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

Shedding Light on the “Black Box of Inappropriateness”

cherylyeoh.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

321–330 of 416 posts

Re: Shedding Light on the “Black Box of Inappropriateness”

#321

Post by Melchizedek »

emmab wrote: post #223
throwaway055 wrote: post #200

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Want to be able to touch someone without asking every time? Ask them permission for that! "Hey is it ok if I touch your arms and back without asking in the future?" Sorry but this is just absurd. Courtship doesn't (and will never) work that way. Proposing that standard for human contact implies a lot of negative things about how all of us have conducted our relationships, about how all of our families and parents m…

> Sorry but this is just absurd. Courtship doesn't (and will never) work that way. Im a woman and it works well for me. Do you have a specific technical reason for thinking it wont work? > Proposing that standard for human contact implies a lot of negative things about how all of us have conducted our relationships Saying explicit communication is useful and best-practice is not saying that everyone who doesn't do it…

If you're a woman who is not old and not completely unattractive anything will work for you.

Re: Shedding Light on the “Black Box of Inappropriateness”

#322

Post by camelite »

eropple wrote: post #209
jellicle wrote: post #205

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's really been a considerable change in HN in the past few years. A couple of years ago, a thread like this would have been 100% apologists and victim-blaming, laced with a heavy dose of outright misogyny. It would have been flagged off the the front page in minutes. Today, the threads are much better with only a small amount of that. I'm unclear whether this is because a) Silicon Valley is changing b) the user…

I have to credit 'dang and 'sctb's public moderation and tone-setting for a lot of it (and I've been a critic of weak and permissive moderation here in the past, so credit where credit is due). HN still has some really profound problems with punching down, but so does everywhere else and it's improved significantly; amongst the places I hang out it's gone from perhaps the most egregious example of the kind of nastine…

I will second that the moderators deserve credit for the change in "tone" as you put it. But it is not really a change in tone, but rather that the hold-on-a-seconders, whose "tone" is generally utterly anodyne in comparison to the reflexive vituperation they receive (not that it bothers me) have been warned off contributing. And so it goes.

Re: Shedding Light on the “Black Box of Inappropriateness”

#323

Post by guildwriter »

dsacco wrote: post #229
novia wrote: post #195

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Often the counter-argument to this is that it feels artificial, unnatural, and it will definitely kill the mood. So I want to preemptively address it. When a guy asks before touching me, and of course I'm already interested, it makes me melt. It is so sexy and it definitely improves the mood. I just want to point to myself as one data-point. If you're having trouble believing it, imagine that a hot swimsuit model wal…

> If you're having trouble believing it, imagine that a hot swimsuit model walks up to you and asks if she can rub your shoulders. Would you be like, "Uh, no, by communicating with me you have completely killed my interest"? I hate to be this person, but yes that would kill my interest. I'd be put off by her asking to touch me without any attempt at building a rapport first - that's sort of weird, just like it'd be w…

Going to have to agree with you here. I personally find it a bit off putting that the parent poster assumed that because their example involved a sexually attractive woman, men would automatically go for it.

I am the type of person who shies away from physical contact unless it is with people I feel close with. Physical attractiveness while important, is not enough to overcome the fact that I need to feel an emotional connection to let people near me in that way. If such a person asked me without building a connection with me, I'd turn cold towards them.

That being said, I don't claim to think that I am the norm or that my case is the case for every person. It is definitely a question of personal preferences and should not be treated as a universal.

Re: Shedding Light on the “Black Box of Inappropriateness”

#324

Post by odonnellryan »

dang wrote: post #309
beedogs wrote: post #307

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Right, I was only told flat-out that I was banned for the Snowden comment, but by all means, go ahead and rewrite history and make it about the totally innocuous comment that preceded it. Wouldn't be the first time I've seen it done on HN. It's really no wonder this site has the reputation it does in the tech community these days.

"Told flat-out" by whom? When? I'll happily apologize if I'm wrong about this, but having just looked at the data, I'd be shocked. There are only two people who would have been in a position to tell you such a thing. One doesn't show up in that data set, the other is me, and I know I wasn't banning people just for a yay-Snowden. More definitively, the ban trail starts with the predecessor comment (i.e. 6170753 not 61…

Not OP, but thanks for taking your time here. You've shown a level of customer service that the vast majority of commercial products/companies fail to show.

Re: Shedding Light on the “Black Box of Inappropriateness”

#325

Post by siliconc0w »

rectang wrote: post #261
siliconc0w wrote: post #256

Not defending McClure but it's worth noting sexual assault and 'unwanted touching' are different problems that require different solutions. Any classification system used here should probably differentiate the two. When you combine them you suggest they're the same which does a disservice to those who have been sexually assaulted (defined as assault with/on a sexual organ). The low-fidelity of language here confuses…

> (defined as assault with/on a sexual organ). That's not the definition of "sexual assault". It varies by jurisdiction, and has been discussed extensively elsethread. "Unwanted touching" and "sexual assault" overlap. More important than anatomy is consent.

It's the definition in California. See penal code 243.4 By blurring the lines you contribute to the problem - the author's entire goal in reliving and blogging her experience is that the details matter and we need a sensible framework to define and understand these issues or we can't address them.

Re: Shedding Light on the “Black Box of Inappropriateness”

#326

Post by qubex »

Jun8 wrote: post #160
jaggederest wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Get a high priced call girl, go on a sex site and get a woman who wants what you want. I mean I used to be in a band and it was easy to have a woman in nearly every city you could call when you feel lonely. That's not the point. The point is precisely the power and coercion. Paying someone or finding someone like-minded doesn't hit that button anywhere near the same way that assault and blackmail does. If you're st…

Well put. "Everything in the world is about sex except sex. Sex is about power."

That sounds profound, but really it's just obscurantist (like most insightful but pithy proverbs, I might add).

Re: Shedding Light on the “Black Box of Inappropriateness”

#327

Post by qubex »

jmcgough wrote: post #128
at-fates-hands wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Which is the part that puzzles me. Successful guy, plenty of money. Get a high priced call girl, go on a sex site and get a woman who wants what you want. I mean I used to be in a band and it was easy to have a woman in nearly every city you could call when you feel lonely. If he was after something deeper, hire a dating consultant and find something worthwhile. It just amazes me that people who have both the means a…

It's probably some mix of a lack of impulse control and enjoying the chase. He meets an attractive woman and pursues her, without stopping to think whether or not what he's doing is inappropriate or even assault. Edit: I just finished reading the article. I hope this comment doesn't seem like I'm dismissing him as "Dave being Dave", because what he did was horrible. Plying her with copious amounts of alcohol and then…

What I don't understand is why she kept drinking what he was pouring. (This is absolutely not a ”she was looking for it” remark... I'm just curious why in her initially sober state she had less incentive to avoid risk than when she was a little inebriated. His behaviour is absolutely nothing but despicable.)

Re: Shedding Light on the “Black Box of Inappropriateness”

#328

Post by qubex »

guildwriter wrote: post #323
dsacco wrote: post #229

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If you're having trouble believing it, imagine that a hot swimsuit model walks up to you and asks if she can rub your shoulders. Would you be like, "Uh, no, by communicating with me you have completely killed my interest"? I hate to be this person, but yes that would kill my interest. I'd be put off by her asking to touch me without any attempt at building a rapport first - that's sort of weird, just like it'd be w…

Going to have to agree with you here. I personally find it a bit off putting that the parent poster assumed that because their example involved a sexually attractive woman, men would automatically go for it. I am the type of person who shies away from physical contact unless it is with people I feel close with. Physical attractiveness while important, is not enough to overcome the fact that I need to feel an emotiona…

I'm like you, so that makes at least two of us.

Re: Shedding Light on the “Black Box of Inappropriateness”

#329

Post by ab4570 »

Zikes wrote: post #87

> Generalized sexist statements and behavior that convey insulting or degrading attitudes about women (e.g. Insulting remarks, obscene jokes or humor about sex or women in general) This should be generalized to include both sexes. I often see insulting or degrading comments about men by people in the tech world, especially with terms like "mansplaining".

I agree with you. I don't agree with you being down-voted. Complaining about the down-voting does you no good though.

Re: Shedding Light on the “Black Box of Inappropriateness”

#330

Post by Chris2048 »

pjc50 wrote: post #313
ToadLegs wrote: post #191

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's interesting that you construct a whole evil persona for someone, just for asking a few logical questions on the web. I don't come at this as the pushy sexual conqueror you seem to assume. My perspective is from social anxiety. I already am very hesitant to approach women, because everything seems forbidden and inappropriate. What I hear OP saying is that there is nothing I can do to be sure some woman doesn't fi…

Role models are probably a bad idea; often we find out later that they've been going about it all wrong as well. > nothing I can do to be sure some woman doesn't find my sexual or romantic propositions inappropriate You can never be sure of anything in human relations. But I think the shorthand approach is to see it from her point of view. Basically, does she have a safe exit? In the situation described there are two…

> Role models are probably a bad idea

I tried suggesting exactly this - not only down-voted, but then flagged!: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14668197

Seems whatever use "role models" have, they certainly have ideological buy-in..

Post reply on HN