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

Because it needs to be said

blogjustine.wordpress.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

331–340 of 635 posts

Re: Because it needs to be said

#331

Post by jwr »

honzzz wrote: post #150
erikpukinskis wrote: post #15

One thing we can all do: Start asking before you touch in situations where you know you don't have to. I know it's awkward. But the reason people like Joe think they can put their hands down someone's pants is because we don't have a cultural practice of "ask first". They see you put your arms around that friend of yours who doesn't mind at all, and they think "Ah, cool... so you can just sense if she's cool with it…

Start asking before you touch in situations where you know you don't have to. I think this is based on incorrect understanding of the real cause of the problem. The problem was not the lack of knowledge about the fact that she was not consenting - it was clearly apparent to everybody else, she did not need to verbalize it. The problem was that he was not able to perceive her obvious signals or did not care about them…

All of the above is true.

But it also needs to be said, that a technical conference isn't the right place for heavy drinking or "body shots". It's just unprofessional.

I think what we need to change is not only attitudes towards sexual harassment, but also towards professional behavior at conferences. Which means drawing the line much earlier. Nobody should ever feel they need to do heavy drinking or "body shots" in order to be "accepted" into the community or "bond" better. That includes both sexes, I know men who do not like to drink, but do so in order to "bond" with the community.

Disclaimer: I am not explaining or justyfing anyone's behavior here. What was described in the original article was unacceptable by any means. So please don't go off with a knee-jerk reaction to this post, but think about what I really mean.

Re: Because it needs to be said

#332

Post by lawnchair_larry »

steveklabnik wrote: post #205
copx wrote: post #187

Reading the comments here makes me think I am in bizarro world. Is expecting women to say "No!" already too much personal responsibility for them these days? Calling this "sexual assault" is just crazy. There was no force, she never told him to stop. This would be thrown out in court without question in any half-way sane country.

Consent is not defined by the absence of a no, but a presence of a yes. The situation described falls within the definition of sexual assault in the United States, at least. I am not a lawyer. Decide for yourself: http://codes.ohio.gov/orc/2907.03

> Consent is not defined by the absence of a no, but a presence of a yes.

As nice as that sounds, there isn't a shred of truth to it in the real world. Pre-emptively asking a female before making a move will get you shut down every time. You're supposed to read the situation, pick up on signals, and often be a little bit psychic. Show me a female who wants you to explicitly ask permission before every action and I'll show you a liar.

Re: Because it needs to be said

#333

Post by steveklabnik »

lawnchair_larry wrote: post #332
steveklabnik wrote: post #205

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Consent is not defined by the absence of a no, but a presence of a yes. The situation described falls within the definition of sexual assault in the United States, at least. I am not a lawyer. Decide for yourself: http://codes.ohio.gov/orc/2907.03

> Consent is not defined by the absence of a no, but a presence of a yes. As nice as that sounds, there isn't a shred of truth to it in the real world. Pre-emptively asking a female before making a move will get you shut down every time. You're supposed to read the situation, pick up on signals, and often be a little bit psychic. Show me a female who wants you to explicitly ask permission before every action and I'll…

Sorry, I can counter your antidote with ones of my own. I have, in fact, pre-emptively asked a woman these kinds of things and had success.

Re: Because it needs to be said

#334

Post by steveklabnik »

wilkie wrote: post #223
steveklabnik wrote: post #205

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Consent is not defined by the absence of a no, but a presence of a yes. The situation described falls within the definition of sexual assault in the United States, at least. I am not a lawyer. Decide for yourself: http://codes.ohio.gov/orc/2907.03

'a presence of a yes and the lack of coercion,' since sexual assault is generally defined by this. Him being her employer, and thus responsible for her career, can certainly be asserted as possible coercion, even if there is any implied 'yes', which I don't think there was at any rate.

Yes, thank you. Coercion is an incredibly important part of this.

Re: Because it needs to be said

#335

Post by steveklabnik »

adamnemecek wrote: post #185
steveklabnik wrote: post #165

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can you explain how it fails at achieving its goals? What do you think the goal of a trigger warning is?

It's supposed to warn readers who have had similar experience that the content of the article could cause flashbacks of their own experiences. And I somehow can't shake off the feeling that all it does is promote the victim mentality in the the author and the audience. Also good job white knighting your pants off in this thread.

> And I somehow can't shake off the feeling that all it does is promote the victim mentality in the the author and the audience.

So it's not so much that it doesn't accomplish re-introducing trauma, but that it has other negative effects? I am legitimately curious.

> Also good job white knighting your pants off in this thread.

/me rolls his eyes

Re: Because it needs to be said

#336

Post by brazzy »

chris_wot wrote: post #299
brazzy wrote: post #290

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Then you have a rather broad definition of "explicitly asking for consent", or very strange relationships.

Either you are trolling me, or you are judging me (what a strange and pitiable man!), or you have no idea what you are talking about. Given you know nothing about me, I'd say a bit of each.

Nope, I was just trying to be witty and to make my point implicitly. I did not really mean it to be personal. My bad. So let's make this an explicit discussion, shall we?

What I was trying to say is that contrary to your original statement not every penetration is sexual assault, nor are (in general) sexual acts without explicit consent.

Why? Because in Western society, consent is more often than not implicit. People very rarely ask "do you want to have sex with me?" or "May I kiss you?". Instead, they rely on body language, suggestive statements or simply the knowledge that they're in a relationship of which sex is an expected part.

Now it is certainly possible that there are societies where this is different and any sexual act must be preceded by explicitly asking for consent. It is possible you live in such a society. That would be very strange to me - which is not a judgement.

However, it seems to me more likely that you live in the (mostly same) Western society I do and we're merely having different interpretations of how "explicit consent" can be given.

Re: Because it needs to be said

#337

Post by steveklabnik »

Kiro wrote: post #321
steveklabnik wrote: post #157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If so it looks like he will post his version soon Nope: > I will not be commenting more publicly. If you know me, I'm happy to talk in person. Thank you. https://twitter.com/objo/status/387615899470934016

https://mobile.twitter.com/objo/status/385575128257822720?sc...

Yes, your tweet was right before the one I posted.

Re: Because it needs to be said

#338

Post by steveklabnik »

i_am_dead wrote: post #319
steveklabnik wrote: post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Absolutely nothing about this is 'fun'.

You sure seem to have a horse in this race

Yes, I would prefer that the women in my community are not sexually assaulted. I absolutely have a horse in this race.

Furthermore, I have been friends with Joe for years, and don't know Justine.

Re: Because it needs to be said

#339

Post by brazzy »

brazzy wrote: post #323
wilkie wrote: post #293

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This would condone drugging your victim and is obviously and dangerously wrong.

Yes, obviously that is an important exception, which doesn't change the fact that the statement is generally correct.

Or the fact that you are being far too general about what is rape.

Re: Because it needs to be said

#340

Post by wilkie »

lawnchair_larry wrote: post #332
steveklabnik wrote: post #205

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Consent is not defined by the absence of a no, but a presence of a yes. The situation described falls within the definition of sexual assault in the United States, at least. I am not a lawyer. Decide for yourself: http://codes.ohio.gov/orc/2907.03

> Consent is not defined by the absence of a no, but a presence of a yes. As nice as that sounds, there isn't a shred of truth to it in the real world. Pre-emptively asking a female before making a move will get you shut down every time. You're supposed to read the situation, pick up on signals, and often be a little bit psychic. Show me a female who wants you to explicitly ask permission before every action and I'll…

And if you are wrong in your 'psychic' ability, that's sexual assault. The ends never justify the means when you don't get consent. A woman (can we call them women instead of females?) may not care for explicit permission, but that's irrelevant since no woman wants to be sexually assaulted.
Post reply on HN