Item — HN Reader

Seems like a tough problem (if you consider it a problem). The unfortunate reality of a power-imbalance is that those who are giving out their expertise expect something in return (ROI, promotion, attention/validation, sex).

I don't think what this guy did was even slightly morally wrong, but I would say it sounds unprofessional trying to milk your social status and social capital for physical affection.

But then again, so is hopping to the press because you found 1 sleazy man out there and trying to milk the cultural moment for a few views. (not that one cancels the other)

4 comments

I agree that this was an example of a transactional communication, where one party was looking for business connections and the other party was looking for sex.

I don't consider it a problem– she very quickly discovered this guy had zero interest in helping her without using her. So she blocked him, which was the obvious next step.

Posting the conversation publicly? Her prerogative.

Like he said: he didn't break any laws and he doesn't think communicating with people this way and having that become public will cause damage to him.

Does that mean there's an institutional bias against girls becoming entrepreneurs? Or lesbians becoming entrepreneurs? Or 18-year-olds becoming entrepreneurs?

If there is, this situation isn't an example of it. It's just an example of a guy who took a message from a young nobody on the off chance he could score.

Exploiting a power imbalance to get sex is in fact morally wrong.

Is exploiting a sex imbalance to get power morally wrong? Yet women do this all the time, and there are no laws against it, in fact in some ways our culture celebrates it.

I think you have to be very very careful when you start labelling things as moral or otherwise.

>Is exploiting a sex imbalance to get power morally wrong?

Not to nearly the same extent, no. If someone has power over you and you refuse them sex, they could potentially do you all kinds of harm. If someone is very sexually attractive but has no power over you, then the worst that they can do is leave you a bit sexually frustrated.

In other words, being offered sex with strings by an attractive person is hardly as bad as being threatened by a powerful person.

>I think you have to be very very careful when you start labelling things as moral or otherwise.

Behavior that is clearly wrong is clearly wrong. The danger lies in not calling it out and allowing it to become normalized.

Ah but come now, sexual attractiveness is a form of power! And in fact one of the greatest; men will fight and die for sex with women they desire.

On the question of morality I stick to my guns: I think we are all tempted from time to time to ascend to our high horse and start declaiming of our righteousness, but my question to you would be: are you really so pure of morals that there are none that might find fault with you, given the chance?

I'm also struck by the stridency of some of the statements I'm reading on HN. I wonder if this is a cultural thing as to my British ears they sound almost comically absolutist. Perhaps in Europe this kind of forceful speech is less fashionable?

>Ah but come now, sexual attractiveness is a form of power!

Sure, in a sense. But as I said previously, your sexual attractiveness to a person is not something that you can use to threaten them or ruin their life. On the one hand, you have situations where an attractive woman tries to get what she wants by offering sex. On the other, you have situations where a powerful man threatens a woman who refuses his sexual advances. You only have to think of it from a first-person perspective. Would you rather be coerced into sex, or offered sex in return for a favor?

>to my British ears they sound almost comically absolutist.

I am also British.

In a sense?! Sexual power can be used to bring someone to their knees; to control, to humiliate; I think you do women a disservice if you diminish this fact, and what's more - and in the spirit of bombast - you are arguing against one of the timeless truths of human existence, and a theme that pervades human culture since time immemorial.

You can't control or humiliate someone merely by offering them sex. They can just say "no thanks". If they end up getting controlled and humiliated, it's because they were foolish enough not to do that.

If you are someone's boss, you can control and humiliate them by, say, having them fired. You can't say "no thanks" if your boss fires you.

That is the distinction that I was drawing.

I think part of the "tough problem" is that some people don't feel that being unprofessional in this particular manner isn't at least slightly morally wrong. She asked for advice, he's free to negotiate ROI, promotion, and validation, but in a conversation about business, "are you single" is already crossing a line, nevermind "do men turn you on?". There's a time and a place for that!

I'm not saying it was appropriate... but what exactly is the "time and a place for that"?

I only mean to say that typically people meet potential mates/partners in school and at work. Now, taking a text based conversation to that level is definitely wrong. But I would propose that actually testing for interest in the workplace isn't inherently wrong, only in so much that it's a matter of intent, extent and explicitness that isn't always easy to judge.

Personally, I'm of the mind that a soft ask about dinner/drinks/coffee sometime, and if a decline, then one more ask a few weeks later is probably okay, as long as it ends on a second ask. The reason I say this is only because sometimes a person doesn't feel comfortable if they don't know the person well enough yet, so best not to close the door right away.

On the flip side, this was very explicit without any of the contextual cues you get in person, especially with a soft rejection, is definitely over the top. Never be overtly sexual or dominating over someone in the workplace.

Yeah, the time and place for "are you single" is when the conversation has already moved to more personal matters - or like you say, related to the "soft ask" about dinner/drinks/coffee sometime!

>I don't think what this guy did was even slightly morally wrong

Well she blocked him before it got further.