It's a hell of a thing to make such accusations about a book that she clearly never even read.

I would have thought Rape was defined pretty simply. Normally rape is defined as the physical act of having sex with another against their expressed physical will. But then if you look up "rape" in various dictionaries the two words that come up are "coercion" and "duress" which both mean about the same thing - psychological application of unreasonable force.

Duress comes from the latin 'dūritia' which means hardness, harshness, oppression and can be defined as meaning:

"Unlawful pressure exerted upon a person to coerce that person to perform an act that he or she ordinarily would not perform."

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/duress

So I would define unlawful as an oppressive and harsh subjegation of anothers will, which is not seductively overcoming mental or emotional or even inbuilt resistances in her body and mind to engaging willingly and happily in engaging sexually.

I haven't read Vincents book but I very much doubt it is full of ways to threaten, coerce or apply psychological force to females. That isn't lawful seduction and such bullying is not generally not really interesting to authentic seducers, as it is not likely to result in any half decent love making! (A largely unwilling partner is of no interest to most mens bodies, minds or ego unless they are a bit fucked in the head!)

The point about going past LMR, is that it can often be observed that a female in her body or her soul wants to sleep with you. Her mind and her apparent will may be resisting for lots of possible reasons (real social pressures like not wanting to seem like a slut, to obvious physical consequences like possibly getting pregnant, to just testing or playing with mens will) Overcoming LMR then is a psychological process of seduction, not changing her will from "No" to "Yes", but revealing the "Yes" that has been there all the long, the same "yes" that is keeping her in the room interacting with you!

I think it is really important to articulate what non-sensible people think and deconstruct their insensibility and prejudice, even though it might sound silly to go down to their level - I think we increasingly need to be clear and delineate a reasonable perspective not based upon the idiocy of hate.

I think what Sara Nelson wrote is extremely myopic, judgemental and flat out arrogant. You should consider writing an open later to her Vincent, otherwise you are letting the corrupt nature of this one-dimensional sort of thinking replicate itself into more hosts.

(02-01-2014 01:40 AM)tiggaling Wrote:  I think what Sara Nelson wrote is extremely myopic, judgemental and flat out arrogant. You should consider writing an open later to her Vincent, otherwise you are letting the corrupt nature of this one-dimensional sort of thinking replicate itself into more hosts.

Sara Nelson is to me as Ginsberg is to Don Draper.

Well since you're in communications with her, ask her which parts of the book she interpreted as advocating rape. Ask her what paragraphs and ideas she found offensive.
After she purchases the book, "reads" it, picks out what she objects to, then who gives a shit, money in your pocket, go buy some porn with the money she gave you.

VincentVenturi: You should note to her that you can't be expected to take such accusations seriously. That you are uninterested in making any comments until the focus of the journalistic effort is on the attack on your livelihood rather than unfounded libel.

WB.

(02-01-2014 02:04 AM)VincentVinturi Wrote:  WB.

Way to keep it in perspective.

Since they obviously have no problem calling a man 'rapist' without anything to back it up 8 guess they have no issue with being referred to as 'prostitutes'.

These people do not know what RAPE is. This calls for a new satire blog...

It'll have affiliate links going to pages selling duct tape and chloroform.

Sue her. that has to be the only really good way to hurt her.

I am confused. Wasn't the entire point of writing the article 'when no means yes" was to get hate traffic from feminists? This reaction was the goal, was it not? So mission accomplished?

actually, you might want to consider suing arianna huffington, she inherited a lot of money from her wealthy dead husband.

(02-01-2014 02:04 AM)VincentVinturi Wrote:  


WB.

Take a number...

http://img100.xvideos.com/videos/thumbsl...4f8.20.jpg nsfw

(02-01-2014 12:16 AM)VincentVinturi Wrote:  Hey guys, thanks for your support. It's heart-warming, for real.

It was 4am last night by the time I saw this craziness.

I also got this cuckoo email from Sara C. Nelson, the HuffPo columnist:




I haven't sent any further replies.

No worries on Amazon pulling my book.

I only put it up there (at a low price) for a short time. The idea was to get some real reviews to use on my sales page. Now I'm just going to finish the sales page without them and sell it directly from my website at the actual price, which was my intention all along.

If any of you guys want a free copy of the book in exchange for an honest review, please PM me.

Thankfully, my primary business isn't in the seduction space, so I haven't lost any sleep or money over any of this.

LMR is a readily observable phenomenon, as any player knows. What the future cat ladies can't distinguish is the difference between something linguistic and something existential. As soon as they see 'no' means 'yes', they begin salivating like Pavlov dogs.

I will continue to write about game and make posts on ROK.

So what next?

I thought using game to win consent was the opposite of rape. So then, what is REAL rape?

Here's her LinkedIn page, and a screenshot of the page:

I met Vincent last night

He had his arm round a girl whilst talking about how the book was classed as a rape guide

That is a man who doesn't give a fuck

(01-31-2014 02:41 PM)All or Nothing Wrote:  

(01-31-2014 02:24 PM)Vicious Wrote:  I pity all the women out their with rape fantasies. They are at a very tough time in the century right now being forcefully held from their innermost desires by other women.

Is this sarcasm?

Vincent's article was about the grey area that exists between, "I want to have sex with you, but I'm uncomfortable/don't want to feel like a slut" and "I don't want to have sex with you."

If anything, the article helps guys obtain consensual sex by making them aware of the grey area.

No I'm serious. There's plenty of women that wants to be overpowered.

Hey Vince they took down one book but are promoting another ... does it actually increase sales for you?

(02-01-2014 01:40 AM)tiggaling Wrote:  I would have thought Rape was defined pretty simply. Normally rape is defined as the physical act of having sex with another against their expressed physical will. But then if you look up "rape" in various dictionaries the two words that come up are "coercion" and "duress" which both mean about the same thing - psychological application of unreasonable force.

Duress comes from the latin 'dūritia' which means hardness, harshness, oppression and can be defined as meaning:

"Unlawful pressure exerted upon a person to coerce that person to perform an act that he or she ordinarily would not perform."

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/duress

So I would define unlawful as an oppressive and harsh subjegation of anothers will, which is not seductively overcoming mental or emotional or even inbuilt resistances in her body and mind to engaging willingly and happily in engaging sexually.

This bugs me, because rape law has always been based in contract law. It's not to do with "emotions", "psychological coercion" or anything so intangible and subjective. It's to do with what someone consents to, and consent is only invalidated under very specific conditions:

• Act exceeds the scope of consent
• When one is too young or too intoxicated to be reasonable
• When consent is obtained under mistake, duress* or fraud
• When act is criminal
  

*I believe duress in contract law would normally imply actual threats, not "I was forced to take out a loan or I'd lose my house", but I'm not a lawyer. I'd also contest the part about "too intoxicated to be reasonable"; does that mean I can bet $50,000 at a casino, then claim I was drunk if I lose it all? What about all the women who can't let go enough to have sex until they've had a few drinks?

Now a key thing to note here is that sexual consent has always been implicit, unlike say, a non-disclosure agreement which you have to actively sign. By extension, "acts that exceed the scope of consent" aren't an issue; if she gave you a blowjob, but doesn't consent to penetrative sex, she'll make it clear. It's only recently feminists have managed to bring this wishy washy bullshit into the public's consciousness.

The bottom line is, rape is (any always should be) very clearly legally defined. It should not be possible to accidentally commit one of the most serious crimes there is.

(02-01-2014 12:16 AM)VincentVinturi Wrote:  Hey guys, thanks for your support. It's heart-warming, for real.

It was 4am last night by the time I saw this craziness.

I also got this cuckoo email from Sara C. Nelson, the HuffPo columnist:




I haven't sent any further replies.

No worries on Amazon pulling my book.

I only put it up there (at a low price) for a short time. The idea was to get some real reviews to use on my sales page. Now I'm just going to finish the sales page without them and sell it directly from my website at the actual price, which was my intention all along.

If any of you guys want a free copy of the book in exchange for an honest review, please PM me.

Thankfully, my primary business isn't in the seduction space, so I haven't lost any sleep or money over any of this.

LMR is a readily observable phenomenon, as any player knows. What the future cat ladies can't distinguish is the difference between something linguistic and something existential. As soon as they see 'no' means 'yes', they begin salivating like Pavlov dogs.

I will continue to write about game and make posts on ROK.

She asks you to comment... Why doesn't she comment on how she read a title, got emotional, then used the PC power to remove a book she didn't even read? You should ask her to read the book and issue and apology. She accuses you of something that's not true. What she did is lazy journalism.

I think she expects you to be angry. If I were you, I would politely ask her to read your book and correct her article, then issue a public apology for damaging your repution.

Anyway, you can turn this situation to your advantage. I don't know your marketing strategies, but I'm pretty sure the words "banned from Amazon" and "a book feminist blog Huffingtonpost does not want you to read" could increase your sales.

(02-01-2014 03:42 AM)Tytalus Wrote:  So what next?

(01-31-2014 02:53 PM)Roosh Wrote:  She's scared:

nice little titties in that picture, although can't see her face.... 7/10 WB

(02-01-2014 10:02 AM)frogmallet Wrote:  

(01-31-2014 02:53 PM)Roosh Wrote:  She's scared:

nice little titties in that picture, although can't see her face.... 7/10 WB

after seeing more pictures of her, I don't think her twitter profile pic is her, or its 10 years out of date.
Revised: 4/10 WNB