Hacker News Reader

Comment by gbjw | Hacker News Reader

What's wrong with being hit on (assuming that it's not sexual harrassment)? What's wrong with taking a risk and setting up two friends? Why do we have to segment all life into easy-to-classify pockets of time: 'work', 'dating', 'getting groceries'? Does this not remove some element of spontaneity and joie-de-vivre that makes life thrilling and make one feel human (and not a finite state machine)? While I think the dating apps can certainly facilitate the meeting of two people who otherwise would never meet, I worry about this general attitude.

View on HN

I too worry about this general attitude. Not only is flirting fun, it’s built in to our species. It adds a lot of spice to life. If you don’t know how to flirt without “hitting on” someone and making them feel uncomfortable then you have to up your game. I have no desire to live an algorithmic life.

I don't find flirting to be fun. I completely disagree about it being "built in" to our species. I feel that the phrase "up your game" as a strong insult in this context: I don't believe dating should be gamed; I also believe that those who do game dating are among the worst people I've met. That doesn't mean I live an algorithmic life.

Looks pretty algorithmic to me:

  #include "env.hpp"
  #define FLIRTING "not fun"
  #if __has_feature(flirting)
  #error Invalid built-in environment
  #endif

  int main()
  {

   const char insult[] = "up your game";
   Person p;

   if (has_gamed(p) && FLIRTING) {
      p.set_worst();
      throw insult;
   }
  }

> I don't believe dating should be gamed

I agree, which is why I dislike dating apps. It seems like the dominant practice is for men to "right swipe" or message every woman (regardless of whether they are actually attracted to them or not) then decide whether they're actually interested once they get a match/response.

This results in women getting lots of generic messages from guys who are not actually interested in them. It's really a crappy experience for both genders. However, it seems to be the local optima that modern dating apps converge on.

Also: if you don't hit on a person, then still hundreds of people will do so on a given day. If all polite people stopped hitting on other people then at some point some people will ask themselves: why do only the uninteresting people hit on me?

And the answer is: because the really interesting people play a hard catch and hitting up shopping groceries is not playing hard enough. The really interesting people will like being hit on say, throughout a year on a dance or yoga class though, subtly and slowly.

> What's wrong with being hit on (assuming that its not sexual harrassment)?

There are a great number of rotten people who "cast a wide net". When there's a large number of nets being cast, you start to drown in the sea unable to spot the difference between someone genuinely interested in a relationship and someone who's just sexually harassing you.

It is hard to imagine what it feels like to be hit on all the time, even if it is sometimes wanted.

Isn't this a problem online too?

Yes, but with a caveat: it's a lot harder (and a lot more premeditated) for someone online to harm you than if they're standing next to you. Moreover, you can usually block people from talking to you or even seeing you exist online. Walking away from rotten people can easily escalate into a physically dangerous situation.

> What's wrong with being hit on (assuming that it's not sexual harrassment)?

Because the definition of "hitting on" varies so widely. It can vary from a compliment to their clothing to cat calling, depend on who you ask.

> What's wrong with taking a risk and setting up two friends?

Because as you admit, it's a risk. It can create an incredibly awkward situation if you're in the middle if they split up.

> Why do we have to segment all life into easy-to-classify pockets of time: 'work', 'dating', 'getting groceries'?

I learned the hard way to not mix work and dating. And when I'm running errands, I just want to get them done and go back home. I'm not interested in wasting time talking to people I don't know.

> Does this not remove some element of spontaneity and joie-de-vivre that makes life thrilling and make one feel human (and not a finite state machine)?

I think you're just more extroverted than I (and probably a lot of others on HN) am.

> What's wrong with being hit on (assuming that it's not sexual harrassment)?

Regardless of the intent of the pursuer, it (sometimes) makes people uncomfortable. I believe that people deserve to be able to grocery shop without having to worry about letting someone down easy or dealing with someone who gets aggressive when rejected.

> I believe that people deserve to be able to grocery shop without having to worry about letting someone down easy or dealing with someone who gets aggressive when rejected.

Delivery is so fast and ubiquitous that it makes me wonder if the only people actually going to the grocery store are people looking for social interaction.

Maybe we should have designated, opt-in, "social spaces" where human<->human interaction isn't considered a breach of norms? Or the other way, there could be designated areas where interacting with strangers is forbidden for your convenience.

When we finally get AR, I wouldn't be surprised if you could put yourself in "busy mode" IRL, so other AR-enabled people would know to leave you alone.

we should have designated, opt-in, "social spaces" where human<->human interaction isn't considered a breach of norms

Don't we already have such spaces, called "nightclubs"?

It’s uncomfortable? If you have ever been in a situation where you are in close proximity with someone who is openly attracted to you it feels weird, like you are being surveilled and there is an expectation that you cannot and don’t want to fulfill. Not that I am often hit on but the few times it has happened it registered in my brain as “ohhh I see why women don’t want this kind of attention”

Reply on news.ycombinator.com