I'm trying my best to hate Hoinsky, but he seems, for lack of a better term, like a nice dude. He is articulate without the bravado and raunchy alpha-male sensibility of his writing. He makes eye contact and listens intently; he evokes none of the defensiveness or anger I'd anticipated. Instead, he's polite and discusses the previous week—one in which someone wrote him, "I hope you get raped"—with humility and poise.

He seems less like the person whose advice to men is, "Physically pick her up and sit her on your lap. Don't ask for permission. Be dominant. Force her to rebuff your advances" and more like the self-proclaimed feminist who speaks affectionately about his mother and whose other advice includes, "Celebrate [women's] beauty," "Make her feel valued and appreciated," and "Compromise is important."

As we sip from our magenta cups, it becomes apparent that I'm speaking not with a rape advocate but with a man who's woefully uninformed as to the issues at hand and the dangerous implications of his words.

Take this, for example: Amid the controversy, Hoinsky hastily issued a statement of clarification, explaining that his advice for a man to use force in bed with a woman was "taken from a section in the guide offering advice on what to do AFTER a man has met a cute girl, gotten her phone number, gone on dates, spent time getting to know her, and now are alone behind closed doors fooling around."

When Hoinsky offers what, in his mind is sound advice—find excuses to touch a woman, build her comfort and trust, then find a place where you can be alone—it's is exactly how RAINN defines "acquaintance rape": a) Intrusion of personal space through "accidental" and other touch, b) Desensitizing a victim to make intrusions feel less threatening, and c) Using that trust to isolate a victim. I explain to Hoinsky that, despite his benign intentions, that explanation still advocates date rape.

Ignorance is no excuse, and I'm not, by any means, defending Hoinsky's words. Obviously, no matter how innocent he thought he was being, the potential consequences of those excerpts are extremely dangerous. Still, I think there's a difference between an uninformed and careless writer and one who consciously advocates for sexual violence.

In all, we sit for nearly three hours, reviewing Above the Game page by page, and I explain that men can't ever assume that consent is implied, that only a definitive "yes" means yes. We discuss the harmful connotations of "dominance," "power," and "don't ask for permission,” and it really seems to resonate. I offer to send him some further resources and put him in touch with experts in the sexual assault space. He seems receptive and eager, and genuinely so. We shake hands again and say we look forward to staying in touch. I'm hopeful.

Yesterday, those feelings were validated. Hoinsky sent me an email linking to a statement of apology that admits, "I needed to seriously evaluate every last word of my writing to make sure I wasn't encouraging sexual assault in any way, shape, or form."

He acknowledges that our chat is "the first of many meetings I will be having with anti-rape and anti-abuse organizations and experts to make sure that the advice I am offering is free of any tinge of sexual assault or rape vibes. I will be rewriting Above the Game under their guidance and insight."

I believe him. I'm not letting Ken off the hook, but I applaud his commitment to rewriting his book the right way. I'm not endorsing all of the advice in Above the Game, but I'm confident it will promote consent and respect.