5 ms·

So you're saying the woman who turns down a VC's sexual advances is less deserving of the VC's money than the one who takes him up on it?

by rquantz 11y ago

ryanx435 11y ago
no, I'm saying I would take advantage of their sexualized advances in order to get funding. it has nothing to do with who is more deserving or not. seriously, how did you get that out of my posts? it's all about using whatever competitive advantages you have.
- rquantz 11y ago
  Seriously, how do you not hear what you're saying? Women object to being asked for sex in exchange for funding because they shouldn't have to do that in order to get funding. Let's game out what you're saying here: * Some women are willing to sleep with VCs in order to get funding, while others aren't * This creates a situation where women who do not sleep with VCs are at a competitive disadvantage * This may be great for VCs (in a super-creepy way), but it is not good for women. Suddenly they are forced to sleep with everyone they want to ask for funding, just to defend against the threat of other women who might do it. * Meanwhile, if they aren't willing to do that, then they get raised eyebrows and suggestive questions from cofounders and early investors, suggesting that if they really cared about the company, they would use whatever competitive advantage they had, wink wink. * The women who did sleep with VCs and got funding would face questions for the rest of their career. They only got funded because they were hot, right? Edit: in fact, even the women who were not willing to sleep with VCs would probably face the same questions, and often do even now. All of this has the effect of reducing women to sex objects and removing their power over their own bodies. This is not some hypothetical scenario, it is largely what the world looked like for women prior to the 1970s, and they are right to guard against its return.
  - hiddenpewpew 11y ago
    You throw women around like it is some umbrella term for every women out there. You are wrong, not all women fall under your umbrella term. Who says some group of women are disallowed in using their bodies for a competitive advantage? What about a women who enjoys having sex with individuals? What if those individuals happen to be VC's? What if by sleeping with those VC's she is allowed capital to fund her startup? She was just enjoying herself, and happened to be doing business at the same time. What right do you have as an individual to impose your viewpoint of calling her a sex object because she is using her body to her advantage? I don't understand this logic. You ridicule women by saying they are sex objects even though they might inherently enjoy the act of sex itself and realize the advantage it brings them in a business environment. And don't be naive, spend some time in San Jose at any Vietnamese Coffee Shop or Vietnamese Bar and talk to the girls working there. They make $200+ an hour or more for using their bodies, and on YC you have individuals and teams grinding away for pennies on the dollar for the man hours spent to get a startup off the ground. Talk to any of those girls working at those coffee shops and the vast majority of them will tell you that they have made a calculated decision to use their bodies for their advantage. Not all of the girls, some girls fall on hard times and have to make due with one of their assets. It's not a fortunate circumstance to be in, but so is being homeless. And guess what? Some of them invest that money into higher education, and end up with advanced degrees. Due to leveraging their bodies. So again, generalizations don't work when talking about gender. So please, get rid of your narrow mentality on how women think and work. You're living in a world of ideals, a nice bubble to be in but not an accurate representation of reality.
    - rquantz 11y ago
      This is among the stranger things I've ever read on HN. Or anywhere. I'm not sure if it's a problem with your reading comprehension skills, or my communication skills. I suspect it's the former, but I'm biased. I don't want to get into this too deeply at this point, since you're probably the only one who's going to read this, but here goes: What about a women who enjoys having sex with individuals? What if those individuals happen to be VC's? What if by sleeping with those VC's she is allowed capital to fund her startup? She was just enjoying herself, and happened to be doing business at the same time. I'm sure this does happen, and I'm not saying it's not allowed, or it makes that woman a "sex object." But when VCs go around soliciting sex from women who are asking them for money, it creates a climate where women feel coerced into having sex. Again, I'm not trying to stop women who want to have sex from doing so, but most women do not like being coerced into sex. You ridicule women by saying they are sex objects even though they might inherently enjoy the act of sex itself Research and anecdotal evidence have shown that women desire sex just as much as men. Desiring and having sex does not make a woman a sex object. For many centuries, women were not allowed to be anything other than something for men to have sex with. That is the cultural climate I am referring to when I say that women are reduced to sex objects. I'm not ridiculing anyone. I'm talking about something women today generally want to avoid. Talk to any of those girls working at those coffee shops and the vast majority of them will tell you that they have made a calculated decision to use their bodies for their advantage. Are you a patron of one of these establishments? If so then I would not count on them having an honest conversation with you about whether or not they really want to be there. That said, let's assume what you say is true. It's fine that women can choose to "use their bodies for their advantage." What is not fine is for women to have no other option than to use their bodies to get what they want. I encourage you to re-read my post that you responded to, and see if you can understand it better.

So you're saying the woman who turns down a VC's sexual advances is less deserving of the VC's money than the one who takes him up on it?

by rquantz 11y ago

So you're saying the woman who turns down a VC's sexual advances is less deserving of the VC's money than the one who takes him up on it?

ryanx435 11y ago

no, I'm saying I would take advantage of their sexualized advances in order to get funding. it has nothing to do with who is more deserving or not. seriously, how did you get that out of my posts? it's all about using whatever competitive advantages you have.

rquantz 11y ago
Seriously, how do you not hear what you're saying? Women object to being asked for sex in exchange for funding because they shouldn't have to do that in order to get funding. Let's game out what you're saying here: * Some women are willing to sleep with VCs in order to get funding, while others aren't * This creates a situation where women who do not sleep with VCs are at a competitive disadvantage * This may be great for VCs (in a super-creepy way), but it is not good for women. Suddenly they are forced to sleep with everyone they want to ask for funding, just to defend against the threat of other women who might do it. * Meanwhile, if they aren't willing to do that, then they get raised eyebrows and suggestive questions from cofounders and early investors, suggesting that if they really cared about the company, they would use whatever competitive advantage they had, wink wink. * The women who did sleep with VCs and got funding would face questions for the rest of their career. They only got funded because they were hot, right? Edit: in fact, even the women who were not willing to sleep with VCs would probably face the same questions, and often do even now. All of this has the effect of reducing women to sex objects and removing their power over their own bodies. This is not some hypothetical scenario, it is largely what the world looked like for women prior to the 1970s, and they are right to guard against its return.
- hiddenpewpew 11y ago
  You throw women around like it is some umbrella term for every women out there. You are wrong, not all women fall under your umbrella term. Who says some group of women are disallowed in using their bodies for a competitive advantage? What about a women who enjoys having sex with individuals? What if those individuals happen to be VC's? What if by sleeping with those VC's she is allowed capital to fund her startup? She was just enjoying herself, and happened to be doing business at the same time. What right do you have as an individual to impose your viewpoint of calling her a sex object because she is using her body to her advantage? I don't understand this logic. You ridicule women by saying they are sex objects even though they might inherently enjoy the act of sex itself and realize the advantage it brings them in a business environment. And don't be naive, spend some time in San Jose at any Vietnamese Coffee Shop or Vietnamese Bar and talk to the girls working there. They make $200+ an hour or more for using their bodies, and on YC you have individuals and teams grinding away for pennies on the dollar for the man hours spent to get a startup off the ground. Talk to any of those girls working at those coffee shops and the vast majority of them will tell you that they have made a calculated decision to use their bodies for their advantage. Not all of the girls, some girls fall on hard times and have to make due with one of their assets. It's not a fortunate circumstance to be in, but so is being homeless. And guess what? Some of them invest that money into higher education, and end up with advanced degrees. Due to leveraging their bodies. So again, generalizations don't work when talking about gender. So please, get rid of your narrow mentality on how women think and work. You're living in a world of ideals, a nice bubble to be in but not an accurate representation of reality.
  - rquantz 11y ago
    This is among the stranger things I've ever read on HN. Or anywhere. I'm not sure if it's a problem with your reading comprehension skills, or my communication skills. I suspect it's the former, but I'm biased. I don't want to get into this too deeply at this point, since you're probably the only one who's going to read this, but here goes: What about a women who enjoys having sex with individuals? What if those individuals happen to be VC's? What if by sleeping with those VC's she is allowed capital to fund her startup? She was just enjoying herself, and happened to be doing business at the same time. I'm sure this does happen, and I'm not saying it's not allowed, or it makes that woman a "sex object." But when VCs go around soliciting sex from women who are asking them for money, it creates a climate where women feel coerced into having sex. Again, I'm not trying to stop women who want to have sex from doing so, but most women do not like being coerced into sex. You ridicule women by saying they are sex objects even though they might inherently enjoy the act of sex itself Research and anecdotal evidence have shown that women desire sex just as much as men. Desiring and having sex does not make a woman a sex object. For many centuries, women were not allowed to be anything other than something for men to have sex with. That is the cultural climate I am referring to when I say that women are reduced to sex objects. I'm not ridiculing anyone. I'm talking about something women today generally want to avoid. Talk to any of those girls working at those coffee shops and the vast majority of them will tell you that they have made a calculated decision to use their bodies for their advantage. Are you a patron of one of these establishments? If so then I would not count on them having an honest conversation with you about whether or not they really want to be there. That said, let's assume what you say is true. It's fine that women can choose to "use their bodies for their advantage." What is not fine is for women to have no other option than to use their bodies to get what they want. I encourage you to re-read my post that you responded to, and see if you can understand it better.