mASF post by "Wild Bard"
posted on: mASF forum: Tactics / Techniques Discussion, March 3, 2004
On 3/4/04 8:22:00 PM, madbad wrote:
>Ah, Wildbard, we meet again!
>
>First let me say that I very
>much enjoy your posts and the
>very erudite way in
>which you analyze the material
>on the site. It's been fun,
>and it's fun now to
>have you engaged here.
Madbad! En garde, villain!
>
>Now...
>
>As I tried to explain in my
>last post, I am not actually
>saying that I am 100%
>certain of my analysis of the
>situation. Everyone was
>speculating about the
>story behind the story, and I
>speculated as well. I have a
>great deal of
>confidence
>in my analysis (which I'll
>explain shortly), but the
>"Puh-leaze" and colorful
>expletives were all
>just for rhetoric and fun.
>But now that I've got my
>sleeves rolled up, I'm
>trying to take it more
>seriously.
But I'm glad to see that taking it seriously didn't prevent you from indulging
in a bit of impish fun at the same time. :)
>
>Your argument, if I understand
>it correctly, is that we have
>very few facts, so
>if I draw a conclusion from
>this limited set of facts,
>then I must be basing it
>on a generalization and a
>sweeping view of women, kino,
>dirty old men, etc.
>To wit, I am saying that all
>women who complain that some
>guy groped them
>at work (or in class in this
>case), are secretly turned on
>by it...
>And then I try to worm out of
>that position and say that I'm
>not making
>generalizations and that I
>can't have it both ways. Lord
>what a devil I am! I'm
>almost tempted to stand behind
>it!
>
>But, okay, no. First of all,
>that argument is a paralogism.
>(A false conclusion
>that sounds logical, but
>isn't, for those of you
>reading along). There's no
>logical progression from (a) A
>conclusion may be reliably
>drawn from a small
>fact set, to (b) ergo all
>situations that have some
>similar facts must be part of
>the larger set of the
>conclusion. The classic of
>this model is something along
>the lines of: Everyone in
>Athens believes in democracy.
>Athens is in Greece.
>Ergo everyone who is Greek
>believes in democracy. Sounds
>good, but it's a
>paralogism. It will only be
>true by accident, not by
>logic.
Exactly.
>
>Now for the fun part!
Let's dance, amigo...
>
>3. I have observed, based on
>observation 2, that this
>behavior is common
>enough that nobody would tell
>their husband in such a way
>that he would be
>concerned enough to write an
>email about it to a group of
>strangers to ask
>their advice on the subject a
>long period of time after the
>event. It's simply
>not remarkable enough.
Your first two propositions were sound, this one is not.
"this behavior is common" ----> "nobody would tell their husband in such a way
that he would be concerned"
First of all, it is essential that you clearly define "this behavior". The most
encompassing interpretation would be that "this behavior" = kino. It could
alternatively mean "the specific sorts of kino indulged in by the man in the
OP". This is important because of the matter of DEGREE. A handshake and a
crotch grope are both kino.
In either case, "common" is a subjective term. Even if we ignore this, and for
the sake of argument assume that whatever you meant by "this behavior" happens
with enough frequency that it would generally be said to be common, it doesn't
follow that something common would never be told to a husband in such a way
that he would be concerned.
Rape is generally said to be common in Ciudad Juarez, but does that mean that
the wives of the men there would never tell their husband about being raped in
such a way that he would be concerned?
Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems to me that what you really meant by
"common" was "unremarkable". It happens so frequently that it isn't ever
mentioned, a questionable premise itself.
If this is what you meant, you are begging the question. Your premise, "this
behavior is unremarkable", is highly questionable.
Not only is the degree of kino which constitutes "this behavior" instrumental
in determining whether or not it would generally being called "common" or
"unremarkable", a crotch grab being judged as less so of either, by general
consensus, than a handshake, but your assertion that "this behavior" is
unremarkable in the first place presupposes that the woman, and her
relationship with her husband, are such that you can reliably predict what they
would or would not talk about.
IOW, we don't even know how invasive this kino was, much less whether the level
of invasion would have been enough for her to find it worthy of remarking on,
much less what her standards are for finding something worth remarking on, much
less how she would express it to her husband, much less how he would react to
her account, much less how "concerned" he would need to be before he thought to
write about it here, much less how the length of time and intervening events in
his life affected the likelihood of him remembering it while reading about kino
here and deciding to post, much less how much time passed in the first place!
Whew, what a run-on sentence that one is!
>
>4. I have observed the
>existence of power disparity
>groping or sexual
>harassment in society. In my
>observation of this phenomenon
>I have noted
>that women may tell their
>husbands,
You need to elaborate on "this phenomenon I have noted". Since the OP didn't
detail the degree of Intrusiveness of the kino, you have no idea if "this
phenomenon I've noted" is anything like the "phenomenon" experienced by the
wife.
Even if you did know, you are making a generalization and jumping to
conclusions regarding whether or not she would tell her husband about the
"phenomenon" in question.
but that these
>matter rarely involve
>touching on the shoulder or
>wrist (unless combined with
>lewd dialogue-- as
>far as we know, there was no
>lewd dialogue in this
>situation),
We have no idea what degree of kino took place, what the heck does this have to
do with the price of gum in Zimbabwe?
and
>that the husband's response is
>universally one of 4 tactics:
Universally?
>-punch the offender in the
>nose
>-ignore it and hope it will go
>away (we need the money and
>he's your boss)
>-take recourse within the
>company and HR
>-take recourse with law
>enforcement or torte
>litigation
>Since instead the husband has
>sought the advice of sex
>addicts,
>perverts, misogynists,
>playboys, and cads (I refer
>lovingly to us), I assume
>that even HE senses something
>is rotten in the state of
>Denmark and wants
>reassurance.
That's quite a leap!
How about this alternative scenario: The OP came, in the course of browsing
through the Lay Guide, to the section on kino. Reading that article "brought
back something my wife told me" (his exact words). He wondered, since the
article described kino as a method for increasing attraction, his wife found
the kino of the guy to be "annoying and intrusive". He decides he wants an
explanation, and asks how an attracting method could elicit annoyance.
Reread his post with this possible scenario in mind, and see what you think.
>
>5. I have observed the
>existence of guys trying to
>cop a feel or a grope. This
>generally involves either
>overt or covert touching of
>women on their genitalia,
>buttocks, or breasts. I am
>not aware of "groping" being
>associated with
>touching the shoulders or
>wrists during casual
>conversation. I dismiss this
>claim from your previous
>e-mail accordingly.
Not so fast. The kino does not have to be directed at those three area in order
to be intrusive. You seem to concede this point yourself by saying "generally",
but then move on to dismiss kino in other areas as being conceivably invasive,
of which you offer two examples, presumably random ones meant to be
representative since the kino in question was never described in the OP.
>
>6. I have observed women
>becoming aroused from kino.
>(Yessssssss!)
Unless you claim that kino invariably results in arousal, this is irrelevant.
>
>7. I have observed women
>becoming embarrassed from
>being aroused.
So let me get this straight. You've observed women becoming aroused by kino at
times. You've observed aroused women being embarrassed about it at times.
"Thus" the woman in the OP was aroused by the kino, got embarrassed, and dealt
with that embarrassment by telling her husband????
Could this be any more tenuous?
>
>8. I have observed women
>becoming uncomfortable from
>being aroused by
>men who were not their husband
>and wigging out, making up
>stories, and
>doing all sorts of odd
>behaviors. Nothing would
>surprise me in this context!
Even.... in the end reacting in such a way, via labyrinthine convulsions, that
is indistinguishable from telling her husband about an annoying incident. And
later in this post YOU bring up Occam's razor!!!
>
>9. I have seduced married
>women and have noted their
>strong desire to
>blame their states of arousal
>on external sources, and
>further to REFRAME the
>experience to absolve
>themselves of guilt.
>
>10. "No I didnt tell my wife
>to read this site... I only
>recently discovered this
>goldmine of information, and
>read some stuff. Particularly
>this KINO interests
>me and it brought back
>something my wife told me
>once."
>
>Paragraph 1 from
>the original post I present as
>an exhibit or evidence that
>the individual
>posting is HARDCORE AFC. In
>fact, his log history was just
>under 24 hours
>before posting this request
>for information from us
>perverts.
ROFLMAO!
I don't see how whether he is AFC or not matters, but your "evidence" that he
is an AFC isn't very compelling, to put it mildly.
>
>11. "She was going to a
>course, and she said this guy
>there kept touching
>here, like on the shoulder
>when he wanted to talk to her,
>and on her arms
>when they talked etc. She told
>me she found it really
>annoying and intrusive,
>and got angry about it and
>asked me what she should say
>to make him stop
>it."
>
>I quote Paragraph 2 of the
>original post as evidence that
>activity in
>question seems from the
>outside to be so normal and
>unremarkable as to
>make us
>scratch our heads in
>wonderment that the wife would
>repeat it to her AFC
>husband. Further that the
>husband would remember it from
>"some time ago,"
>well enough to post it to a
>bunch of strangers, perverts,
>etc. Why? Why did
>this seemingly unremarkable
>event
>make such an impression on Mr.
>AFC? Why would he pose this
>question to
>this particular group of
>experts?
Because we would know about kino, and could explain why something described at
an attracting method could be repulsive in his wife's case.
>
>12. "I'm not sure if this guy
>has read this site and was
>trying this technique
>or something... but what went
>wrong for him? Would it be
>because he did it
>the wrong way or she had no
>interest in him?? Can anyone
>shed any light?"
>
>I draw our attention to the
>final paragraph. And may I
>explicitly draw your
>attention to his inclusion of
>the idea that the kino "went
>wrong" and that "she
>had no
>interest in him." Why bother
>telling us that fact? Isn't
>it obvious from the
>above paragraph that she found
>it annoying? Why reassure us
>that his wife
>was not interested in this
>guy? ...OR... is he
>reassuring himself? And if
>so,
>why?
LOL! Ok, lets say for the sake of argument that your logic is sound, and that
he was jealous of this guy. It is another large leap, but whatever.
Is it not possible, probable even, that a guy could get that way EVEN IF his
wife was annoyed rather than attracted? I sure as hell wouldn't want someone
getting touchy-feely with a wife or GF of mine.
>My friends sitting on the
>jury, I present to you only
>the facts. Now my
>esteemed colleague the Wild
>Bard will tell you that this a
>very small group of
>facts to draw any conclusions
>from. But yet, we, the
>empaneled members of
>the ASF community have been
>asked to do exactly that by an
>AFC huband.
>
>Many conclusions are possible.
>We've seen that here in this
>discussion. But
>one of the principal laws of
>logic, Okkam's razor, states
>that we must find the
>SIMPLEST explanation for this
>set of facts.
BWAHAHAHAH!!! [judge pounds gavel] ORDER! ORDER IN THE COURT! (Ham and cheese!)
Someone get the defense a glass of water!
The explanation
>that does not
>require us to either exclude
>any of these facts for it's
>support, nor invent any
>new facts, no matter how
>plausible.
>
>I suggest that saying that
>AFC's wife was the victim of
>groping or harassment
>requires not a logical leap,
>but rather the invention of
>facts that we do not
>have before us.
BWAAAAAAAA..... [Judge throws gavel]
>
>Now, if the bailiff would
>please pass me those panties,
>I will show the
>smoking gun! This woman was
>in fact AROUSED BY THE KINO of
>her
>classmate.
>
>Dude, I rest my case.
>
This was fun, I like your sense of humour. Your arguments could use some work,
though :)
|
