Hacker News Reader

Comment by subpixel | Hacker News Reader

I’m reminded of an axiom, which I will paraphrase:

Everything is about sex. Except sex, which is about power.

Actually I'd bet that neurologically sex is far from power games, but along each growth the system gets used for personal benefits rather than union. Might be a cultural lens too.

Actually, in a human hierarchical society, power is all about sex.

Explain that to me, is that a self gene natural ladder ?

Competition to get at the top of the hierarchy, and the fact someone will be willing to compete, coupled with the intrinsic need for control which comes with power, sex just being a tool to an end... Especially in a culture as puritan and easily offended (only "in public") as the North American culture.

All in all, it's human intrinsic nature.

It might have gone better if you'd said "aphorism" rather than "axiom", because boy howdy are there a lot of people in these comments who don't know what an aphorism is and are taking it literally.

you are correct.

Money, power, sex and elephants.

Says more about the speaker than sex itself. Sounds like the words of someone with mental health issues.

Or maybe someone who've read Frans de Waal "Chimpanzee Politics: Power and Sex Among Apes". Power and sex seem to be interlinked due to evolution: the more power one have, the more accessible sex and reproduction become. People are trying to break this link for some reasons (probably good reasons), but it is not so easy.

The phrase should be considered as a framework for (let's say) hyper-masculine Id behaviour.

However sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.

kevin spacey said this in the first season of house of cards.

I did not know that and I choked on my tea reading it.

in hindsight, it's kind of incredible. in the show, he said this to a young reporter who was trading sexual favors for scoops.

Fifty Shades of Grey is one of the best selling books of all time. Almost all the women your age have read it or seen the film. You should too.

A more nuanced critique is to be found via the podcast "Sex Power Money", by Sara Pascoe.

I've always thought this phrase is a bit silly. It completely erases the existence of asexual people and their goals and ambitions.

Or, is the lack of sex about power, reinforcing the axiom?

The 'axiom' (idiom) is not that the lack of sex is power, but that everything is sex, and sex itself is power, therefore everything is ultimately about power. But you cannot take sex our of that equation. So it implies that anything you do, even if you don't care about having sex at all, is about sex. Doesn't make sense.

Not that I'm supporting asexual erasure, but sayings like the quote in GP are usually fairly general. Statistically, there are much much fewer asexual people than not, so in general it may hold but that's not to say it holds for every single person.

The average human has one breast and one testicle.

Parent is talking about percentiles, not averages.

But on the point of averages: the median human has two breasts and no testicles.

And less than two arms.

I think you misunderstand the phrase; it's about society as a whole, not individual people. Things are implicitly about sex and power on an ingrained level, and asexual people are just screwed (SCNR) even more by this.

I disagree with that. Not everything is implicitly about sex, maybe everything is about power (strong maybe) but sex is not a precursor to that. That said, you are probably right that the things that are about sex and power end up disadvantaging the asexuals.

Came here to post this, glad I didn't and forget we can't post about asexuality here.

As an asexual person, not only are we not respected whatsoever here, but in my experienced, also personally attacked.

That your comment about erasure is getting this many down votes is unfortunately absolutely common for HN, and I'm incredibly disappointed in that.

Before people jump in who might not be asexual to try to defend this - it's such a problem I have actually shared emails with an admin who actually seem genuinely concerned about the problem. Just the truth.

I'm not sure why HN has it in for asexuals, but God damn guys, can't you ease up on us?

I found that HN is generally not very friendly to LGBTQ+ people. I don't think it is because there's a certain type of phobia here, but most people here are very logical and analytical people which I've seen resulting in "logical arguments for and against the existence of ..." which is just.. Why

We exist because we exist, nothing else.

And to speak up about it, as obviously pictured once again here - gets us downvoted into oblivion, only confirming our feelings of being unheard...

For real, it's been such an issue here I have had emails with an admin but didn't press the issue further and I think it's due time to send another one. They really did seem to care and to be concerned.

You're assuming you're getting downvoted due to the asexual aspect of your posts. I don't know whether this applies to other cases, but in this case I'm reasonably sure the reason is different: the existence and behavior of asexual people does not change how overall society works (sadly).

In the very situation the BBC story refers to, it doesn't matter whether you're an asexual musician. The producer/executive/... would still expect sex from you. They don't give a shit, follow their ingrained patterns, and that's the problem.

No part of "Everything is about sex. Except sex, which is about power." is in any way diminishing or erasing asexual people. If anything, it exemplifies the additional plight that being asexual brings, even over other LGBTQ+ preferences. Society expects you to be about sex & that's gonna be a very slow change.

I'm very much in your camp, so to speak, but I downvoted some of the upthread comments because I think they are responding to something that wasn't really said.

There's a massive difference between an observation and a judgment. Especially if that 'observation' is a commonly quoted statement (aphorism, as has been pointed out).

Personally, I'm pretty close to asexual if we'd consider sexuality a spectrum. As such, if anything, I find the observation valuable because it underlines how much sex plays a role in areas of life where really perhaps it shouldn't.

Pointing out something that is true or at worst perceived to be true is in no way equal to agreeing with it, or morally defending it.

I...might agree with downvoting maybe the poster's original point, but, as an asexual person, blanket statements like the world revolves around sex absolutely do seem to completely ignore the ever-growing movement of openly asexual individuals.

My responses, however, about the general negative atmosphere towards LGTBQ+ folks here, especially asexuals in particular - (no idea why, asexuals in particular; it's just relentless, sometimes) - also got downvoted into near oblivion.

They consistently have, and I regret even opening up about it, honestly, because I hate getting dragged into this shit online, but I wanted to actually back up and validate the OP who has evidently had an extremely similar experience to my own, that; yes, HN has a long-standing problem with LGBTQ+ relations, and neither OP or I are the first to experience or post about it.

That we choose to open up about the negative treatment, and get downvoted for it, for me; is an issue of respect and being heard.

Downvotes on a post saying that we feel the community needs work with regards to respect for LGBTQ+ people obviously only make, at least myself - feel even shittier and more unheard.

Getting downvoted into oblivion for opening up about the negative treatment of LGBTQ+ individuals on this particular forum seems clearly intentionally * phobic and that's just a shit sandwich I can't do much about.

Is it the stigma associated with asexuality? Is is just general * phobia? I'm not sure what makes HN in particular so awful with regards to LGBTQ+ issues - today has certainly all but reaffirmed that for me - but for such an intelligent crowd, and a bunch of people from the Bay area and shit; I'm honestly continually baffled and unfortunately it appears to be a growing issue that is getting worse, rather than improving in any way.

It's ok. If you even slightly hint at being self righteous or virtuous you will get downvoted. I saw it coming the second I said 'asexual people exist', which is just a declarative statement of fact and nothing more.

They got downvotes because it's not relevant to the point of the saying.

Which this little flap just underlined, because asexuality is defined as a lack of interest in sex, once again demonstrating that everything is indeed about sex (or lack thereof).

Not really. That's like saying everything is about food because even when it's not about food, it's still about food in relation to something else. You still have to prove everything is about sex, or we can do this with any object and assert it as true.

This is hilarious.

'Everything is about food.'

'Well, an iPhone isn't food.'

'Well, you had to mention that an iPhone wasn't food, therefore everything is indeed about food, or lack thereof!'

...

There's a term for this type of fallacious reasoning, I forget what it is - anyone?

> 'Everything is about food.' > 'Well, an iPhone isn't food.'

That's just absurd, of course an iPhone is not food...

However,

- You can use your iPhone to take pictures of your food

- You can look up how to cook food

- You can order food

- You can use it in jobs, that help you earn money to buy food

- The people in china who assemble them do it, so they can buy food - etc...

Everything is about food, just like sex, because those two are among the most important things for survival of an individual and the species.

> I'm not sure why HN has it in for asexuals, but God damn guys, can't you ease up on us?

Complaining about the erasure of asexual people as you use "guys" to erase non-men is an unfortunate combo.

My apologies. I use 'guys' gender-neutrally, I should have said 'y'all', which was the intention.

Thanks for pointing that out. I appreciate it.

It's also leaves out everyone for whom sex is not about power. It's like saying knives are for stabbing, which is true, if you're going to stab someone.

Either conscientiously or inconscientiously, sex is about power.

Asexual people actually are the ones erasing their own existence. On a generational timescale, at least

Not really, because asexuality is not an inheritable trait, as far as i understand. It wouldn't have lasted this long in humanity if it was (maybe there were asexuals who have been forced to have sex? I don't know).

It can also just be a lifestyle choice. We wouldn't call this asexuality probably, but nevertheless if someone chooses not to have sex it's kind of a spit in the face to say that everything from work to relaxation is undertaken because of some sex->power pipeline.

> It can also just be a lifestyle choice. We wouldn't call this asexuality probably,

The word there is “celibacy”. It’s not like straight people make a “lifestyle choice” to not get aroused when they see an attractive member of the opposite sex.

> but nevertheless if someone chooses not to have sex it's kind of a spit in the face to say that everything from work to relaxation is undertaken because of some sex->power pipeline.

Not from what I’ve heard from people who make that choice. That group mostly consisting of Catholic priests.

Yeah and it completely erases the existence of clouds too! Why isn't there a bit about clouds?!

Even with asexual people, it's all about sex... or the lack of thereof. Asexuality is a sexuality.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com