Hacker News Reader

Comment by yummyfajitas | Hacker News Reader

Two Sundays ago, a woman flirted with my friend and got him to buy her a drink. She was uninterested in him, merely thirsty. Should the victim spread her name far and wide, publicly shaming her? If unexpected and unwanted physical contact is the dividing line, that same day a different woman kissed me without my permission. Should I publicly name and shame her?

I suspect most people's demands for a public naming/shaming are merely knee-jerk emotional responses rather than principled positions.

View on HN

Did this happen in a business setting? Did either women try to use a potential $50k investment as a tool to gain sexual access?

If not, your friend should probably just be more careful who he buys drinks for.

As for the kissing, you don't provide many details, so I'm going to assume you're talking about your grandmother. In which case, absolutely name and shame. Grandmas have been getting away with that crap for way to long.

A similar event did happen in a semi-business setting last year. I met a woman at a bar, discussed work and personal travel, and decided to meet up another time. I thought it was a sale, she thought it was a date. She did touch me in a manner far better suited to a date, at which point I figured out that we talked past each other. Should I name and shame her?

If you've actually got some set of abstract principles you are willing to use across the board, I'd love to hear them. But I don't think that's where most of the commenters here are coming from.

If you feel like that person was exploiting a power dynamic to coerce you into accepting her advance, and that the world would be a better place if you "named and shamed" (note your misdirection here, since the person we're discussing didn't "name and shame" anyone), then yes.

I know the OP didn't name and shame, I'm referring to the comments here asking for them to do so - this comment thread is about whether or not that should be done.

I don't know what "power dynamic" means, but feel free to provide a clear definition for it. If you've actually got some set of abstract principles you are willing to use across the board, I'd love to hear them.

From my vantage point, I don't see much of a problem here. Offering investment is a beneficial act. So is offering romantic or sexual options. It's hard to see why offering both together suddenly becomes a bad thing - worst case the recipient can decline and is exactly as well off as before.

I'm not sure where to start with this. Is it the idea that you find the act of a stranger putting their hand on a bodily location that would trip the statutes in several US states governing sexual assault "an offer of romantic or sexual options"? The idea that such an "offer" of "options", were we to stipulate that there was any optionality involved, would have been benign? Your statement that the "worst case" is the recipient declines and is "exactly" as well off as before?

But then I reread your second graph, where you cordially invite me to litigate the meaning of the term "power dynamic", and I realize you're just going to draw me into a fake debate where you play the nerd trump card of discrediting a straw man notion of social science instead of engaging the actual issue. And it's not like I'd lose that argument, just that it would be an enervating experience for both of us.

By your logic (which I don't agree with), it would have been okay ONLY IF the side boob were written into terms of the contract, stipulating that there must be tit for tat. And then we can assume that there would also be an article double d: "$50,000 will be left on the dresser."

Well, no. That's just a case of bad communication that I hope you both were able to transcend. And that sounds like it could have been a fun date. Smart, non-asshole men and women are fun to date.

You're fishing for events in your life that are superficially similar to the events in the article -- drinks at a bar, some kind of unwanted touching, etc -- but are substantively quite different.

And you're trying to draw parallels with extremely vague language. Someone kissed you. Who? A child? Grandma? A bus driver? Your boss? Why? Where? Someone touched you "in a manner far better suited to a date." What does that even mean? Did she hug you? Caress your cheek? Slap your ass?

You'll have to use your own best judgment as to whether it's appropriate to name and shame.

It's hard to see how they are substantively different without actually stating some moral principle and then observing that the two situations live on opposite sides of it.

As I said, I'm pretty sure most folks here are following knee-jerk emotional reactions, and the events I'm relating don't trigger the same emotional reactions.

If it was an honest misunderstanding, those things can happen. There is some room for leeway. But even on a date, you don't immediately grab the other in the crotch or by the breast. There are generally some stages you go through to check for consent, starting with simply touching/holding a hand or arm.

And in the case discussed in the article, it was very explicitly not a date, and yet the guy went straight for the boob while making a business proposition. There's no way that's not way out of line.

> Two Sundays ago, a woman flirted with my friend and got him to buy her a drink. She was uninterested in him, merely thirsty.

Flirting is flirting, and doesn't necessarily imply intent to go any further. Some people enjoy flirting and find it fun in itself. You and your friend are likely in the wrong for expecting it to go any further.

> If unexpected and unwanted physical contact is the dividing line, that same day a different woman kissed me without my permission. Should I publicly name and shame her?

"Unwanted kissing" is sexual assault under most definitions (including many legal ones). I wouldn't see an issue with publicly naming this woman. It's your choice, though, and strongly depends on what you feel about it.

Yeah, that's a shitty thing to do. It's called Pussy Privilege. If a man did this, it'd be screamed at from mental abuse (drink) to rape(kiss).

It sums up to : I'm a woman, get me something because I "might" have sex with you. But not really. And those that realize this to its full potential can screw their way to the top.

> It's called Pussy Privilege.

On Reddit, maybe, but not when speaking with adults.

That sort of thing only works on men who think they can trade something for sex. If you buy a woman a drink (or bring a deer to her cave) with the expectation that she now "owes" you, be prepared to be disppointed.

Suppose someone of the same sex bought you a drink, would you feel obligated to have sex with them? How about if they implied that they would love to invest in your company?

Yes, blame the victim, a young college kid who didn't know any better. But I suppose even a college kid from a village with less than one lac people should immediately know all the subtleties of picking up women, right?

FYI, it's a dick move to accept a drink from someone who you don't want to continue interacting with. I wouldn't accept a drink from a man I didn't want to at least hang out with either.

Yes, it's totally a dick move to misrepresent your intentions in order to exploit someone. I agree with you. (BTW: I'm from a small village!)

My comment was aimed at those men who feel "entitled" to things because they somehow imagine that every woman is a prostitute and it's just a matter of price. It's a question of respect and empathy. When someone tries to use the "law or reciprocity" for gain instead of being genuinely generous, they shouldn't be shocked when someone sees through their attempt and shuts them down.

But that was my initial point. It's verboten that a man does it at all. He may accept a drink offered to him, but would never prompt a woman for a drink.

It is a bit different in male gay bars, having been to a few. Then the rule changes to "I'm interested in you, wanna drink?", in the implied consent that there will be communication and a showing of sexual interest.

A woman can prompt a man for a drink, and have no intention at all of anything else, including communication. And by using social mores, the man looks bad to his peers if he refuses. This is what I meant.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com