Not even in the part of the document I linked to advocating shoving total strangers around and kissing them while they're trapped up against a wall?
I had forgotten about this document.
Bumps to reread.
right here,
It's difficult to take this document seriously, but maybe I am only saying that because I have never been blown in the dark corner of a club by a complete stranger that I just met.
I mean, I know it happens (particularly in gay bars), but it's never happened to me. :(
Anyway, if we take the writer at his word, he can whirl through a meat market, choosing women at random, hooking them in and flinging them away, leaving them with a smile on their face and wanting more. In which case, "caveman-"ing them against the wall and kissing them seems consensual to me and in line with what I hear happens at such establishments. But what do I know? I spent my twenties in old man bars and punk rock clubs.
If you are unwilling to take his word for it, and I can't say I'd blame you if you didn't, then which parts do we not believe? That the women aren't smiling and wanting more? I find it difficult to believe that you could even get away with this kind of behavior in even the most crowded of dance clubs. The women aren't watching you do the same thing with every other woman in the place? What about the bouncers?
Let's turn this around, let's say that you go to a bar and a gay man much bigger and stronger than you puts his arms around you, calls you cute, then shoves you away HARD. A bit later on he comes back over, grabs you, shoves you against the wall and kisses you before wandering off again. Would you feel comfortable about this? Would you feel comfortable knowing that this advice was being passed around and there was an increasing chance that you were going to be shoved around and forcibly kissed each time you go out?
Well, first off, is he cute?
More than likely, though, I am not going to be receptive to a gay man's advances, rough trade or not. The first time that it happened, I'd probably get my check and leave. What I certainly wouldn't do is grin at him. A woman wouldn't be likely to, either? I agree and I would advise her to do the same thing I would do when the guy comes around for a second whirl: resist.
Would I feel comfortable about the situation? No.
Would I feel comfortable knowing that advice like this was being circulated about how to pick up goblins?
I don't feel comfortable about advice like this being circulated on how to pick up women. I don't believe I've ever suggested that any of this behavior is okay or cool. My contention has been, and is, that it is not sexual assault.
Reply to Edit 1: Well, you can keep saying that he is saying to force the woman and you can even put it in bold, but I'm going to keep coming back to:
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.
All that matters is that you continue to try to escalate physically until she makes it genuinely clear that it's not happening. She wants to be desired, but the circumstances need to be right. With some experience, you will learn to differentiate the "No, we can't... my parents are in the next room... OMG F@+* ME F$%@ ME HARD" from the "SERIOUSLY GET THE F@&~ OFF OF ME, YOU CREEP" variety of resistance.
Of course if you're really unclear, back off. Better safe than sorry.
I'll come back to this in a second, but first:
Reply to Edit 2: Okay, he's telling people to force her to rebuff your advances. Okay, you're right, that's forcing a woman to do something. And then he goes into Important Note On Resistance (which is also in bold, by the way).
You can just read that line, if you like, but, from reading the sentences around it, here's the interpretation that I get:
"You're out on a date. You're trying to score. You're trying to "physically escalate." Don't wait for her to give you a come hither signal, figure out where her boundaries are. Go in for the kiss. And if she says no, back off."
Doesn't read like advocating sexual assault to me. Sounds pretty disrespectful, and I've never treated a woman like that, but, then again, neither have I ever been blown in the dark corner of the club by a stranger I just met.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Woops, forgot. "No Means No" and an "Important Note On Resistance":
"All that matters is that you continue to try to escalate physically until she makes it genuinely clear that it's not happening. She wants to be desired, but the circumstances need to be right. With some experience, you will learn to differentiate the "No, we can't... my parents are in the next room... OMG F+%# ME F@&! ME HARD" from the "SERIOUSLY GET THE F%** OFF OF ME, YOU CREEP" variety of resistance.
Of course if you're really unclear, back off. Better safe than sorry."
I have a hard time seeing this as an endorsement of "No Means Yes."
If I am out on a date and try to get her to give me a quickie in the taxicab, and she says "no" and then we go to the movies and have dinner and by the end of the night I have persuaded her to change her mind, is this sexual assault?
Taking her "no" and then trying to find ways to persuade her to changing it to a "yes" is pretty creepy and disrespectful, but as long as we're talking "persuasion," (verbal coercion, I believe, was the phrase they threw around when discussing "On Her Coy Mistress") then, to my thinking, it's consensual and not sexual assault.
Military's new stance on sexual harassment/sexual assault is that they are one in the same. Just saying.
Of course...there is the whole thing about all of the sexual assaults that have been occurring in the military. I wonder if they had been following this guy's advice...
I did think it was funny in the comments below where they were saying 'dont worry about the outcomes. If you worry about the outcome you're doomed from the start... Be outcomes independent...
Should have just told him. You're right. If you do this you may very well get kicked out of the club... And some girls at clubs really dig it when you come on to them in a way thats so overt that it gets you kicked out of the club... Maybe when she see's you getting kicked out she'll follow you...
Like Paris Hilton... She should see such a thing and think.. That's hotttt...
Its walking a pretty hillariously thin line to say
Its bold. Its dangerous... Its what you really want, and its what the girls you really want really want... *waggles his eyebrows*... wink wink, nudge nudge, saynomore saynomore...
If he's right then how depressing of a world do we live in that 99% of people will publicly state that its the wrong thing to do when it isn't.... and if he's wrong then he's trying to make 'going clubbing' a much more roller coaster of surprises type of experience for women. Some would say this has already happened and is why women who are still willing to go clubbing now travel in packs for safety. And presumes that the few who ARE still willing to go clubbing are doing so because they 'expect' and in fact possibly 'seek out' these kinds of experiences by going to the club in the first place...
What did we call it earlier? Blaming the victim?
Alright, folks who feel this book is OK, riddle me this - do you have any female friends? Sisters? Cousins you like? Daughters? Pick one. Now imagine some ass in a bar walking up and instantly - as this book instructs - starting to touch her. She's not comfortable, she tells the guy no, but she hasn't rung the cops, hit him or run away screaming. So she must be playing coy! Really she wants him to keep going. So he shoves her and kisses her. Hopefully at this point he gets a class to the side of the head, she runs away from creepy sexual assault monster or some responds to a guy shoving screaming women into the wall and kissing them.
How would you feel when you saw your friend, sister or cousin later, sobbing over the incident? Is it still OK when someone you give a crap about has it happen to her? 'Cos I imagine it happening to one of my daughters and I get quite angry. And vow to make sure they learn Krav Maga and carry Deep Heat in there purse (it is illegal to carry pepper spray in the UK - it's perfectly legal to carry a combination of chemicals in a can that makes your eyes water just by walking into the room twenty minutes later, though).
At no point have I see this described as anything other than a serious book. It's terribly written, but the guys pouring money into it seem to believe it's a real pick up book. Hopefully some of them will have the brain power to read it and go, 'Screw this, I'm not out to force myself on women' but there will always be some idiots who take it seriously.
And apparently the authour is meeting one of the petition creators to talk about how to make the book less sexual assaulty and borderline rapey, so he seems to agree it might be an issue.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Again, unless this book can be directly connected to an outbreak of sexual assault, all you're doing is giving him more undeserved publicity instead of letting it go away like it should.
I'm powerless to get books like this banned. i also accept that, in this case, the horse has already bolted. My participation in this protest is about future projects. I have some ability to influence kickstarter's enforcement of their own terms and conditions.
I want kickstarter to cease helping unpleasant people fund dross like this (like they publicly said they were going to do before they screwed up and let this through). I have some chance of making a difference in that regard.
Notwithstanding anything else, the stories this dude pedals come across as complete BS. He's simply making this up, and there are gullible fools happy to fork cash for a work that 99% of them will never put any of into practice because if they sucked so hard and had such a low self opinion that they bought the book based on the wild and whacky tales of McFantasyguy then they are unlikely to rally the courage to go do any of it, including making eye contact with strange women.
A pile of BS published for consumption by the socially awkward.
It's always good to revisit our commitment to freedom of speech and the press with stuff like this.
Banned? I'm pretty much never on that side. I fully support the publication of instructions on how to build a bomb, for example. I support Westboro Baptist's right to picket funerals. I support the exposure of government security secrets. And I fully support this guy's right to publish a how-to guide for being unethically sleazy, or even committing a sex crime. AND his right to solicit contributions for it, without interference.
If you're not defending someone's right to say/print something absolutely abhorrent and disgusting to you, you're not supporting free speech: you're just supporting stuff you like.
I'm going to have to disagree here. I think there are some things that shouldn't be published. Instructions on how to make bombs are certainly pretty bloody high on that list. I understand you feel that this is a contradiction of free speech, but I think there needs to be a level of common sense. If publication of something (in this case, instructions on making explosives) could be reasonably expected to result in a risk to public safety, then yes, I think it should be blocked. Now while this book isn't teaching people how to blow up buildings, it is encouraging them to go out and start sexually harrassing, and yes, assaulting women. That's something I would consider not only immoral, unethical and outright wrong, but also a threat to the safety of a number of members of society.
I don't expect this post to change your mind, I just wanted to show the reasoning that some of us are using when we say stuff like this should be banned. That said, I'm also coming from a very different environment. Unlike the USA, Australia doesn't have an implicit right to free speech in our constitution. We do have an implied right, but it comes with limitations related to various factors. I can't say exactly what is protected here and what isn't, as I'm not a lawyer, and its been too long since I took Legal Studies in high school. The point is that we do have limitations, which I don't necessarily think is a bad thing.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yes, he's free to do it.
He's not free to do it on Kickstarter though, it blatantly breaks their rules and regulations.
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
Calybos1
I agree with you, to a point.
INAL, to know if Kickstarter's polices and agreements constitude a legal binding agreement between KS and the project sponsor owner. Kickstarter seems to be saying "He's a sleeze, but he's not breaking the agreement he signed."
To use an analogy I say a lot, "You have a right to speak. You don't have a right to my bullhorn."
This guy has the right to publish something that Jessica finds offensive (I'm at work so not about to click on links, so I'm using her as an example) He doesn't have the right to use Jessica's printer, her money, or her time. As far as I can tell, he didn't.
The perils of any freedom is the when it infringes on another. This guy shouldn't be held responsible for some primate reading his book and accosting a woman any more than Thompson should be held responsible for someone robbing a bank with a Tommy gun. The guy using the gun to rob the bank is infringing on others rights, just as the rapist is as well.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It's always good to revisit our commitment to freedom of speech and the press with stuff like this.
Banned? I'm pretty much never on that side. I fully support the publication of instructions on how to build a bomb, for example. I support Westboro Baptist's right to picket funerals. I support the exposure of government security secrets. And I fully support this guy's right to publish a how-to guide for being unethically sleazy, or even committing a sex crime. AND his right to solicit contributions for it, without interference.
If you're not defending someone's right to say/print something absolutely abhorrent and disgusting to you, you're not supporting free speech: you're just supporting stuff you like.
I think you're missing the point of the objection (or at least my point).
I think kickstarter should be selective about what projects they enable (the way they said they would be). The guy is still free to say what he likes - I'm letting kickstarter know they dropped the ball by joining in and helping him raise funds.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm not saying that it's the intent of the author to commit sexual assault. I assume he either is doing all this as an ill-conceived joke or he doesn't actually behave how he suggests. There's a lot more nuance that can go into interactions than there is in the advice he gives. Even if he's being serious I doubt that a lot of what he says is meant to be taken literally, but my point is how things could go with the actual advice he's giving, not with whatever hypothetical other purpose he may actually have.
There's plenty I could say on all of your other paragraphs, but I feel that we're just going to keep going round in circles, with you pointing at (I agree) retrograde attitudes towards women and terribly chosen language, and I keep pointing at "Of course if you're really unclear, back off. Better safe than sorry" and round again, ad nauseam.
So, I won't. Unless you want to. Your call.
But I will say that if the thread had started on tone of your quoted paragraph "Hey look at this creepy douchebag giving abominable dating advice on Kickstarter!" I would have thought to myself, "Blah blah blah, I've never even been on Kickstarter, I don't care one way or another whether he gets his money or not, oh, wait a minute, I can get head in the dark corner of the dance club how? [scribbles some notes], gee, I wonder if they've stopped arguing about the Bechdel Test in that other thread" and moved on.
But it didn't. It started with a petition saying "Look at this rapist! He's advocating sexual assault! Let's get him!" and pulled lines so out of context I felt insulted reading it.
That I also felt insulted reading Mr. Tofu's "adive", I hope I have made clear throughout the thread.
Goblins do it in the streets, but only after getting written assent in triplicate!
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Kickstarter comments here.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Third, we are prohibiting “seduction guides,” or anything similar, effective immediately. This material encourages misogynistic behavior and is inconsistent with our mission of funding creative works. These things do not belong on Kickstarter.
All "seduction guides" are misogynistic? Seems a pretty broad brush to paint with.
So is a guide for men to seduce men mysogynistic?
What if it is a guide for women to seduce men?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So is a guide for men to seduce men mysogynistic?What if it is a guide for women to seduce men?I can write that guide:
1. Be willing.
2. Let him know you are willing.Where's my millions of dollars?
Not on kickstarter.
If I wrote fight club and people take it literallyFight Club is fiction, not a how-to guide. How-to guides are specifically meant to be taken literally.
Even satirical ones?
/boggle
And great to see Kickstarter's response! It's a tough thing to admit you're wrong, but that actually manages to come off as a genuine apology rather than "I'm sorry you feel that way".
Wile I certainly agree with your point (it is not easy to admit error), I wish KS had the fortitude(?) to halt a project (shortly) after the fact. Obviously, more than a few hours or a day is not appropriate to rescind the "Funding Reached" status, but coming to grips with everything within 24 hours and then issuing refunds is appropriate, in my opinion, in much the same way that there are times when a private establishment can refuse to serve patrons.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I suspect the process is automated - meaning the funds are already on their way soon after the project funds. It may well be too late (either because some money is already in the banking system on the way to the project organiser and effectively "irreversible", or because they'd be in breach of contract).
It seems a problematic precedent to set, in my view. I think they need more robust vetting procedures (which will hopefully eventuate after this).
I don't really get your "my call" bit on continuing. If you said anything worth replying to on my direct points from before I'd reply to that. You haven't addressed them, so I won't. I'm not into arguing for the sake of arguing so I'll just give my own final thoughts and thank you for the discussion.
You're welcome.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Waitaminute! I call shinanegans! Goblins don't write!
Springboard to amusing anecdotal derail from Ehrenreich's Nickel and Dimed, in which Babs is pulling a Black Like Me for low-wage workers.
On "coming out" to her fellow wage-slaves:
"I've wondered a lot about why there wasn't more astonishment or even indignation, and part of the answer probably lies in people's notions of 'writing.' Years ago, when I married my second husband, he proudly told his uncle, who was a valet parker at the time, that I was a writer. The uncle's response: 'Who isn't?' Everyone literate 'writes,' and some of the low-wage workers I have known or met through this project write journals and poems--even, in one case, a lengthy science fiction novel."
Or in other words, stop being such an anti-goblin bigot, Ms. Door!
I think their chosen response is better. They've admitted they let this one slip through and have taken a "zero tolerance" policy towards such things going forward. I'm happy to continue sending them their commission, as a consequence.
It's not really to do with this, specific project. It's about kickstarter processes and controls.
They're not listing anymore dating guides. Presumably they're going to be a little more rigorous in their vetting processes too.
Course they can. Kickstarter aren't going to help them fund it though.
This isn't about freedom of speech - kickstarter have no legislative powers. It's about doing what they said they'd do and enforcing the standards they said they would. Consequently, I'll keep sending them fees.
obviously no one was talking about Kickstarter going out and preventing people from writing dating books.
Then people should stop pretending its a freedom of speech issue and should stop implying kickstarter have an obligation to allow any specific type of project.
The fact that one guy makes a troll book means kickstarter disallows any any books on the same topic (dating guides) is asinine. There's a billion other topics that you could make offensive material on.
Maybe I should make a kickstarter for F.A.T.A.L. Second Edition and see if they ban any future kickstarters on RPG material.
They won't. RPGs aren't against their rules. Have you actually read their accounts of what's gone on?
This book was always against their guidelines. It slipped through the net (reasonably enough, it seems) and they were too slow to act on it once they realised (by their own admission). They've tightened things up in response to feedback.
[I'm not anti-goblin! Why, some of my best goblins are my friends!
[Steams with anger, gets in contact with DoSomething.com to start an anti-Jess Door petition]
Interesting thing about "Freedom of Speech", it comes with great power. And of course most of us know from Spiderman that with Great Power comes Great Responsibility. I don't think anyone is saying that this individual should not have the ability to make his book, but he should take the responsibility for what will happen if he does and to do so on his own time/money. People are not upset that Kickstarter allowed this book to happen, they are mad that Kickstarter's method of taking responsibility failed. Well, I guess they are mad that it happened but more so because Kickstarter's policies state that these kind of projects will not be given time and space on their site.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
One of the kickstarter guidelines is not to produce "offensive" material. Given the D&D Hysteria of the 80's, how confident are people that at least some RPGs might not get classified as "offensive" and thus be ban. Not to mention things like Bombshell Babes miniatures being considered promoting "rape culture" and being banned is not outside the realm of possibility.
Will that happened, probably not, but when an organization starts dropping blanket bans, that is a bad sign. Each project should be considered on its own merits and not prejudiced by similar projects. If pressure like this continues to be successful in having kickstarter make knee jerk reactions like this, it will quickly come back to bite some people in the rear ("Why is that banned, I like that!").
One of the kickstarter guidelines is not to produce "offensive" material. Given the D&D Hysteria of the 80's, how confident are people that at least some RPGs might not get classified as "offensive" and thus be ban. Not to mention things like Bombshell Babes miniatures being considered promoting "rape culture" and being banned is not outside the realm of possibility.
Will that happened, probably not, but when an organization starts dropping blanket bans, that is a bad sign. Each project should be considered on its own merits and not prejudiced by similar projects. If pressure like this continues to be successful in having kickstarter make knee jerk reactions like this, it will quickly come back to bite some people in the rear ("Why is that banned, I like that!").
I agree that a blanket ban seems like a bit much. I personally dislike books like The Game and so on in general, but if people want to read them then so be it. My concern with this one was more due to the extreme issues with what it's suggesting men do.
That said, I'm kind of confused as to how Bombshell Babes could really be seen as promoting rape culture. I could understand someone saying they dislike the fact that some of the models are scantily clad, but that's a common thing with a lot of female minis. I suppose it could certainly be considered sexist, and indeed is by a lot of people, but I'm not sure about how you'd argue that it's contributing to rape culture.
|
obviously no one was talking about Kickstarter going out and preventing people from writing dating books.
The fact that one guy makes a troll book means kickstarter disallows any any books on the same topic (dating guides) is asinine. There's a billion other topics that you could make offensive material on.
Maybe I should make a kickstarter for F.A.T.A.L. Second Edition and see if they ban any future kickstarters on RPG material.
Kickstarter RPG projects eat too much of my money. Want help?
On a more serious note, there is still an anti-D&D movement. Hell, Pat Robertson recently said the game ruins lives. While this Above the Game project should have been buried before it got any traction, I think a blanket ban is an overreaction and is somewhat disturbing. It does mean that RPG projects are merely a F.A.T.A.L. 2E away from a similar ban.
obviously no one was talking about Kickstarter going out and preventing people from writing dating books.
The fact that one guy makes a troll book means kickstarter disallows any any books on the same topic (dating guides) is asinine. There's a billion other topics that you could make offensive material on.
Maybe I should make a kickstarter for F.A.T.A.L. Second Edition and see if they ban any future kickstarters on RPG material.
Kickstarter RPG projects eat too much of my money. Want help?
On a more serious note, there is still an anti-D&D movement. Hell, Pat Robertson recently said the game ruins lives. While this Above the Game project should have been buried before it got any traction, I think a blanket ban is an overreaction and is somewhat disturbing. It does mean that RPG projects are merely a F.A.T.A.L. 2E away from a similar ban.
Pat who now? In all seriousness, I've never heard of him before. I take it he has a fairly strong influence in the USA?
I think you'd find that if someone did try to Kickstart a F.A.T.A.L. project, it'd get rejected without a blanket ban on RPG projects. Banning all RPGs based on that wouldn't be more like banning all projects related to book publishing rather than just banning the dating ones. I think they'd be more likely to say "No overtly sexualised RPGs" or something similar. Or, more likely given that we're talking about F.A.T.A.L., they'd sit there staring at it for a awhile, start saying things along the lines of "What is this... I don't even... What the F$%$!" and then proceed to hunt down the person who submitted the project for some much needed beatings, THEN look at what they need to do to prevent projects of that nature getting up and running.
I think the other major factor would be that there probably haven't been that many "dating" guide kickstarter projects (I use the term dating incredibly loosely in this instance), whereas if you go to the Tabletop Games section, there are large numbers of RPGs intended for all manner of different audiences, and in general they tend to do pretty well. I suspect that the Kickstarter admins would be far more likely to try and make an effort to judge what is allowable for RPGs given their popularity on the site.
Of course, not being a Kickstarter admin, I'm obviously speculating here, but it's what I'd consider logical. That said, logic obviously doesn't always apply.