3 ms·

> Ummmn, you appear to have missed the bit where this "unwanted sexual overture" was put in context i.e. "one or more inappropriate incidents by angels or VCs"

> Ummmn, you appear to have missed the bit where this "unwanted sexual overture" was put in context i.e. "one or more inappropriate incidents by angels or VCs" I think you're missing the point here. How did the survey define which unwanted sexual overtures are inappropriate? You write that this was put in the context of harassment, but how this context was presented to the respondents has a big impact on what their responses really mean. At face value, it seems like the study considers all romantic advances to be inappropriate. This seems like an overly simplistic definition, as per my example here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18225474 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18225474 Asking for further context is entirely warranted. Studies like these can often be made (intentionally or unintentionally) to seem alarmist due to poorly defining categories of harassment. For instance, I was counted as a victim of sexual assault in one of my university's surveys because I answered yes to the question "have you received unwanted sexual advances in the last year?". Yes I had, but all of them were from people who ceased their advances after being denied and generally acted with respect. While there's always some element of discomfort in being put on the spot like that, I would absolutely not consider any of these instances harassment in any way shape or form. Asking someone out on a date or inviting them over for intimate contact, and ceasing all advances after being denied was considered an act of sexual harassment by this survey. I'm not kidding, if someone asked a person out respectfully, they got told no, and both parties walked away with no further contact this was considered sexual harassment. This also disturbed me because it not-so-subtly implied that I had harassed literally every person I had asked out on a date and was denied, even though I've never continued pursuing someone after being told no.

glangdale 8y ago
I think you're just making stuff up. Have fun!
- manfredo 8y ago
  It was explicit from the results that responding "yes" to this question was considered sexual assault. After the results were published they provided the breakdowns of responses. They included "yes" responses of this question as part of the student population that had been subject to sexual assault. I had talked to other students about it, and while many told me that they interpreted the question along the lines of "have you ever received unwanted advances after being told to stop" that emphasis was not part of the original question. If someone truthfully answered the question that was asked, they would have to answer "yes" even if they declined a respectful invitation to go out.
  - thaumasiotes 8y ago
    Or if they had accepted the invitation, but would have preferred not to. It wasn't "have you ever turned down an unwanted sexual advance?"
    - deleted 8y ago
      [deleted]
  - glangdale 8y ago
    OK, my commment was a bit rude and flip (esp. for HN). But I'm finding your approach wearying, which may or may not be your intention (maybe you're not sea-lioning, but you're doing a good impression). First of all, a survey about unwanted sexual advances in a professional setting is set against a background that's completely different than a campus survey; only if the campus survey was talking about "unwanted sexual advances from teachers or someone with a power imbalance e.g. TAs, coaches, etc." would the analogy be interesting. Was it? Obviously the YC survey could be better worded and/or explained (perhaps the summary is less precise than it should be). However, it's pretty weird that your takeaway is to try to parse out these numbers, with no actual knowledge of anything involved, to try to make them seem smaller. Second of all, you are going out of your way elsewhere in the thread to conjure up corner cases and thought bubbles where a VC/angel might have asked someone on a date ("an unwanted sexual advance" - maybe) without it being a conflict of interest. It's a maybe, but that's a real reach to imagine - first, it would imply that these people met up again after a clean 'sorry, we're not interested in your business'. It's not logically impossible, but it seems more likely that the "first order" effect was "a group of entitled VC/angel dudes acted like assholes as per usual".

glangdale 8y ago

I think you're just making stuff up. Have fun!

manfredo 8y ago
It was explicit from the results that responding "yes" to this question was considered sexual assault. After the results were published they provided the breakdowns of responses. They included "yes" responses of this question as part of the student population that had been subject to sexual assault. I had talked to other students about it, and while many told me that they interpreted the question along the lines of "have you ever received unwanted advances after being told to stop" that emphasis was not part of the original question. If someone truthfully answered the question that was asked, they would have to answer "yes" even if they declined a respectful invitation to go out.
- thaumasiotes 8y ago
  Or if they had accepted the invitation, but would have preferred not to. It wasn't "have you ever turned down an unwanted sexual advance?"
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
- glangdale 8y ago
  OK, my commment was a bit rude and flip (esp. for HN). But I'm finding your approach wearying, which may or may not be your intention (maybe you're not sea-lioning, but you're doing a good impression). First of all, a survey about unwanted sexual advances in a professional setting is set against a background that's completely different than a campus survey; only if the campus survey was talking about "unwanted sexual advances from teachers or someone with a power imbalance e.g. TAs, coaches, etc." would the analogy be interesting. Was it? Obviously the YC survey could be better worded and/or explained (perhaps the summary is less precise than it should be). However, it's pretty weird that your takeaway is to try to parse out these numbers, with no actual knowledge of anything involved, to try to make them seem smaller. Second of all, you are going out of your way elsewhere in the thread to conjure up corner cases and thought bubbles where a VC/angel might have asked someone on a date ("an unwanted sexual advance" - maybe) without it being a conflict of interest. It's a maybe, but that's a real reach to imagine - first, it would imply that these people met up again after a clean 'sorry, we're not interested in your business'. It's not logically impossible, but it seems more likely that the "first order" effect was "a group of entitled VC/angel dudes acted like assholes as per usual".