Hacker News Reader

Comment by beckman466 | Hacker News Reader

> I mean, if Jeff Besos would come to you and say: I invest into your startup $100M if I can fuck you into the ass tree times, very high percentage of HN crowd would immediately say yes.

Ew. This comment is atrocious and shows your privilege. It sounds like you haven't listened to many stories of women experiencing systemic abuse, misogyny and humiliation (and who experience most of this abuse in the music industry). It scares me that people say this stuff publicly.

Comparing Bezos 'fucking you in the ass three times to gain an advantage' with the constant threat women face from powerful men leaves me feeling disgusted

View on HN

Please don't take HN threads further into flamewar, regardless of how bad another comment is or you feel it is. That's what flags are for. Pouring fuel on the flames is exactly the wrong thing to do, so please don't.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

To me your comment is illustrating your privilege. Prostituting oneself three times to be financially set for life could be a perfectly acceptable trade off for millions of people. The fact that you wouldn’t even consider it shows that you haven’t gone hungry for a while.

> The fact that you wouldn’t even consider it shows that you haven’t gone hungry for a while.

This is an argument for making sure people don't go hungry, not for letting rich people rape people who want a job.

I’m not here to argue about a hypothetical utopia where nobody on the planet has to make terrible choices to protect their life. I’m just providing a commentary on the state of the world we do live in. Obviously this hypothetical utopia (or any step in that direction) would be superior to what we have now.

I like to think of "not being raped" as "bare minimum standard to strive for", not "hypothetical utopia".

I was referring to the hypothetical utopia of “making sure people don't go hungry”, which is something that has never happened before in human history. But thanks for assuming negative intent.

The world produces enough food to feed everyone. Doubly true if you scope things to the developed world. Triply true if you scope it to the USA only. "No one starves" is just as reasonable a minimum standard to strive for as "no one gets raped".

Yes, there are serious implementation details, but there's a big societal will factor at play too.

You’re making a strawman argument. The difference is between “being a local singer vs being a superstar”, not “being hungry vs fed”.

This thread stems from a comment that stated:

> The fact that you wouldn’t even consider it shows that you haven’t gone hungry for a while.

I took that as a figurative statement. Hungry for success, or for a way out of a perceived poor future outlook, perhaps not literally hungry (for food).

That's not what happens though, is it? It's a dumb example.

It's more like the abuser forms a bond with the naive kid, and in exchange for their 'loyalty' they are rewarded with a form of insecure attachment where they do what they're told to try and get more approval, and basically just try to live with it as if it's normal.

Have a drink with me tonight and I'll make sure to call X about that role tomorrow, alright? Then tomorrow comes and maybe on occasion they actually follow through with the promise, enough to convince you they're being sincere, but most likely there'll be an excuse and another 'request', and more favours. And more dependence and more control.

Trying to compare this hellish cycle of abuse to getting fucked in the arse by Bezos for 100 mil is not just absurd, it's completely out of touch with the grim reality the victims spend the rest of their lives contending with.

> The fact that you wouldn’t even consider it shows that you haven’t gone hungry for a while.

"I give you $1 bn if you kill that one kid" and you answer "I'll never kill a kid, no matter how much you pay me" to which I reply: "Your answer is illustrating your privilege".

Certainly you see the gigantic sophism in your comment?

No, actually I think this is a fairly poor analogy. In your example, one is being asked to harm _another_ for their benefit. In the other, one is being asked to harm _one’s self_ for their benefit.

However terrible and painful the example is, abstractly, I believe people are free to decide what happens to themselves, but not to others. Murder is universally illegal, while prostitution, arguably, shouldn’t be, and isn’t in many places.

What are you talking about? In my understanding you're saying everyone that been offered sexual transaction from a superstar is dying for a piece of bread? I think that statement is very detached from reality

ain't sure what you mean by acceptable. All of this discussion comes to one question : do you have a choice or not.

You have a choice to run a start up and make any sacrifice you think necessary. You don't have a choice to eat something when you're hungry.

If you don't have a choice, then you're a victim.

(and yes, not everyone has a choice, not everyone just has to work more to get the choice, many people, at some point, don't have a choice; abusing their situation is criminal)

It is not that you have only two options:

1) Get $100M and anal sex from Bezos

2) Be hungry

You can take third option, do not take Bezos's offer, do not make startup and instead do same basic work. So in this case you have choice.

yep

> To me your comment is illustrating your privilege. Prostituting oneself three times to be financially set for life could be a perfectly acceptable trade off for millions of people.

I hear you and get where you're coming from, yet my take is that I want to shift the dynamics of the system for everyone. Systems change, not personal change. Also this isn't about a 'facing a trade off' or sex work, it's about dehumanization and exploitation at the hands of an abusive powerful person.

And I want everyone to be 'set for life'. It's absolutely possible.

> I want to shift the dynamics of the system for everyone. Systems change, not personal change.

We can agree here!

> And I want everyone to be 'set for life'. It's absolutely possible.

Who is going to provide this lifestyle?

Don't equate sex work (which is what is in op's example) with rape. It simultaneously denigrates sex workers while trivializing victims of sexual violence.

im glad someone said it!

There’s always one who takes any comment and has to act like that gatekeeper.

You don’t own suffering. You’re not it’s gatekeeper. It’s not for you to decide if one person’s proposed situation doesn’t take into account the situation of one of millions of versions of suffering.

This sounds like you never played “would you rather” as a child. If comments like this leave you disgusted, you would reconsider reading public forums.

The reaction anybody views probably comes from their own prior life experiences.

That doesn't change that a very high percentage of the HN crowd would take this offer are men. A lot men are not in a position to reject offers about their body's sexual value such that it turns into abuse.

A lot of men (99%?) don't get the privilege of making a choice to prove themselves in the business world, versus distinctly with their body.

If this was a more frequent choice, the gender representation in tech/corporate leadership roles would even out much faster. Because less men would be there, having chosen a different opportunity. I perceive this as an underrepresented reality.

I viewed that comment as referring to that crowd.

These two things don't compare:

a) People in position of power demanding sexual favors from people so that they can get on with their work or get small rewards.

b) Competitive entertainers prostituting themselves for rare opportunities to become wealthy celebrities. Exchanges of sex for extreme rewards.

Equating how people prostitute themselves for celebrity status and high income to the abuse that some background dancer gets every day is wrong.

I understand that people live and understand things trough celebrities, but that's not where the real problems are.

> b) Competitive entertainers prostituting themselves for rare opportunities to become wealthy celebrities. Exchanges of sex for extreme rewards.

No. I think you overestimate the frequency of this happening. Most people don't want to give sex for opportunities.

Most of the people I've met just want their unique talent to be recognized and honored.

It's easier and more honest to simply say "ew" to a crassly worded comment, than to drag the discussion into a pity/privilege party by making up some narrative about the poster.

> Ew. This comment is atrocious and shows your privilege. It sounds like you haven't listened to many stories of women experiencing systemic abuse and misogyny. It scares me that people say this stuff publicly.

The point is that for 2 girls complaining about abuse, in this industry there are 100 who perfectly know what they are doing and happy to play the sexual favor game.

The only part where you are right is that it should be made more public, so that "innocent" (not like amber heard) girls would not get so surprised then.

> in this industry there are 100 who perfectly know what they are doing and happy to play the sexual favor game.

Do they 'know', or have they just come to accept this level of violence and danger becuase of their gender?

> The only part where you are right is that it should be made more public, so that "innocent" (not like amber heard) girls would not get so surprised then.

Ah jeez, speculating about Amber's innocence is just tabloid celebrity gawking at this point. Have you met her or heard her story in person? No.

I can tell from personal experience and direct account that SOME girls are happy and proud at having sex with powerful or famous people, and that if it would lead to advantages in their life if would only be better for them because SOME people love the feeling of cheating at life somehow.

Everyone knows now that Amber Heard was physically abusive and literally said in a recording that "No one would believe your complaints since you are a man". Talking about girl privilege...

> very high percentage of HN crowd would immediately say yes

FWIW, I believe GP was not making any gender distinction..

I agree, that was the intent. The article talks about gay sexual favors.

However, the distinction is that people with tangible experience with sexual abuse perceive this differently. And unfortunately, women have disproportionate experience with sexual abuse.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com