"Take your exposed penis, and thrust it into her vagina. Don't wait for her to put it in for you. Be dominant."
That could be instructions for rape. Or it could be instructions for the kind of a sex that millions of straight couples have every day. It all depends on the quote's context, right?
Right?
So stop taking quotes out of context from the author.
> If women are loudly saying "This is assault.", you need to take them at their word, because it is their judgment, it is their consent that matters. Not yours.
Your language is intentionally misleading. What matters is the woman with whom you're interacting. Feminist internet commenters can neither give consent nor take it away. And the author is severely explicit about respecting consent. His quotes are being butchered.
There are long-term relationships where sex is one of the later steps, after there's already some form of long-term commitment. There are a lot of things that can happen well before the "seduction" step -- talking, mutual interests, shared experiences, and so on.
"That could be instructions for rape. Or it could be
instructions for the kind of a sex that millions of
straight couples have every day. It all depends on the
quote's context, right?
Exactly. I highly recommend anyone that disagrees or doesn't believe this statement to watch the interviews commonly found at the end of any BDSM kink.com videos. Those interviews at the end are enlightening for anyone with a narrow vanilla view of how sex should be. Different sexual practices and preferences are really no different than the spectrum of music preferences out there and equally valid.
Folks into BDSM are (or should be) overwhelmingly clear about consent, pre-negotiating their play and having things like safe words. That is worlds apart from what the project is advocating, which is to take actions without pre-negotiated consent and to ignore objections made by your partner. Anybody in the scene will tell you that engaging in that kind of shit without clearing it ahead of time (esp. way ahead of time in a non-sexual situation) is someone who is committing real actual rape.
I completely agree. The point I was trying to make is that there are wildly different variations of what is and is not consensual behavior. For folks who actively participate in the BDSM community the social norms are very much in favor of clear, adult, responsible communication. However, there exist lots of men and women who have inclinations towards BDSM and are turned on by BDSM practices who have never been introduced to the community and have not learned these "best practices" in terms of communication. This means that there are many men and women who enjoy and like aggressive sexual advances who have never been taught how to communicate their interests as an adult, and that entire population of people who are inexperienced create a grey area. BDSM and other non-vanilla interests going mainstream would go a long way to raising the general level of discourse and communication about sex in general.
Just to be clear, please don't take my comment as excusing the problems people have raised here, but as simply an impartial anthropological description of the reality of the world.
The bullshit excuse I keep seeing about "taking quotes out of context" is making me mad. The author himself, removed those specific passages from his Reddit thread when the shit storm started brewing.
If he worded what he wanted to say correctly and with the proper context, why remove them?
>If he worded what he wanted to say correctly and with the proper context, why remove them?
Why refuse to speak to the police without an attorney present if you have nothing to hide? Your question is no more fair than that one. If I were stirring up a "shit storm" by offending people about a hot-button topic I would certainly start deleting everything I could. Seriously, the guy got a measly $16,000 for this and people were threatening to ruin his life over it.
Regardless of whether what I did was wrong or not I would've deleted it all, refunded the $16,000 and disappeared for a while.
Actually he had. Those passages were not there and clicking on your link led to those passages having been removed at one point at the height of the shit storm.
@creativeembassy - Jesus, are you being deliberately obtuse? The passages WEREN'T there at the height of the controversy (i.e.: they'd been removed). They ARE there now.
That could be instructions for rape. Or it could be instructions for the kind of a sex that millions of straight couples have every day. It all depends on the quote's context, right?
Right?
So stop taking quotes out of context from the author.
> If women are loudly saying "This is assault.", you need to take them at their word, because it is their judgment, it is their consent that matters. Not yours.
Your language is intentionally misleading. What matters is the woman with whom you're interacting. Feminist internet commenters can neither give consent nor take it away. And the author is severely explicit about respecting consent. His quotes are being butchered.