Hacker News Reader

Comment by bluepenguin | Hacker News Reader

A lot of men go into unnecessary graphic details most of which are not really useful and unnecessarily objectify the women they review. It would be like reviewing a guitar tutor by describing how they placed their fingers on the fret board or how they turned the pages of their song book.

View on HN

  "unnecessarily objectify the women they review"

I'm not commenting on whether or not the reviews are "creepy", but c'mon; these women objectify themselves for a living. Once you go down the road of selling your body I think you lose the right to complain about objectification. They are literally selling themselves as an object.

Well no, they are literally selling a service. If they were selling themselves as an object, the purchaser would actually own them.

Well, yes, they are selling their body for a short period of time, and the type of "service" they are selling is not irrelevant. If you want to play semantics then fine; they're _renting_ their body. It all amounts to the same thing and doesn't change my point. They are objectifying themselves, so I think we can cut the PC nonsense.

I don't disagree with the notion that they're objectifying themselves. I do still think your phrasing was inaccurate. Nothing political about it - it was plain incorrect.

People would judge a guitar teacher on their finger placement and general technique.

However they'd only mention it if, for some reason, something were wrong about that specific piece of technique. Otherwise they'd never mention it.

I don't think that's true. People are complimentary of others' proficiency and fingerwork (or whatever it might be called) often enough. And I think a parallel to sex work is probably music performance as much as education, in which case technique is discussed by patrons all the time.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com