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

We are all animals at night

hazlitt.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

161–170 of 295 posts

Re: We are all animals at night

#161

Post by CPLX »

avidiax wrote: post #62
CPLX wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can you explain why the trade she describes is regulated the way it is that doesn’t involve traditions and superstitions around power and sex?

Monogamy as a norm is about stability. Without it, what would tend to happen is that many more men would have no wives and families. Which means they have relatively little to lose. Which could tend to make your society unstable, since these men have little reason not to flip alliances, revolt, defect, etc. Hence laws and consequences for adultery, prohibition of an open market for non-monogamous sex, etc. The tradit…

> prohibition of an open market for non-monogamous sex

Are you fucking kidding? Have you heard of Tinder?

You’re just reinforcing the authors point, which is that we treat this situation noticeably differently, for “reasons”

Re: We are all animals at night

#162

Post by beebmam »

iamnotsure wrote: post #146
ianai wrote: post #28

This is very well written and gripping even. I don’t see the negatives other commenters are pointing out. Yes she’s talking about her perceptions born from her clients and years worked. That’s an absolute right for all of us, right? To simply relate the experiences we’ve had. She’s definitely seen a side of humanity that, while seen by many, doesn’t quite often get public visibility-sunlight. And lo and behold, it’s…

No disrespect, but I am not sure if casinos are in the business of helping mankind. Therefore, it is not only the casino clients that behave badly. The fact that money changes hands means nothing.

Humans have some deeply self-destructive tendencies. It's not just a predator/prey or an oppressor/oppressed relationship. I'm not sure that if we ban all outlets for self-destructive behavior that something good will come of it. Offering some amount of consentual self-destruction is absolutely in the business of helping mankind, in my opinion.

Re: We are all animals at night

#163

Post by legends2k »

quinnjh wrote: post #120
smabie wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I mean, if this was true, then why do office workers generally earn more?

Who earned more, the architect for the pharaohs pyramid or the people pushing one of the massive slabs of rock? Which job was harder?

Depends on who you ask.

Physically the rock-pusher job is harder. Mentally the architect's. I'd say pay comes in based on demand. Do we have more brainy folks or brawny folks?

Re: We are all animals at night

#164

Post by raincole »

XorNot wrote: post #141
raincole wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Have men been told they're entitled to sex and attention for free tho? I kinda feel it's the exact opposite. Men are told they need to pay for meals, rooms, travel, and housing and custody later. Men are told they should be the proactive side and take the risk of being rejected. I'd even say (at least in TV shows and movies) men are expected to be the funny ones and provide entertaining values in a relationship. I'm…

> Have men been told they're entitled to sex and attention for free tho? I kinda feel it's the exact opposite. Men are told they need to pay for meals, rooms, travel, and housing and custody later. Men are told they should be the proactive side and take the risk of being rejected. I'd even say (at least in TV shows and movies) men are expected to be the funny ones and provide entertaining values in a relationship. Do…

Please read my comment in context. I was responding to this quote from the article:

> it’s an industry where women get to call the shots, and that women profit off something that men have been told they’re entitled to for free: sex and attention in equal parts.

The article says for free. It doesn't say "for just being an attractive guy" or "for just being a nice person". For FREE. That's what the article says, not my word.

Also your comment is just appending more things to the list of things that men are expected to do...

Re: We are all animals at night

#165

Post by dullcrisp »

mise_en_place wrote: post #125
raincole wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Have men been told they're entitled to sex and attention for free tho? I kinda feel it's the exact opposite. Men are told they need to pay for meals, rooms, travel, and housing and custody later. Men are told they should be the proactive side and take the risk of being rejected. I'd even say (at least in TV shows and movies) men are expected to be the funny ones and provide entertaining values in a relationship. I'm…

I think this is accurate. Men are often ridiculed for thinking they are entitled anything. But especially so for sex and female attention.

You’re saying that like you disagree

Re: We are all animals at night

#166

Post by julianeon »

bluenose69 wrote: post #52

This is an exceptional piece of writing, finely crafted and suffused with unusually deep insight. I read a lot, and seldom have I run across a writer possessed of this level of skill. A writer's central task is to place the reader in another world, living another life. At this, the author succeeds with what seems like effortless grace. Few of today's award-winning novelists display this power. I do hope HN folks will…

Funnily enough, your observation was the basis of my criticism. I can state it semi-socratically.

What is this article about?

A woman who did sex work at a massage parlor.

Summarize what she did, then.

I... can't.

I actually thought in the beginning that it may have been sensual, not sexual. Then she described it as sex work - which changed my mind - so it was sexual (incidentally, I have heard this critiqued in pieces before in creative writing classes - preferably a reader should not read 1/2 of your story and then mentally have to reframe everything that came before a sentence which unintentionally repositions everything).

And not to be indelicate but... how? What did the sex part of it actually involve? I can think of a whole lot of variations of that, which run a big gamut of intimacy and (I imagine) danger, but I can't tell you how she fit into that. The fact that she bought condoms partially answered that, but it's still an incomplete picture. Also if she had a boyfriend or girlfriend during that time, how she talked to her parents about this, friends - how was security handled, health, pregnancy - basic social/workplace questions - all a blank.

Maybe these were limitations imposed by the magazine itself and (ironically enough) the very power structure that she mentions as a threat. But I couldn't tell you what she actually did as a masseuse, which seems like a weakness of the piece.

Re: We are all animals at night

#167

Post by BlahNeedle »

projectazorian wrote: post #155
BlahNeedle wrote: post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Do you think in providing those things, men then become entitled to sex or attention? You seem to have skipped the take the risk of being rejected part of that comment when reading.

If the ego damage of getting turned down by a prospective romantic partner is a risk worthy of any note at all then you need to be in therapy, not on the dating market.

This is a refutation of the claim of being entitled, not a complaint. If you're ready to be rejected, then you're not entitled. Reading sentences in context aids comprehension.

Re: We are all animals at night

#168

Post by lmm »

projectazorian wrote: post #155
BlahNeedle wrote: post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Do you think in providing those things, men then become entitled to sex or attention? You seem to have skipped the take the risk of being rejected part of that comment when reading.

If the ego damage of getting turned down by a prospective romantic partner is a risk worthy of any note at all then you need to be in therapy, not on the dating market.

So a normal, healthy person should be able to ask someone to hook up as easy as saying hello? The few people I've met who did that did not seem more healthy and well-adjusted than the rest of us; quite the opposite in fact.

Re: We are all animals at night

#169

Post by DiscourseFan »

andrei_says_ wrote: post #12
ilaksh wrote: post #8

The thing is, humans are ALL animals and 100% of the time. Group identification and primitive needs and instincts directly influence our behavior and the shape of society. Primatology should probably be required study for practicing politicians, economists, geopolitical analysts, etc.

And: Seeing rational thinking as a layer serving the primitive needs vs an independent process capable of overriding them explains a lot. All our choices occur in the emotional centers of our brain (in his lectures George Lakoff often mentions research showing that brain injury in emotional centers erase the ability to choose / have a preference). The layer of rationalization deceives us into believing we somehow mad…

It's not really one or the other, clearly there is a level at which we have expanded our rationality far beyond its basic use to serve our needs, and built a society where we in fact never really get to have what we want and if you're sexually frustrated purchasing it is criminalized. We built our own cages because we're afraid we won't be able to wake ourselves up out of bed in the morning.

Re: We are all animals at night

#170

Post by mensetmanusman »

beebmam wrote: post #162
iamnotsure wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No disrespect, but I am not sure if casinos are in the business of helping mankind. Therefore, it is not only the casino clients that behave badly. The fact that money changes hands means nothing.

Humans have some deeply self-destructive tendencies. It's not just a predator/prey or an oppressor/oppressed relationship. I'm not sure that if we ban all outlets for self-destructive behavior that something good will come of it. Offering some amount of consentual self-destruction is absolutely in the business of helping mankind, in my opinion.

In my opinion, humanity would be better off fighting our self destructive tendencies instead of letting those with power take advantage of their situation and squeezing the ignorant dry.
Post reply on HN