4 ms·

It was explicit from the results that responding "yes" to this question was considered sexual assault. After the results were published they provided the breakd

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".

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".