3 ms·

I don't know what "jamming his hand into my underwear and fumbling" even means - did he penetrate her with three fingers right through her underwear (was she no

I don't know what "jamming his hand into my underwear and fumbling" even means - did he penetrate her with three fingers right through her underwear (was she not wearing pants/skirt?), or was he playing with an exposed thong T-bar, or something else? By something "similar" I mean I've been "rejected" by girls before, and not immediately raised my hands in submission and backed off. E.g., talking to a girl, tried to make out with her, and she said no, depending on what I thought, I might, say, keep a hand on her thigh, or playing with her pantie line. Not a perfect match, but I could definitely see someone wanting to make a big deal twisting that into something along the lines described here. I could be wrong, and this guy could have committed the very worst interpretation of what the author described. But I doubt it, because the article seems like it's written for maximum effect.

maxawaytoolong 16y ago
The logistics of the story as written didn't make much sense to me, either.
- deleted 16y ago
  [deleted]
Anechoic 16y ago
I don't know what "jamming his hand into my underwear and fumbling" even means Is there any context/interpretation/way of which some dude jamming his hand into your underwear and fumbling after being told you weren't interested in such a thing wouldn't be considered highly invasive? Jesus H. Christ, only in the geek community can people be outraged at backscatter machines and TSA patdowns, and then try in rationalize sticking your hand down a woman's pants despite her protests. Disgusting.
- featherface 16y ago
  Is there any context/interpretation/way of which some dude jamming his hand into your underwear and fumbling after being told you weren't interested in such a thing wouldn't be considered highly invasive? Using the words "jamming" and "fumbling" are interpretations. See the examples I gave above for, IMO, more benign actions which could be interpreted that way. Jesus H. Christ, only in the geek community can people be outraged at backscatter machines and TSA patdowns, and then try in rationalize sticking your hand down a woman's pants despite her protests. Disgusting. Go ahead, down mod me. Huh? I'm the only possible candidate for "rationalizing sticking your hand down a women's pants despite her protests", and several people have disagreed with me. So no need to act like a martyr. :)
- patrickaljord 16y ago
  > Disgusting. Go ahead, down mod me. http://ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html http://ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html says: "Please don't bait other users by inviting them to downmod you. "
  - Anechoic 16y ago
    edited, thx
groby_b 16y ago
Even if it's an exposed thong T-bar, I'd really like it if people could keep their hands out of other peoples underwear. What's hard to understand about this? Also, if a girl says "no", and you keep a hand on her thigh, I sincerely hope one of them actually presses charges - you are part of the problem. "No" means exactly that.
bigiain 16y ago
Obviously one of us is misunderstanding something fundamental here. I can't think of a single plausible "innocent" interpretation of that. While it's not particularly detailed, every single reasonable interpretation seems to me to be "Yep, send the guy to jail, register him on a sex offender list". Be assured if you ever do anything that was described that way to any female friend of mine, even if "written for maximum effect", I'll _strongly_ be encouraging them to do what is needed to have you locked up. You can argue if you want that the girl is outright lying, but as described the guy is a criminal and needs to be held responsible for his actions. I'm struggling with all the empathy I can muster up to understand your point of view, and I honestly can't work out how you could _possibly_ condone the guys actions for any possible interpretation of the words in the original blog post.
- featherface 16y ago
  Well, up until the 'he leaned in and kissed me, I told him not interested' part, I don't think it's terribly controversial to suggest no crime had happened. Had it just ended with that, no big deal. It's just the "jamming his hand into my underwear" part that seems to approach/cross the line. A plausible interpretation of that is "touched my butt", which while unlikely to win the girl over, I don't see as something deserving of being "locked up", or, perhaps worse, having his career ruined as it surely now has. I should add, in all honesty, I don't completely believe the girl's account of this. There's 6 or 7 things in there which just don't make a whole lot of sense to me (the "logistics" of the whole thing, to borrow someone else's word). You add in her reaction, writing a blog post detailing it, naming names, etc., the very next day it, just seems suspect (not to mention her claims this has happened before - she must be very unlucky!) . I could be completely wrong here, and defending a bad guy. But that's not a big deal, as we can see there's no shortage of white knights rushing to the poor girl's defense.
  - dqh 16y ago
    I imagine that it is terrifying for a person when another person proceeds with contact of a sexual nature after being informed that it is not welome. 100% of rapes begin this way.

maxawaytoolong 16y ago

The logistics of the story as written didn't make much sense to me, either.

deleted 16y ago
[deleted]

Anechoic 16y ago

I don't know what "jamming his hand into my underwear and fumbling" even means Is there any context/interpretation/way of which some dude jamming his hand into your underwear and fumbling after being told you weren't interested in such a thing wouldn't be considered highly invasive? Jesus H. Christ, only in the geek community can people be outraged at backscatter machines and TSA patdowns, and then try in rationalize sticking your hand down a woman's pants despite her protests. Disgusting.

featherface 16y ago
Is there any context/interpretation/way of which some dude jamming his hand into your underwear and fumbling after being told you weren't interested in such a thing wouldn't be considered highly invasive? Using the words "jamming" and "fumbling" are interpretations. See the examples I gave above for, IMO, more benign actions which could be interpreted that way. Jesus H. Christ, only in the geek community can people be outraged at backscatter machines and TSA patdowns, and then try in rationalize sticking your hand down a woman's pants despite her protests. Disgusting. Go ahead, down mod me. Huh? I'm the only possible candidate for "rationalizing sticking your hand down a women's pants despite her protests", and several people have disagreed with me. So no need to act like a martyr. :)
patrickaljord 16y ago
> Disgusting. Go ahead, down mod me. http://ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html http://ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html says: "Please don't bait other users by inviting them to downmod you. "
- Anechoic 16y ago
  edited, thx

groby_b 16y ago

Even if it's an exposed thong T-bar, I'd really like it if people could keep their hands out of other peoples underwear. What's hard to understand about this? Also, if a girl says "no", and you keep a hand on her thigh, I sincerely hope one of them actually presses charges - you are part of the problem. "No" means exactly that.

bigiain 16y ago

Obviously one of us is misunderstanding something fundamental here. I can't think of a single plausible "innocent" interpretation of that. While it's not particularly detailed, every single reasonable interpretation seems to me to be "Yep, send the guy to jail, register him on a sex offender list". Be assured if you ever do anything that was described that way to any female friend of mine, even if "written for maximum effect", I'll _strongly_ be encouraging them to do what is needed to have you locked up. You can argue if you want that the girl is outright lying, but as described the guy is a criminal and needs to be held responsible for his actions. I'm struggling with all the empathy I can muster up to understand your point of view, and I honestly can't work out how you could _possibly_ condone the guys actions for any possible interpretation of the words in the original blog post.

featherface 16y ago
Well, up until the 'he leaned in and kissed me, I told him not interested' part, I don't think it's terribly controversial to suggest no crime had happened. Had it just ended with that, no big deal. It's just the "jamming his hand into my underwear" part that seems to approach/cross the line. A plausible interpretation of that is "touched my butt", which while unlikely to win the girl over, I don't see as something deserving of being "locked up", or, perhaps worse, having his career ruined as it surely now has. I should add, in all honesty, I don't completely believe the girl's account of this. There's 6 or 7 things in there which just don't make a whole lot of sense to me (the "logistics" of the whole thing, to borrow someone else's word). You add in her reaction, writing a blog post detailing it, naming names, etc., the very next day it, just seems suspect (not to mention her claims this has happened before - she must be very unlucky!) . I could be completely wrong here, and defending a bad guy. But that's not a big deal, as we can see there's no shortage of white knights rushing to the poor girl's defense.
- dqh 16y ago
  I imagine that it is terrifying for a person when another person proceeds with contact of a sexual nature after being informed that it is not welome. 100% of rapes begin this way.