Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Valentine's Day Special: Bye Bye Tinder, Flirting in the Support Channel

stackfield.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 115 posts

Re: Valentine's Day Special: Bye Bye Tinder, Flirting in the Support Channel

#61

Post by thyrsus »

awl130 wrote: post #31

This title is very misleading. Flirting connotes a two way interaction. In fact, it isn't flirting until a romantic advance is reciprocated either explicitly or implicitly. This is just hitting on someone.

I once proposed that the way to express one's attraction to a person was to treat the person nicely, e.g., holding a door for them. My interlocutor responded "So, flirt with them." I suddenly had no idea was "flirting" was. I thought flirting meant actions intended to propose amorous activity (American Heritage Dictionary: "To amuse oneself in playful amorousness; play lightly or mockingly at courtship"), and my sincere intent had been to remove that element. Had I been flirting all these years? Is it impossible not to flirt, while treating people in a warm manner?

Re: Valentine's Day Special: Bye Bye Tinder, Flirting in the Support Channel

#62

Post by toyg »

dudifordMann wrote: post #44
yummyfajitas wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How is downplaying one's looks "awful" or "doing violence to yourself"? When we wear non-practical clothes (e.g. anything besides athletic wear or comfy cargo pants), the entire purpose is to cause other humans to respond to us in a way that we find favorable. I recently purchased a slim red pants designed to convey a) that I'm a moderately creative type and b) that I have a nice ass. The net result is that I get des…

I actually had a rather lengthy debate about clothing with my fiance. It comes down to perspectives and social norms which may need to change to have equality. Disclaimer: I do understand that this is sociologically complex topic A woman may choose to wear what someone might consider a revealing piece of clothing for no other reason than she wants to and finds it "cute" (omitting why she has gotten to that conclusion…

I never understood that line of thought. It's like saying one should be free to shout "FIRE!" in a cinema just so that he can feel happy with himself ("hey, my shouting is terrific! I carry no responsibility for what you'll make of the words I say!").

Wearing clothes is a social act, not a personal one. That's why there are laws about it. We geeks should know, considering how we softly strong-armed entire swaths of dress-code rules to bow to practicality over other pre-existing social rules.

That does not mean one cannot stop himself from raping a woman if she wears X or Y (nobody loses control ever, and if one does he should be held accountable for it), but it's dishonest to pretend one should not feel attracted by people wearing clothes designed to make them look attractive.

Re: Valentine's Day Special: Bye Bye Tinder, Flirting in the Support Channel

#63

Post by vertex-four »

dudifordMann wrote: post #21
untog wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've talked to a few girls about this. While some are absolutely just out for all the freebies they can get, others have said that men will get increasingly aggressive when you turn down offers for stuff like that - like they insist on being "a provider" and you turning that down is an insult to their manhood. Seems like a no-win situation all round, really. If you take it, you're encouraging his behaviour (and makin…

"an insult to their manhood." "can literally be dangerous to you." Is that not indicative of being the product of a sexist environment? A man that cannot accept rejection and therefor feels he has a right to behave in a dangerous way, seems to be a problem with his view of himself, and men as a whole, the world.

> Is that not indicative of being the product of a sexist environment?

A large number of modern feminists strongly believe that most *ism is a result of institutional and societal force - i.e. that people oppress others because they've been taught to, their society pressures them to do so, and that not doing so can result in harm to them.

The problem is... how do you solve this? Whose fault is it? The institutional pressures are almost certainly not any individual's fault. But the fact remains that on an individual level, the man in this example is oppressing the woman, and something has to be done about that in the short term.

Re: Valentine's Day Special: Bye Bye Tinder, Flirting in the Support Channel

#67

Post by nchelluri »

anoonmoose wrote: post #25
AznHisoka wrote: post #2

I wonder if this would had an effect on conversions. Are people more likely to buy a product if the salesperson they're talking to is an attractive woman (or attractive man if the buyer is female)

Only one salesperson in my building has a headshot as part of their email signature...I've been told it has made a noticeable impact on said person's numbers. Anecdote, but, can't call it impossible.

I dislike this practice :)

https://medium.com/@narsimham/on-web-authorship-trends-828bf...

Re: Valentine's Day Special: Bye Bye Tinder, Flirting in the Support Channel

#68

Post by tedmiston »

kelukelugames wrote: post #15

There has to be a guide for support staffs on rejecting unwelcome advances. EG. If the customer compliments your looks then reply with "??". Do not encourage them with a "Thank you."

I feel like it's probably better to drive the conversation to an end kindly than open up the opportunity to reply.

Re: Valentine's Day Special: Bye Bye Tinder, Flirting in the Support Channel

#69

Post by vinceguidry »

kelukelugames wrote: post #29
vinceguidry wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wish it were that simple. I'm reading a book on trauma, and it vividly describes the link between fear and sex. We don't really understand how to talk about it publicly, discussions about this tend to devolve into ugly rape fantasy arguments. But it's going to be very difficult to just remove this sort of thing from movies and TV shows. It's too ingrained into our psyches.

Are you saying science suggests Trish slept with the cop because she was afraid of him?

This is exactly why talking about this is hard. People are too quick to draw causal conclusions. I didn't watch the movie. The movie will tell you why she slept with him. Science just gives context for what might be going on "under the hood" in similar, real, situations.

Re: Valentine's Day Special: Bye Bye Tinder, Flirting in the Support Channel

#70

Post by vertex-four »

StavrosK wrote: post #60
vertex-four wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Forcing your sexuality on somebody else in a context other than one where they desire it is terrible, whether or not sex is a good thing in general. Sexual activity is awesome, when it's between two people who both actually want it. I think you'll find that most of the people you're vilifying agree.

> Forcing your sexuality on somebody else in a context other than one where they desire it is terrible How will you know if the other party desires it without showing your intentions?

Generally speaking, if a person is required to talk to you as their job, they probably don't desire it.[0] They're not in the right headspace and they get it plenty enough as it is. Similarly, if you have no idea who they are and they're not in a location (physically or online) which implies they're interested in receiving random attention, they're probably not going to be interested. Aside from that, testing boundaries is something most people seem to learn to do.

Personally, as a woman, I've been friends first with almost every person I've dated - I have a suspicion that that is what's missing from the current general dating culture. The idea that every person you meet, you've got to decide whether they're "dating material" or "friend material" near-instantly (generally based on the context of where/how you met them) is bizarre.

[0] They also probably don't desire discussions about politics or your pet dog or other things unrelated to the job unless they bring it up. They're rarely in a position of power here - the customer is. You're not equals in this exchange.

Post reply on HN