18-year-old asks man for advice on her startup, he texts back sleazy messages
mashable.comSeems like a tough problem (if you consider it a problem). The unfortunate reality of a power-imbalance is that those who are giving out their expertise expect something in return (ROI, promotion, attention/validation, sex).
I don't think what this guy did was even slightly morally wrong, but I would say it sounds unprofessional trying to milk your social status and social capital for physical affection.
But then again, so is hopping to the press because you found 1 sleazy man out there and trying to milk the cultural moment for a few views. (not that one cancels the other)
I agree that this was an example of a transactional communication, where one party was looking for business connections and the other party was looking for sex.
I don't consider it a problem– she very quickly discovered this guy had zero interest in helping her without using her. So she blocked him, which was the obvious next step.
Posting the conversation publicly? Her prerogative.
Like he said: he didn't break any laws and he doesn't think communicating with people this way and having that become public will cause damage to him.
Does that mean there's an institutional bias against girls becoming entrepreneurs? Or lesbians becoming entrepreneurs? Or 18-year-olds becoming entrepreneurs?
If there is, this situation isn't an example of it. It's just an example of a guy who took a message from a young nobody on the off chance he could score.
Exploiting a power imbalance to get sex is in fact morally wrong.
Is exploiting a sex imbalance to get power morally wrong? Yet women do this all the time, and there are no laws against it, in fact in some ways our culture celebrates it.
I think you have to be very very careful when you start labelling things as moral or otherwise.
>Is exploiting a sex imbalance to get power morally wrong?
Not to nearly the same extent, no. If someone has power over you and you refuse them sex, they could potentially do you all kinds of harm. If someone is very sexually attractive but has no power over you, then the worst that they can do is leave you a bit sexually frustrated.
In other words, being offered sex with strings by an attractive person is hardly as bad as being threatened by a powerful person.
>I think you have to be very very careful when you start labelling things as moral or otherwise.
Behavior that is clearly wrong is clearly wrong. The danger lies in not calling it out and allowing it to become normalized.
Ah but come now, sexual attractiveness is a form of power! And in fact one of the greatest; men will fight and die for sex with women they desire.
On the question of morality I stick to my guns: I think we are all tempted from time to time to ascend to our high horse and start declaiming of our righteousness, but my question to you would be: are you really so pure of morals that there are none that might find fault with you, given the chance?
I'm also struck by the stridency of some of the statements I'm reading on HN. I wonder if this is a cultural thing as to my British ears they sound almost comically absolutist. Perhaps in Europe this kind of forceful speech is less fashionable?
>Ah but come now, sexual attractiveness is a form of power!
Sure, in a sense. But as I said previously, your sexual attractiveness to a person is not something that you can use to threaten them or ruin their life. On the one hand, you have situations where an attractive woman tries to get what she wants by offering sex. On the other, you have situations where a powerful man threatens a woman who refuses his sexual advances. You only have to think of it from a first-person perspective. Would you rather be coerced into sex, or offered sex in return for a favor?
>to my British ears they sound almost comically absolutist.
I am also British.
In a sense?! Sexual power can be used to bring someone to their knees; to control, to humiliate; I think you do women a disservice if you diminish this fact, and what's more - and in the spirit of bombast - you are arguing against one of the timeless truths of human existence, and a theme that pervades human culture since time immemorial.
You can't control or humiliate someone merely by offering them sex. They can just say "no thanks". If they end up getting controlled and humiliated, it's because they were foolish enough not to do that.
If you are someone's boss, you can control and humiliate them by, say, having them fired. You can't say "no thanks" if your boss fires you.
That is the distinction that I was drawing.
You certainly can control someone by offering them sex - it's a well understood and successful tool used in espionage.
Espionage is a human science and has developed applied human sciences above and beyond what popular American culture has the maturity and insight to comprehend.
Much of this information, if released publicly, would be dismissed out-of-hand as incorrect to anyone who is an upright and decent person.
To the poster below me, the offer of sex can be used as control regardless of acceptance. If a wealthy and attractive person offers you sex, and you are unaware of an ulterior motive, the mere act of offering does factually impact your psychology and changes your cognitive biases. If the changing in these biases is directed, you are being controlled.
I recommend brushing up on your espionage knowledge. This isn't magic, it's intellectual honesty.
You have veered quite a long way off the original topic. It's plainly absurd to draw a comparison between the KGB setting a honey trap and a senior man pressuring a junior woman to have sex with him. The two have nothing to do with one another.
>the mere act of offering does factually impact your psychology and changes your cognitive biases.
Everything impacts your psychology and changes your cognitive biases. In that broad sense of the word "control", we are all "controlling" each other every day, no sex required.
It's not a comparison, it's a juxtaposition and you are tying yourself in knots trying to avoid admitting the truth. Women DO have greater sexual power than men. Some women DO use sex to control men. Young women definitely have an idea of their power in the sexual marketplace. And the idea that we can just decide to switch lust on and off is ridiculous.
>Some women DO use sex to control men.
I did not say that there are no women who use sex to control men. I said that it is not possible to control someone merely by offering them sex. It requires the cooperation of the person who is being offered sex. This is in stark contrast to the kind of power older men often have over younger women.
>And the idea that we can just decide to switch lust on and off is ridiculous.
Who said anything about switching lust off? All you have to do is decline the offer, which is eminently possible.
What about the blackmail potential inherent in offering someone sex?
Edit: I can no longer reply due to the thread length, so here is reply to below post:
To say that someone offered you sex, is to inculcate the idea of a sexual relationship with a person which you would otherwise not be associated with in such a context.
There isn't any blackmail potential in offering someone sex. You can just say "yes, so and so offered me sex".
I do not understand your edit.
It only works if they accept the offer.
I think part of the "tough problem" is that some people don't feel that being unprofessional in this particular manner isn't at least slightly morally wrong. She asked for advice, he's free to negotiate ROI, promotion, and validation, but in a conversation about business, "are you single" is already crossing a line, nevermind "do men turn you on?". There's a time and a place for that!
I'm not saying it was appropriate... but what exactly is the "time and a place for that"?
I only mean to say that typically people meet potential mates/partners in school and at work. Now, taking a text based conversation to that level is definitely wrong. But I would propose that actually testing for interest in the workplace isn't inherently wrong, only in so much that it's a matter of intent, extent and explicitness that isn't always easy to judge.
Personally, I'm of the mind that a soft ask about dinner/drinks/coffee sometime, and if a decline, then one more ask a few weeks later is probably okay, as long as it ends on a second ask. The reason I say this is only because sometimes a person doesn't feel comfortable if they don't know the person well enough yet, so best not to close the door right away.
On the flip side, this was very explicit without any of the contextual cues you get in person, especially with a soft rejection, is definitely over the top. Never be overtly sexual or dominating over someone in the workplace.
Yeah, the time and place for "are you single" is when the conversation has already moved to more personal matters - or like you say, related to the "soft ask" about dinner/drinks/coffee sometime!
>I don't think what this guy did was even slightly morally wrong
Well she blocked him before it got further.
Here's the thing: for men being decent requires effort - especially online where the risk/reward ration of being a douchebag seems so tantalizingly < 1. That's obviously changing because doing stuff like this outside the confines of dating sites is becoming much riskier. IMO that's a good thing.
I think men will always have to fight the urge to not "go for it" with women they find attractive. In a way, we're kinda hard-wired to do that. That doesn't mean that we can't or shouldn't fight the urge and be decent to women - especially now that women everywhere are speaking up and letting us know how this kind of behavior makes them feel.
Addendum:
The first reactions to my post are pretty negative. I can see why (over-generalization) but on-balance I don't feel like my post is negative. The core message is - be decent. If the volume of women's complaints are a measure, I'd venture to say there are a lot of men out there that struggle to do so. If you're not one of those guys- awesome . But a lot of dudes are and the first step to getting them to treat women well is to vocalize the expectation that they do so and maybe while we're at it, not trying to shame them into decency by pointing out how awesome you are and, by contrast, what horrible human beings they are for having unacceptable feelings.
> for men being decent requires effort
As a man, I am offended by this stereotype.
It takes no more effort to not make sexual advances in an inappropriate context (even when there is an attractive woman around) than it does to not assault and rob vulnerable passers-by on the street.
Which, I suppose I now must add for clarity, also does not take any effort worthy of the name.
You could argue that the hyper sexualization of our culture trains both sexes to act in ways that are indecent. For example, men are taught to always make the first move and to be strong and persistent. How many romance movies involve a women rebuffing a man only for the man to keep trying until he "wins her over"? When someone misreads signals - as we all do, this conditioning can cause someones behavior to become creepy, inappropriate, or worse.
Thus because we are conditioned to sometimes be indecent, it does in some circumstances require effort to override it.
Where does just plain respect for people come in? Attractive or not there's just some basic decency that needs to be applied in every situation. I understand that we all have feelings but being part of society means that we have to have respect for everyone. I understand the attitude if you're a young man learning how to deal with people but at some point you learn how to respect people female or male.
There's a time and place for everything. "going for it" every time you meet a woman is just immature and needs to be corrected.
I hate to pick on your language but corrected sounds a bit scary, like you would favour having Saudi style morality police walking about.
Think of it more like whacking an unneutered dog on the snout with a newspaper. Beside, I took his language just fine without envisioning the Stasi watching your every move.
Well it's a comical image and if the context were someone dry humping someone else's leg then perhaps I might agree on the remedy.
That's animal abuse. Don't hit your pets.
> Here's the thing: for men being decent requires effort
> I think men will always have to fight the urge to not "go for it" with women they find attractive.
For you, maybe. Not for me, and not for a lot of men. Please don't typical-mind-fallacy the rest of us who don't need to expend effort to not be a douchebag.
Procreation only comes behind not dying in our list of biological prerogatives. Avoiding being a "douchebag" involves controlling these impulses. Suggesting men have a sex-drive is a not an example of the typical-mind-fallacy.
If--if--I grant your premise that biological perspectives are significant in this discussion, I think that procreation and long-term reproductive goals aren't the same things at all. Procreation is short-term; create the possibility of a lineage and you've "succeeded". Humans don't work like that; we are eusocial animals with complex communities; "impregnate and move on" is not an evolutionary tendency we embody.
That said, your premise is invalid. Biological prerogatives are not significant in the not-even-slightly-sexually-premised interactions between members of the 21st century tech community with career motivations and numerous other factors at work that evolution did not prepare them for. Saying that "biological prerogatives" are a significant factor here is like saying that a lemur let loose in a supermarket would be drawn to product branding based on how likely a given brand was to help the lemur secure a mate--too many factors have changed for simple parallels to be drawn.
Edit: spelling, I still keep forgetting this isn't markdown.
Biological perspectives are relevant in any discussion involving human behavior. We are biological organisms, our mood and behavior are governed by chemical responses in our brain.
I guess we are in tech so we should be able to suppress all the impulses, desires, and feelings that have been carved into us over hundreds of thousands of years of evolution.
Its pretty obvious to all that a generalization is just that. By definition it doesn't include the entire population. The urge to hit on a woman you find attractive doesn't make anyone a doucebag - it makes them a straight/bi male. Not all of us, but a pretty good chunk. And to be clear I'm not including egregious things like unsolicited dick pics as "hitting on a woman." But good for you if you've never wanted to let a woman know you were interested while in conversation with her. How saintly of you to never have such a lurid thought.
> How saintly of you to never have such a lurid thought.
Some people--a lot of people--just don't have those thoughts. That doesn't make them better or worse than people who do; both can do good, or harmful things. I think the point of GP's comment was that there are many of people out there who simply don't feel that way.
There are a lot of ways that might play out: they might not be attracted to others until someone is attracted to them; they might be attracted, but have no automatic desire to turn that into action/hitting on people; they might not be attracted to others period, et cetera.
> The urge to hit on a woman you find attractive ... makes [you] a straight/bi male
You're still assuming the two go hand in hand. Your impressions might be confirmation/selection bias: people who don't have the urge to hit on people they find attractive are going to be less obvious to you (insofar as they are competition for people you find attractive), and are also likely less inclined to jump into public discussions on the subject, given that a lack of sexual aggression is, in many demographics/situations, a basis for shaming.
Edit: punctuation.
>people who don't have the urge to hit on people they find attractive are going to be less...
No, I'm listening to women. I'm watching the cat call videos. There are lots of guys out there that have these thoughts. What percentage they are? I don't know and don't really care because it doesn't matter. They exist. Period. Saying as much doesn't harm anyone. Not saying so does.
My original message stands; if you feel like being an asshole to a woman, resist it - be decent.
> How saintly of you to never have such a lurid thought.
I have lots of lurid thoughts. I also have enough respect and self control to not blurt them out. I've managed to interact with many women without overtly showing that I find them sexually appealing. Remarkable in this age of entitlement, isn't it?
Serious post: It's possible you have low testosterone levels. Annual testosterone checks are an important medical precaution for men, as decreased levels can be caused by serious medical conditions.
If I'm not a raging douchebag, I might be low on testosterone? I'm sure that's not what you meant, but that's how I'm reading in light of the original comment. Serious question to a serious post: do you have anything more concrete on which to base one's decision to get checked?
I logged in just so I could tell the parent commenter off... Then I got distracted writing up a reply to someone about the Damore memo, which referenced how 'conservatives' seem obsessed with biology and base all their nonsense on a simplistic understanding of such. And now this guy....
I have higher than average testosterone levels, always have, and I'm 48 now. And I wouldn't do something this stupid - it is all about context. And understanding how women operate (duh).
If someone messaged me asking for tech related advice, I'd freely give it and not try to do something out of the psychosocial boundary lines. If the interaction develops, then you and her are starting a relationship (generic use of the word). Time goes on, you meet at some conference etc... then you can appropriately gauge what your chances are and possibly will have more of a chance b/c 1) you have shown you're not an idiot and 2) women control the personal sphere of life - they grok relationships better. Play by their rules (ish, sort of) and things go much better.
Dumbasses don't understand the dance that goes on. This guy's behavior is exactly equivalent to asking every woman at a bar if they want to fuck. The ones who say yes are the ones more likely to have daddy issues etc and no one in their right mind deliberately goes down that road except for douchebags
You came to this conclusion because he said he doesn't have the urge to "go for it" when he sees a female he finds attractive?
Not cool dude :D
I indulge in precisely as much assholery as I want: Zero.
If you want to indulge in more, that's sad, but don't project that desire onto anyone else.
> Here's the thing: for men being decent requires effort
Here's the thing: this is called projection. You're speaking for yourself, not men in general.
> Here's the thing: for men being decent requires effort
Wow. That's blatant sexist bigotry.
Can you imagine if someone said the same thing about women and what the reaction on HN would be?
Business relationships take place within a business context, email, meetings etc where both parties are pretty clear on intent.
She messaged him on Facebook, that's not a professional environment, it's social. He took it as such, his messages weren't inappropriate. Labelling it as 'sexism' is a little much, it's normal human interaction.
She messaged him on Facebook after finding him through a Facebook group dedicated to entrepreneurship. If we grant that facebook is a more casual environment, for the sake of argument, his line of questioning should have ended at "are you single"! I don't see how her intent could have been more clear.
Furthermore the Facebook platform (lets include Instagram, Whatsapp, etc) has become an "everything" platform for many individuals both young and old. Family, news, everything is on there. In the absence of clear intent the expected behavior should be not to make such drastic assumptions as sexual interest...
Who seriously jumps from business into asking, in rapid succession, a persons age, relationship status and details about sexual orientation? These are personal questions: they don't correlate to success in any meaningful way and frankly, are none of anyone else's concern.