complain about it, then it's only 10% sexual harassment, right?</irony>

[aeorgnoieang]

By the same reasoning, if some women do NOT want "dominance from men" then all "dominance" is sexual assault?

[draq]

To establish that dominance is not sexual assault, you should communicate. Simply to impose a dominant behaviour in case of doubt is not a GOOD strategy and may be sexual assault.

[mindcrime]

Just read My Secret Garden by Nancy Friday sometime. Women have some f%!#ng sick fantasies... but somehow men are painted as the sexual predators / deviants, from whom the pure, wholesome, virtuous, innocent girls must be protected...

[Nursie]

It has a sketchy reputation because it's about getting as many women into bed as possible and treating them as objects rather than people.

[maximilianburke]

When the guide is written like a rape manual, yes, yes it is. It features quotes like:

"Pull out your cock and put her hand on it. Remember, she is letting you do this because you have established yourself as a LEADER. Don't ask for permission, GRAB HER HAND, and put it right on your dick."

(from: http://www.reddit.com/r/seduction/comments/1dvnem/above_the_...)

The whole thing is disgusting, degrading, and has no place on this earth.

[garethadams]

That particular comment is taken from a part of the guide where you're already with a girl in "a private, intimate setting". It's assuming that you're with someone who's already comfortable around you. It's not saying that you should get naked in a nightclub with someone you've just met.

[cgranade]

So you're supposed to wait until you're alone with a woman before you sexually assault and/or rape her? That's not an improvement, and doesn't negate that it's still very much so a rape manual.

[rlt]

Are you saying you consider that "rape", even if the subjects were already kissing and fondling?

I wonder how many people outraged at this have explicitly asked for permission before every step of physical escalation in every one of their relationships.

[arrrg]

Yeah, if you do shit like this you are Schrödinger's rapist, i.e. completely dependent on consent you do not know you have.

[rlt]

I have a hard time believing a jury would convict someone of sexual assault for placing someone's hand on their penis if they were already (consensually) fingering that person.

[arrrg]

I’ve no doubt it would be hard to convict – but that doesn’t change anything about whether you are a rapist or not (or at least guilty of sexual assault).

[roc]

At the same time... if this same content was written as fiction, with the viewpoint character/hero accomplishing his goals through these same methods and relaying that same philosophy through dialogue or internal monologue, would it be (as) problematic?

[loumf]

Of course it wouldn't. Is that surprising? Fiction is different from a how-to manual and should be treated as such. It's not just the literal words in a particular paragraph, it's also the surrounding context.

[roc]

I agree the context matters, but there's a long history of equivocating the fictional and instructional, on the part of people who try to draw these lines with regards to speech. [1]

I simply don't think the line is as clear-cut, for many of those who were outraged at Kickstarter. I think the company may have inadvertently stepped out onto a PR tight-rope.

[1] Note the use of words like 'murder simulator'/'rape simulator' or the outrage and claims of sexism/homophobia/stereotyping whenever there's a fictional representation of a character or situation that happens to (however briefly) conform to some stereotype.

[pseut]

You're asking whether it would be as problematic if it were a different book? I guess it depends. It's not like fiction/nonfiction is a switch that you can toggle without making other substantive changes.

[blaabjerg]

Maybe I'm a horrible person, but I don't think taking someone's hand and placing it on your dick is such a horrible, disgusting thing to do when you're in a situation like the one described in that post.

Keep in mind that in the original post it only happens after dating, kissing, fondling and fingering without protest. At that point, if you describe the next step between two consenting adults out of context it's going to sound "rapey".

[Anderkent]

I don't see how that's a 'rape manual' quote if it is clearly in a section labelled sex. I.e. you both already have the expectation of sex - are in a bedroom or whatever. It's obviously clear that he doesn't suggest such behaviour in a different context.

[aeorgnoieang]

That quote was in a section about sex.

[knowaveragejoe]

The lack of context given in the blog post is what seems to have fueled this groupthink storm.

[pizza234]

Most of the negative arguments against seduction have a few root causes. Seduction science is very disturbing.

First, it disturbs women because it's perceived as a shift in the roles and their power over the other.

Second, it disturbs men, at least some of them, because when read it from the armchair, looks just ridiculous.

Third, expert players ("PUA"s) are very often troubled people, who become expert because they have a great need for validation. Their writings can be perfectly valid and effective, but surrounded by tons of self-validation, so they cause aversion to the person rather than the content.

There is a mix of #2 and #3 in the reaction to your comment.

The problem is that the things written look rape when put out of context. Abstractly, they are all forms of physical assertion. Nobody, except fools and rapists, would do them where inappropriate.

Putting the girl's hand in one's k is something that is effective in a very specific context. Putting a a girl on one's lap is something that, again, is effective in a very specific context.

Both of them are not* done unless one expects a consenting reaction.

The key difference between physical assertiveness and rape is that the first is done with expected consensus, the second with expected dissent (so that force is involved).

The armchair critics are mixing the two, just because they don't have idea of how those things work in real life.

Regarding the general idea of seduction, that's a separate subject, and it's actually complex and multi layered.

Summarizing, seduction is at his essence psychological hacking. Asserting that it's bad the exact analogue of a non-engineer saying that hacking is bad.

To conclude, the guy writing the book is clearly psychologically troubled, and there are way better books than his.

[eco]

I'm confused too. The blog post mentions violence against women and sexual-violence several times. The cached page is unreachable for me but I suspect a "seduction guide" doesn't advocate hitting women. Seduction guides are often sleezy from what I've seen and appear to be more effective at taking advantage of lonely men than they are about taking advantage of women. The blog post stops just short of calling this a rape guide though which I highly doubt is the case.

[inglesp]

I don't have anything to add beyond this quote from the linked-to blog post:

"Even when a girl rejects your advances, she KNOWS that you desire her. That’s hot. It arouses her physically and psychologically.”

[j546]

That's because the project page itself was done in a way that doesn't raise any flags. But if you dig into what his book actually contains, then you'll see what's wrong with the project.

In all honesty I don't blame Kickstarter for approving it originally because at face value the project does seem harmless, but nevertheless they f'ed up and admitted to their mistake and I applaud them. It's never easy to admit you were wrong.

[famousactress]

It seems pretty clear you haven't read the parts of the published guide that were raising alarm flags. They're quoted in this blog post linked to from the apology: http://caseymalone.com/post/53339539674/this-is-not-fucking-...

[aeorgnoieang]

It also seems fairly clear that you haven't read the context of those same quoted parts.

[famousactress]

I think I did, and I still find the content deeply revolting.

[redwood]

There must be more in the depths of reddit that made this far worse than it seems within the kickstarter page..

[dwb]

There's paragraphs to write on the subject, but in short, yes this was very bad. Details here: http://caseymalone.com/post/53339539674/this-is-not-fucking-...