4 ms·

> Ask 100 women if they find it romantic to be kissed without being asked or if they want to be asked first. I'm pretty sure the answer is: being kissed, don't

> Ask 100 women if they find it romantic to be kissed without being asked or if they want to be asked first. I'm pretty sure the answer is: being kissed, don't ask. That depends on the man. I don't want someone I don't want to kiss me without asking. I don't want them to kiss me at all, but I'd prefer that they ask than just try it. Do you think that women just want men to randomly walk up to them in the street and kiss them? If you don't, then there's obviously some communication that's meant to be going on. The guide puts the onus for that on the woman. If she doesn't want it, then she has to MAKE you stop: 'Don't ask for permission. Be dominant. Force her to rebuff your advances.' Which is just a really disgusting mindset. Do you think anyone wants to have to make you leave them alone? And you have to acknowledge that some people are going to be too shy to make you stop. It's an oversimplification to ask whether women would like someone to ask before kissing them. Not all communication is so blatantly verbal. These sorts of guides don't help the fact that a lot of the boys reading them are poorly socialised to begin with, and are essentially being set up to rape some shy girl who may not feel confident enough to stop you doing something she's not really interested in. And that does a disservice to him and her - because I don't feel like, unless he's a total psycho, he wants to rape someone. The book's attitude essentially seems to be that the author feels it acceptable to make people very uncomfortable, and risk raping someone, just because he doesn't want to take the chance that he'll turn off a potential date.

hackinthebochs 13y ago
>Do you think that women just want men to randomly walk up to them in the street and kiss them? This is the absolute most obtuse reading of the situation you could have mustered. And this is the problem with this entire debate: those who are arguing against these "seduction" techniques must resort to strawmen and imagined scenarios to show how awful this is. Unfortunately, this is the stuff that social interaction is made of. You're not going to change it by suddenly defining normal interaction as assault.
- 6d0debc071 13y ago
  > This is the absolute most obtuse reading of the situation you could have mustered. And this is the problem with this entire debate: those who are arguing against these "seduction" techniques must resort to strawmen and imagined scenarios to show how awful this is. I didn't even attempt to portray that as his argument. I said that if you don't then there must, of necessity, be some communication going on. -le sigh- > Unfortunately, this is the stuff that social interaction is made of. You're not going to change it by suddenly defining normal interaction as assault. Uck, for a block user function.
  - hackinthebochs 13y ago
    >If you don't, then there's obviously some communication that's meant to be going on. Yes, nonverbal communication. >The guide puts the onus for that on the woman. If she doesn't want it, then she has to MAKE you stop: There are plenty of ways to do this. When a guy first opens the conversation, you can simply blow him off. If you seem receptive and he tries to flirt, again you can create space to nonverbally let him know you're not interested. Etc, etc. All of these things are standard in social interactions. You guys are the ones that are twisting this into somehow being assault. This IS IN FACT the stuff that social interactions are made of. You can prefer that it weren't the case, but it is sad that you would block me for simply stating a fact.

hackinthebochs 13y ago

>Do you think that women just want men to randomly walk up to them in the street and kiss them? This is the absolute most obtuse reading of the situation you could have mustered. And this is the problem with this entire debate: those who are arguing against these "seduction" techniques must resort to strawmen and imagined scenarios to show how awful this is. Unfortunately, this is the stuff that social interaction is made of. You're not going to change it by suddenly defining normal interaction as assault.

6d0debc071 13y ago
> This is the absolute most obtuse reading of the situation you could have mustered. And this is the problem with this entire debate: those who are arguing against these "seduction" techniques must resort to strawmen and imagined scenarios to show how awful this is. I didn't even attempt to portray that as his argument. I said that if you don't then there must, of necessity, be some communication going on. -le sigh- > Unfortunately, this is the stuff that social interaction is made of. You're not going to change it by suddenly defining normal interaction as assault. Uck, for a block user function.
- hackinthebochs 13y ago
  >If you don't, then there's obviously some communication that's meant to be going on. Yes, nonverbal communication. >The guide puts the onus for that on the woman. If she doesn't want it, then she has to MAKE you stop: There are plenty of ways to do this. When a guy first opens the conversation, you can simply blow him off. If you seem receptive and he tries to flirt, again you can create space to nonverbally let him know you're not interested. Etc, etc. All of these things are standard in social interactions. You guys are the ones that are twisting this into somehow being assault. This IS IN FACT the stuff that social interactions are made of. You can prefer that it weren't the case, but it is sad that you would block me for simply stating a fact.