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

141–150 of 295 posts

Re: We are all animals at night

#141

Post by XorNot »

raincole wrote: post #122
lmm wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 not "simply relating experiences" though. She goes beyond that, turning them into a general sociopolitical claim: > Unlike sex work, my “good” jobs didn’t threaten to overthrow tra…

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 you think in providing those things, men then become entitled to sex or attention?

Which is to say you've listed a large number of material things, or fictional things (TV sitcoms have never been reality, but boy did they do a lot of damage to millenials), absent one core element: actually being a pleasant person. Or providing emotional support. Or empathy (I also note that excluded is "be attractive to the other person in some way").

Basically: your list entirely excludes the right of the other person to...be a person. To have any independent agency or preferences.

Re: We are all animals at night

#142

Post by lll-o-lll »

lmm wrote: post #140
bell-cot wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Have men been told they're entitled... Well...it is nice that you seem unaware of Andrew Tate, and the millions of boys and men who are eager followers of him and similar creeps...

I've literally only ever seen him mentioned for the sake of ridiculing him. I'm sure some followers of him exist just as I'm sure some neo-nazis exist, but is it anything other than a tiny fringe of irrelevant weirdos?

No, he seems to have been able to effectively hack the social media algorithms and make himself an extremely prevalent voice. The mind virus definitely spread and touched millions, if not 10s of millions.

Young men are desperate for men they can look up to, to emulate. Rich, exciting, powerful, desired; this was Andrew Tate the image. Of course he was going to be popular! Mainstream media and the chattering classes are utterly powerless against this, we must elevate men of integrity so that young men do not throw their lives away. Black men, rich white men, Jordan Peterson if he cuts through, but men with integrity. Deconstruct society too much and you will just be left with the swirling entropy of nothingness. Socrates understood this, and we are fools to forget.

Re: We are all animals at night

#143

Post by gzer0 »

lmm wrote: post #140
bell-cot wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Have men been told they're entitled... Well...it is nice that you seem unaware of Andrew Tate, and the millions of boys and men who are eager followers of him and similar creeps...

I've literally only ever seen him mentioned for the sake of ridiculing him. I'm sure some followers of him exist just as I'm sure some neo-nazis exist, but is it anything other than a tiny fringe of irrelevant weirdos?

Interestingly enough, I had assumed the same thing. That, it was perhaps some cult-like very limited and extremist following limited to a select few.

My eyes were opened when I visited the Toronto area recently. From my (limited) anecdotal experience, there seems to be a fervent, messiah like following of Tate and the things he says. It was so bizarre to me.

P.S. not saying anything bad about Toronto! Just that it was my experience there. Please take things you read on the internet with a (bucket) of salt, and healthy skepticism!

Re: We are all animals at night

#144

Post by blq10 »

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…

The list of things the commenter you're replying to brought up, in addition to "be attractive", is table stakes for receiving an iota of romantic attention from women.

We talk a ton about unrealistic beauty standards, "men talking, women listening", etc - but I have to wonder, maybe the world where women marry people one income decide above them is almost guaranteed to be a world where men are just more competitive in the workplace, even at the expense of running over their female colleagues. The incentives curve says that to expect anything at all of women, you have to be successful, ideally wealthy. So, you get the behavior the incentives curve tells people to enact.

An incentives curve that is set, ironically, by women

Re: We are all animals at night

#145

Post by johnny22 »

blq10 wrote: post #144
XorNot wrote: post #141

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. Do…

The list of things the commenter you're replying to brought up, in addition to "be attractive", is table stakes for receiving an iota of romantic attention from women. We talk a ton about unrealistic beauty standards, "men talking, women listening", etc - but I have to wonder, maybe the world where women marry people one income decide above them is almost guaranteed to be a world where men are just more competitive i…

> The list of things the commenter you're replying to brought up, in addition to "be attractive", is table stakes for receiving an iota of romantic attention from women.

that's not true though. I'd say it's not great to be "ugly" (for some definition of the word) but you don't have to attractive. Heck, you can even be pretty poor, but as long as you you're a decent person to be around, it's not that hard.

Re: We are all animals at night

#146

Post by iamnotsure »

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.

Re: We are all animals at night

#147

Post by iamnotsure »

whimsicalism wrote: post #55

Beautifully written, even if I don’t necessarily agree with every single point made. Especially towards the end, I feel that she tries to emphasize the nobility and radical nature of this work, taking umbrage at Eric Adam’s use of the word “low-skill” to describe some of these sorts of jobs. But it seems somewhat belied by the fact that, afaict, as soon as she had the means to escape, she did. And the romanticization…

It is easy to forget that central bank money is beads and trinkets with an average half-life of 30 years.

Re: We are all animals at night

#148

Post by ses1984 »

whimsicalism wrote: post #101
ses1984 wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The author didn’t assert that sex work is the only job where women get to call the shots. The author suggested that could be a reason why it’s marginalized. Because if it was legitimized, then women would call the shots.

I did not read it that way and I think that she would have phrased it differently if so. “an industry where women get to call the shots” she would have said “would get” imo if your interpretation was correct, just as you use ‘would’ in your comment. I took her to be describing sex work in the present, not some hypothetical future sex work. Here is the excerpt for those who want to judge for themselves: ‘Unlike sex wo…

People in power work to marginalize it because they’re threatened by it. It’s pretty successfully marginalized if a woman can get arrested for it even while sacrificing economic profits to a pimp or massage parlor. Maybe the author could have been more explicit about it but to my reading sex workers can’t be both marginalized and calling the shots.

Re: We are all animals at night

#149

Post by jjulius »

FooBarBizBazz wrote: post #137
vunderba wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This place: Money in, nothing out. If this is the crux of the issue for you, I assume you don't frequent the following places: - bars - arcades - any entertainment venue (concerts, etc) The impression she seemed to be making was that many of their patrons weren't there for physical gratification but rather a sort of emotional catharsis. Yours is a highly judgmental and uncharitable take.

She's sneering at a bunch of schlubs and you're calling me the uncharitable one? You can frame this kind of stuff as therapy if you want, as something involving a pathetic kind of dignity, even as valuable work, but her essay does none of that. The only people with whom she evinces any solidarity are the convenience-store clerks and the taxi drivers. She basically says that this is not a good thing to be doing, which…

>She's sneering at a bunch of schlubs...

Same question[1].

[1]https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37028780

Re: We are all animals at night

#150

Post by BlahNeedle »

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…

> 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.

Post reply on HN