Startup Porn
I like Bryce‘s post so much I am cross posting here in its entirety.
The Problem With Startup Porn
I found a box of old Playboy magazines buried in the woods behind my house. I couldn’t have been older than 10 or 11 years old at the time. I spent that afternoon flipping through the pages, discovering a whole new world of excitement, curiosity and wonder.
Hours later, as I warmed my hands by the fire of these same magazines my mom set ablaze, I was left only with the images of naked ladies dancing in my heads.
In my haste, I did not read the articles.
At the end of last year, Playboy announced that they would no longer be printing photos of the naked ladies they’d built so much of their brand around.
Their rationale for such a radical shift- images of naked women, no matter how tastefully done, had simply become too passé.
“You’re now one click away from every sex act imaginable for free. And so it’s just passé at this juncture.”
Now every teenage boy has an Internet-connected phone instead. Pornographic magazines, even those as storied as Playboy, have lost their shock value, their commercial value and their cultural relevance.
What began as simple, racy images of women spiraled into a web of extreme images and acts mere clicks away. At each step the visuals required to elicit a reaction, or even register a response, became so much more graphic than the last that the originals hardly elicit a speeding of the pulse.
As porn goes, so goes Startupland.
It begins with entrepreneurs in the press as heros of creation and innovation. Then comes the stories around how much money these heros are raising. Feel
Feel your blood racing yet?
Then on to quantifying the net worth of these founders and the valuations of their companies. Finally, they’re christened as Unicorns even Decacorns!
Wait for it.
Then Unicorpses.
At each stage the reader becomes more desensitized to the imagery and storyline. They need more. A billion isn’t cool. A unicorn is passé.
So the tables turn and they turn quickly.
5 months ago we saw the advent of the Unicorn Leaderboard.
Yesterday we welcomed the Downround Tracker.
As exciting and evocative as the headlines are while the market heats up, they’re going to need to be even more salacious going down.
That’s the nature of porn, startup or otherwise.
Comments (Archived):
https://youtu.be/B1R12n3-fR…
So, which tech news site is Playboy in this analogy?
Somebody once told me this: If you want to be sensational the issue is you always have to become more audacious to one up yourself until it becomes ridiculous. Porn, WWE, Reality TV,and many others.
Quality also matters and/or playing a slightly different game. You see this in the movie business you can have a Hollywood formulaic blockbuster (with every increasing technical tricks) but you can also have the Blair Witch Project.
A fire to cool off by. Smart mother.
Ironically MindBody is on the downround tracker, can anyone call this a bad investment for early backers ? Everyday truly liquid companies are like a drunk having their randomwalk (with a drift) has a .5 % probability of having a Down Round for the previous day’s investors.
I don’t understand that one – people pay for that all the time, and it isn’t even a great piece of software #crazy
It’s a sad but true account. What bothers me is that “desensitized to the imagery and storyline” doesn’t often take into account the folks who do the most work.It’s understandable thats there’s risk allocated differently, but, for example, when a home cleaning startup that pulls millions in funding fails, the founders, investors, and employers aren’t suffering much comparatively to the house cleaners (an example that can be easily extended). I’m not suggesting we demonize startups, far from it, but we’d all be better off being honest about what happens when unicorns fail. There’s something viscerally different to me about watching something like Color fail vs. many of the unicorns that are serving basic, human needs for transportation etc.
Are VCs the female talent, male talent, camera crew, or producers in this analogy? Can’t quite work that one out myself, but points will be awarded to the best answer.
How’d you let your mom catch you with such treasure?
Haha, clearly your eyes were drawn to the words playboy and porn, and completely skipped the first line. It’s hard to ignore instincts, so no fault of yours!
Funny story of what happened to me to your point. Back in the day (a long long time ago) I managed to talk a girl into posing for me in my basement with inexpensive studio lights that I had. Because I had a darkroom where I developed film I didn’t need to send it out for processing. After spending weeks and finally convincing the girl to pose for pictures, I developed the film. But I was so excited, I overdeveloped it (it was tri-x for anyone who did black and white work in a darkroom). Not only that but then I took the negs to where she was babysitting that night w/o even printing them or making a proof sheet (because they were ‘thin’ it wasn’t an easy job and I had promised her I would show her the work). She immediately grabs them out of my hand and destroys them. I suspect the developing mistake was as a result of the excitement that I had at the time. Going to the house was because I kept my promises. Learned from the experience of course.
Well then I’m asking @bryce
The story sounds suspect why would there be a box of magazines (even Playboy’s) buried in the woods in the back of his house? My guess is that the box came from somewhere else and that is simply what he told his mom when she said “where did you get those from!!”. He didn’t want to rat out a friend or his older cousin/brother is my guess.
That’s the nature of porn, startup or otherwise.Not sure I agree with this. The nature of porn (of any type) is actually to have a constant changing of images. Fresh images (or stories) each month because you tire of the old images and stories. I don’t agree that it needs to be ratcheted up in the way that Bryce explains.Anyone who remembers Tech Crunch back in the day knows that it went for quite some time without stories of ever increasing rounds and valuations which seemed very interesting to most people until what has happened in perhaps the last 2 or 3 years with valuations.Likewise Playboy survived for a really really long time with this formula, even with competition from much more racy magazines.
I’m not sure where entrepreneurs fit into the analogy, but I sure hope we’re not VC fluffers.
Excerpted from your link (’cause I didn’t know that word)… According to some pornographic actors…fluffers do not actually exist.Just like unicorns.
Speaking of Bogie Nights, one of the greatest scenes in a movie EVER! [1]https://youtu.be/cGp-4NP76M…The one with Nina Hartley in the driveway “you’re embarrassing me” is better but I can’t find that one.[1] Better than Cats on Broadway or Hamilton in other words.
Great read: http://grantland.com/featur…
Too much information.
Provides a whole diff meaning to the term “fluffernutter.”https://en.m.wikipedia.org/…
‘Part of the make up department.’ Needed some humor this morning as missed this post yesterday so thanks!
I suppose you could argue the entrepreneur’s role is to keep the VC aroused between one funding round and the next….
Not much argument needed there honestly.
VC’s are the pimps 😉 Link bait title. A bit of a stretch analogy, but logic is sound. Its time for a sabbatical.
Who came up with the unicorn moniker?
Aileen Lee of Cowboy Ventures.
Don’t shoot the messenger
they shoot horses, don’t they?
I fondly remember the website that was so ahead of its time – f***edcompany.com.
Now that was a GREAT site! I really don’t get this “I’m excited looking at porn” “I’m excited about reading about building businesses” but then it got too extreme analogy. Maybe you need to be a guy. For me sex doesn’t work particularly well as an analogy for business typically.
I think the word porn of the 1800s will morph to another meaning in our lifetimes. There are enough hashtags (e.g. #foodporn) that modify another activity with the voyeurism that is associated with porn. Those of us who spend inordinate amounts of time reading about companies are engaging in a different form of porn. I get why you’d disassociate with the word porn (but hopefully accept the word obsession) when referring to business.F’dcompany just doled it out in voyeuristic web-based chunks before social media would fill the gap.
I love the ****porn memes. I think I was reacting more to the sex is to business as porn is to cheesy business journalism analogy. I agree with the second equivalency, but the first one doesn’t work for me (maybe does for others). Both are great, but they aren’t equivalents!
Oh, that was an anti-climax to last week’s “Sex and Startups” article with such passages as:“seed” funding, “up and to the right” “In private, we squirm over how raising money requires faking it.””We’d be lying if we said size doesn’t matter.”https://medium.com/@sexands…
Fuckedcompany
Was just going to mention that. Deja vu all over again!
so, either we are about to go even higher than high, or its all about to explode. Which is more likely?
I actually worked with a startup briefly (saw signs) and later got to know that the founders were mentioned on that site, negatively
There are many contributors who couldn’t control their response to the apparent misdirection and intent of the post.Many got caught with there pants down.:-)The usual suspects… 🙂
It took almost an hour before a woman commented on this post. What’s that tell you?
…
Twain was listening to 2012 Nobel Prize in Economics winner Alvin Roth discuss the gig economy at Startup Grind.* https://www.startupgrind.co…
senseus.co server won’t talk to me 🙁
we have different schedules?
That Techcrunch unicorn leaderboard doesn’t look good. For 159 companies to have raised $83B and reach only $537B in valuation, means the average return (theoretically of course) is X 6.5. That’s not a bad return in of itself, but I thought the unicorns return x 100. So this means there is lot of junk on that list, which makes the average valuation ratios useless.I would rather see “real” valuations, i.e. based on liquidity events. http://techcrunch.com/unico…
I wonder how those in late rounds are looking. And I wonder how the late rounds are structured
one could divide the analysis between early and later rounds to see how the stupidity breaks out in later stages. good point.
thank you
I remember in the late 80’s, going with my dad to a dry and dusty entrepreneur event in our city that was so unhip, I associated entrepreneurship with boring men willing to spend hours at the public library looking up small business law and writing phone numbers by hand out of the reference section. Now Forbes and inc. magazine articles that show up in my newsfeed are such empty clickbaity titles, the article itself leaves my mouth feeling like sawdust. I agree we’ve swung in the opposite direction.
I had a biz dev meeting w/ Playboy about 10+ years ago. I was working in the sports space and was exploring a possible partnership with Playboy’s annual College All-America team. Christie Hefner was still running the joint. Her staff was petrified of her. They were afraid to speak up in the meeting and the work environment seemed quite rigid (pardon the pun). It was quite obvious a storied brand wasn’t gonna be on the mend anytime soon.
As a boy of age 10 or so, I was darned curious about females and especially female anatomy. The idea that there should have been any associated shock value just represents some sick-o US hangups. Maybe the US is mostly past those now. In college, I had a girlfriend and soon was no longer curious about female anatomy.Eventually I discovered: There’s much more to an image of a drop dead gorgeous human female than shock value or curiosity, and this is where I part company with Fred’s line of thought: I am fairly sure, and I certainly hope, I never tire of admiring and being fascinated by one of God’s greatest creations, a beautiful human female! NEVER! Curiosity, shock value, porn? Heck no; none of those.If in addition she is smiling, much, much better! If she seems happy, secure, the best!When a man is in love with a woman, to see her smiling, happy, and secure is likely the greatest possible happiness in his life and, as Mother Nature no doubt clearly understands, for some very good reasons. These reasons just will not go away or even slightly fade, not in the life of a man, not in the life of men, not in human life on this planet.Eventually looking at pictures of drop dead gorgeous women with no clothes on, discover that, to know if she is happy and secure, have to look at her face, nearly only her face, because, as we know, the face, and especially the eyes, are “the window into the soul” where he can finally see if she really is happy and secure. Also, if the image with no clothes is to be really attractive, then it has to include her face showing that she is happy and secure.Also, that she is without clothes is some biggie deal has got to be some US confused hangup: As a boy of 10 could observe just based on the first few minutes of looking at pictures of nude human females, the total number of square inches of the surface of a human female not readily visible at a beach is tiny, and that fact is no biggie deal.Instead, the big deal, never to wane, is (A) is she a beautiful human female (healthy, good figure) and (B) is she happy and secure?Some of what is really bad, and shocking, never not to offend, is any suggestion of an attempt to dominate, intimidate, manipulate, subjugate, overpower, take advantage of, force, or hurt a girl or woman — ugly beyond toleration. Such attitudes are far too common in our society — totally sick-o.E.g., when I was in the seventh grade and, due to the summer break, suddenly the little girls of the sixth grade looked like young women, the boys wanted to know what to do with them, and the advice they shared was to “Find her, fool her, feel her, fuck her, and forget her” — about the ugliest, most despicable, degenerate, offensive, just plain rotten thought and attitude I’ve ever heard from US culture.We don’t hurt baby bunny rabbits, kittens, puppies, young girls, girls, young women, women, princesses, angels, girlfriends, or wives. Instead we care about them, care for them, take care of them, treasure, cherish, protect, and love them.All this belongs in Girls 101 for Dummies — Boys.For startup porn via the unicorns, that was always just a small thing, not much related to real business value, that will likely pass soon enough.
i have to ask what you think of robert mapplethorpe…
I’ve guessed I’d heard of his name but had to look him up. From what I saw quickly, naw, not good.In what is attractive,apparently it’s tough for the fine art versions of women to keep up with the good real examples.But for the fine art versions, sure, E. Degas, just to pick one example quickly,https://upload.wikimedia.or…or some Renoirhttps://upload.wikimedia.or…For some from reality, thousands of drop dead gorgeous images from the performing arts,https://www.youtube.com/wat…with more from, say, the Australian Ballet performance of Coppelia,https://www.youtube.com/wat…For some Sports Illustrated swimsuit issues, just to pick one quickly,http://www.calendars.com/im…For what looks, at least at first glance, as the face of a happy, healthy, secure young woman, with her hand partly over her mouth, below.From the movies, say, some Debbie Reynolds:
Since it has functionally never mattered and never will for this site, and probably not for my life either, before I talkI’m bisexual, but heteroromatic. Functionally, all this means is I’m very self aware, and I understand the dynamics of sexual fluidity in women and the Kinsey scale, as well as practically in my own life.Now that that’s out of the wayYou are threefold wrong1) as someone who naturally has a ballet dancer’s build (on the word of my fiancé, whose sister was an active soloist and choreographer in the Balanchine style up until her retirement and decision to go to college this year…aka he’s seen a lot of dancers, and knows what the ideal body type is) it’s an overrated build type, and there are many men who have found it unattractive in my lifetime. Frankly, while I mostly like my body type on me, especially when I work out, I also don’t think it’s a sexy look on other women when I’m looking at them and pondering the question. It often can look severe due to unusually wide shoulders for a woman especially while also being short waisted, unless you are either like me and a klutz, or actually have the loose, limber grace of a ballet dancer. The few other people I’ve met who look this way tend to look statuesque in a really unappealing marble way, as if they lack living juice and vitality and sexuality and sexiness, until you talk to them of course.2) I love my fiancé the way you describe “when a man loves a woman” ok? I have agency, in other words3) because I’m bisexual and heteroromatic, and realistic: actually, yes, I do find pictures of good looking naked men enjoying being, enjoying being in their bodies, enjoying their bodies, both sexually and artistically super enjoyable.4) 1 through 3 are in fact irrelevant. It in fact doesn’t matter what I think about sexy fiancé, sexy women, or sexy men in Robert mapplethorpe photographs. I can think these things, I can feel these things, but, exactly how is it relevant to unifails, I’m not sure.4) exactly how am I like a kitten? Or a bunny rabbit? Outside of being a mammal, obviously. Bunny rabbits don’t set up debates to point out that they are independent human beings, who do have sexual feelings and thoughts and can find other people’s intruding when they are out of context, and then have agency as a human being to act on it. Last I checked all bunny rabbits do is wiggle their noses to look cute and cuddly. Which isn’t what I’m doing is it now.
I was responding to Fred’s post: In part Fred brought up the subjects of boys looking at pictures of nude women, e.g., old copies of Playboy, and porn.My main points in response:(1) Boys of 10 have a lot of curiosity about female anatomy. That’s normal, and they should see enough in pictures of females without clothes to satisfy their curiosity. Nothing wrong here. Nothing “shocking”. No reason for shame, etc. Instead, what would be wrong would be for a boy of 10 to continue to have no idea about human female anatomy. In the past, much of the US was totally hung up, awash in guilt, sick-o, etc. about a boy of 10 seeing female anatomy. Sick-o. E.g., he can be tempted to satisfy his curiosity and obtain the basic, simple information he has been denied by getting violent with a poor girl in the back seat of a parked car. Sick-o. You degenerate, incompetent, dysfunctional, destructive idiot: You are supposed to care for her and protect her, not hurt her.(2) My point about bunny rabbits, kittens, puppies, etc. was not that girls are like them but that since we know that we should not hurt bunny rabbits, kittens, etc., then it should be totally clear that NO WAY should we be willing to hurt young girls, girls, young women, women, girlfriends, and wives. Boys need to know this.(3) Once a boy has basic anatomical curiosity satisfied, there is something of the greatest importance and not “shocking” or “porn” about images of, perhaps nude, human females: For a boy, young man, or man, human females are central to life, to human life on this planet, to our civilization, for all men, for each man.Here what is of the most importance is that she be attractive. For that, the two biggies are (A) that she be happy, healthy, and secure and (B) have a good figure, that is, in simple terms, the figure of a woman which necessarily means good for motherhood.(A)-(B) are important because they are necessary ingredients for the best there is for human life on this planet, in particular, for men.Men are very strongly programmed to like women who are attractive in just (A)-(B). Sure, it’s from Mother Nature, and as we know, “It’s not nice to try to fool Mother Nature.”.For “shocking” and “porn”: Those are next to irrelevant. Instead, again, once again, yet again, over again, one more time, what’s important are (A)-(B).Yes, there is art; there is astounding variety to art; a lot of art is about humans and, in particular, females; and the variety there is enormous. In particular, for the work of that guy Robert Mapplethorpe, maybe in some respects it is good as art, via the common definition, “the communication, interpretation of human experience, emotion.”. So, sure, maybe some of the work of Robert Mapplethorpe is art in that sense. But, even if that work is art and has images of women doesn’t necessarily connect with what I was saying about women, that is, for some reasons central to the best of human life and rock solid via Mother Nature, men find (A)-(B) attractive.I did mention that the world of fine arts does not always connect well with men finding (A)-(B) attractive.But I went on to give some examples.So, yes, I mentioned ballet, both a famous Degas painting, right, with some men finding the dancer unambiguously attractive. And I included the Marinsky Theater performance of The Nutcracker and part of the Australian Ballet performance of Coppelia.These are examples of some human females that commonly men find very attractive.Now, are the ballet dancers attractive on (A)-(B)? Well, right, there is a problem: They are such good athletes and so thin that it interferes with having a figure good for motherhood. E.g., their fat level is commonly so low that their breasts are very small and maybe they don’t even menstruate. Bummer.So, why are they still attractive? There is no joke that they are women! If they dance less and eat more, they will have figures from okay up to good. And the young woman in the Degas painting was not too thin!But, those Marinsky and Australian dancers look darned happy and healthy, and that’s HUGE. Healthy? At least in aerobic conditioning, they are among the best athletes on the planet!And, as ballet audiences, especially men, have known going way back in the history of ballet, the ballerinas exhibit some really strong aspects of highly attractive, unique femininity that, in the interest of simplicity, I omitted explaining in my text — the dancers are awash in unique feminine grace.Although my text omitted this point about feminine grace, the images I included communicated the point well enough: The Marinsky Theater, the Australian Ballet — a man who doesn’t find those dancers very attractive human females needs to rush off to an endocrinologist, get his DNA tested, maybe have a few dozen raw oysters, maybe an 18 ounce, charcoal broiled Porterhouse steak, or some such.I can’t apologize for my omission of the dancers’ grace — Mother Nature has arranged that there is enormous variety and depth to the attractiveness of human females.I say again, the interest of boys, young men, and men of all ages in images of human females is far, far beyond just anatomical curiosity, shock value, or porn — in the larger picture, one of the largest there is in human life, these last three are next to irrelevant.So, right, the image I included from Sports Illustrated is just fantastic on (A)-(B), clearly especially (B). Indeed, with her figure, she looks like off the tops of the charts of ready for motherhood — figure, smile, healthy skin and hair, she’s terrific. And shock value and porn have nothing to do with it.And the Debbie Reynolds image is iconic, actually nothing less than a milestone in the development of US culture. And that image, from 1957, is from a time, and, indeed, from a movie, totally hung up on essentially everything about sex and, in particular, much of the reason for the success of the response of Playboy.It’s easy to pass off that movie, Tammy and the Bachelor, the first and the best of the Tammy movies, as trivial, but that would be a huge mistake: The Tammy character is a grand champion of psychological health while everyone else in the movie is from a catalog of psychological problems. The Tammy character matches up beautifully with E. Fromm, The Art of Loving, e.g., in “knowledge, caring, respect, responsiveness” and seeing a romantic relationship as good for security and a cure for the anxiety of aloneness. Right out of Fromm. This situation is not too surprising when dig into the origin of the story, that is, the novel and the background of its author. The movie is very close to the book.The psychological problems illustrated in the movie and also the main attitudes of Playboy were sick-o, but the Tammy character was terrific. We’re talking good clinical psychology for all of the US, right up on the screen.Somehow the sick-o stuff goes way back in at least Roman Catholicism and Islam. E.g., much of the Roman Catholic church remains a mixed up, guilt-ridden, perverted sick-o culture. And Islam — horrible: Finally a young woman in Germany gave those medieval Islamic vicious, wild animals a lesson: She walked out into the streets totally naked with a sign that explained that just because you see a woman with no clothes does not give you the right to be violent with her. So, right, too much of Islam has men being violent to women instead of caring. Totally sick-o.I suspect that she was well protected: Some sick-o Muslim who threatened her might get an instant magic carpet ride to Allah from a good shot on the top of an adjacent building.Sure, what Mother Nature wants is a strong tree, but somehow often Mother Nature creates weak, sick, or dead limbs on the tree. Young men: There are a lot of those, and have to avoid them absolutely.I can’t explain everything relevant here. Instead, I’d need a book, say, Girls 101 for Dummies — Boys.But, in summary, attractive girls/women as in (A)-(B) are just terrific, essentially the best there is. Shock value and porn are sick-o and, really, irrelevant.So, sick-o porn addicts, what do you really want, the full closeup? Okay, we’ll get you an image from 3 mm away of a cervix. Happy now?Of course not. So, sick-o, dummy, misled, ignorant, corrupted, lost, confused, loser, degenerate, pervert, sit down, shut up, listen up, and pay attention, here’s what you really want — that image I included of the girl with her hand partly over her mouth. It never gets significantly better than that, in anything in life. Are we learning yet? I should have it all in the book.And what do you want with her? You want her smiling, happy, healthy, and secure, in all cases, especially if she is your sister, daughter, girlfriend, or wife.Show up to take her to a movie, and her father should meet you at the door with a big smile and a really strong handshake: “GOOD to meet you son! She’s about ready. Yes, she’s an angel. We cherish her. I’ve got just one thing to say — you ever make her cry, and I’ll kill you. With that, enjoy the movie, and be home on time.”
So, now that I slept a tadPoint 1There is a difference between a 10 year old, a 13 year old, a 15 year old, a 20 year old, a 25 year old, a 30 year old, a 35 year old, and a 45 year old man and woman in perspective, knowledge, desire, and wisdom. The things you are saying are true, but I also think you might be conflating what 10 years think and do with what a 13 year old thinks and does with a ect ect ect. Not all 10 year old boys are just starting puberty – a large chunk are actually not until closer to 11-12-13 (and even 11 is young). You can see it in how they play and related to each other.To be honest, I’m not a parent nor a childcare expert – the reason I think the way I do is I sometimes babysit my friend’s kids, and one of the things I noticed is the way I think I was/remember I was at a certain age (which is fuzzy) doesn’t always necessarily line up with how kids act in person, even if they are very precocious kids. I generally assume that my memory is slightly more malleable and what I am witnessing in front of me is more true, because there is evidence for memory being malleable in general.That there are larger problems talking about sex and sexuality, even with boys and girls as young as 3 in US culture, and that people view large chunks of sex as abnormal and shameful, which prevents knowledge about how sex works, danger in sex, as well as learning about pleasure, is a wholly different set of issues and discussions about pedagogyPoint 2Boys AND GIRLS need to know that hurting other PEOPLE irrespective of gender, sex, romantic attachment desires, or sexual attraction desires, at whatever the age, for whatever the reason, is not acceptable. Because the person that is being hurt is A PERSON.Plenty of little girls are also bullies. Teenage girls can be experts of continual social shaming and ostracization, to the point of suicide for some of their victims. Women who beat children or their husbands are vastly underreported compared to the reverse (which is also vastly underreported).Cruelty can be created by all sorts of people – so can kindness. Its a very nonspecific thing. By specifying men to woman, you put women on a victorian like pedestal of the “angel in the home” trope, which is unfair toa) people who have experienced violence from womenandb) the women on the pedestal for not being perfect if they experience violence, particularly from other women, let alone menTo be concrete about teaching people that violence towards others is generally a bad thing and should be avoided in general, the concept has to be denuded from gender and sexPoint 3The premise behind 3 is just, odd. While we do know some things about what other humans find attractive in each other, it is a huge range, it is huge polyamorous/serial mongamous/other/multiple types of sexual expression/many more cultural types of gender than previously assumed in the west as far as earlier assumed. There are places in the world were children are assumed to have multiple fathers, such as with the Ache people of Paraguay. Because of a mixture of alcoholism, distance from large populations, and how wealth divides itself on death, there is a contingent in more remote parts of Siberia that wants to bring back polygamy, which is currently illegal in Russia, since it would be easier for women to marry, pool resources, and have their children inherit something.All of these things are not in line with western expectations about dating, marriage, childrearing, sexuality, anything. It isn’t even in line with the framing you describe.Speaking of that framing, many women, particuarly professional women, under the age of 45, can’t really seem themselves in the framing you are describing. Our experiences are radically different.My dad would have been one of the few fathers I know to actually do what you describe at the end of your post, if at all: and the only for reason for that was because I grew up extremely religious, and dating was frowned upon outside of meeting someone who you could see yourself marrying. Holding a boy’s hand in high school was a one day suspension for my high school after 3 strikes. ( because http://www.myjewishlearning… ) Counterparts my own age who have parents with similar education, jobs, and grew up near similar sorts of cities/in similar sorts of cities (primarily on the east and west coast, and some places in the midwest) have gone to me and told me that the way I grew up and these behaviors are bizarre, because it takes away from their children maturation and growth._______And super furthermore, all of what I said previously has nothing to do with unicorn startups becoming devalued.It is distracting from that part of the conversation, because now I am talking to you about how certain kinds of phrasing implies I have less agency because of my gender + sex, or that the fluidity of my sexuality, which has no real place here anyway, is less relevant because of my gender even if we are both talking about the same gender, or how women can be cruel, and if we focus on males only, we in essence make it seem that women are not cruel ever and hurt the people again who have been hurt by women, memory issues and child development, ect, ect ,ect.All of these things are kind of lockerroomish, with a towel going snap and all. I tend to roll my eyes because I was a bit weird growing up and i got just enough pilpul driven into me despite the fact that I was a girl that I both enjoy throwing and get thrown intellectual punches. I think it is entertaining.That said, depending on the depth and the topic, particularly some of these more sensitive, core identity topics, not everyone is like me. In fact, most people are not, and it considered an overall turnoff from joining discussions, irrespective of gender or sex.There are broader issues with this, because the type of people turned off are the type of people broadly we want in tech, because they tend not to build ye old same thing everyone else is building. To be frank, some large percentage of the time when I have met a person like that in person over coffee, they also happen to be on the surprisingly nice end of scale of people I have met. And I have met some people who could give mother teresa a run for the money as well as the devil from Damn yankees. Sometimes they go to me and they want to say “f*** it”.I like and want to keep nice people around and in the discussion. At a minimum because it gets me better coffee when I go out.So, you are a very smart person, what should I do here? Especially because while it sounds like I might be attacking you (and I am sorry if I am or coming off that way, this is an emotionally hot topic for me), this is not just a you thing. It is a certain type of perspective vs another type, in part separated by age and sometimes location, and conceptually I am running out of ideas of how to make it work. What do you got.
Point 1There is a difference between a 10 year old, a 13 year old, Yup.I was staying with Fred’s mention of Playboy images and porn.I used 10 as an age where in US commonly a boy is old enough to have some curiosity about female anatomy. Then my point was that he should get enough images of nude females to satisfy that basic curiosity. And I mentioned that without such images, some years later he may try to satisfy that curiosity by being violent with a girl in the back seat of an old parked car. Bummer. Main claim: Boys of 10 should have access to images that will let them be informed about female anatomy. Why mention this? Because in US culture there have been attitudes that 10 boys shouldn’t have had access to such images.And 10 is old enough for him to observe that, really, the number of square inches on a human female deemed to be covered at a beach is tiny. Moreover, those square inches actually don’t have anything very interesting except just that there is a lot of emphasis on covering them.E.g., a movie director can get a lot of attention with a swimming pool scene where some girl dives in, comes up, and one or the other of her two piece suit comes up on its own. Such a scene can be effective in a comedy movie. But, really, beyond just the social norm, what the heck is the biggie deal?I mentioned that boys of 10 could understand this point and picked 10 to illustrate how simple the point is.Net, boys, men, etc. looking at pictures of women does not have to be a shocking thing. Moreover, in looking at pictures, the most important parts are above the neck, not below. E.g., the picture needs to show some of her personality and emotional state, and that is mostly from the face. Of the pictures I included, likely the most attractive is the one where the girl has her hand partly over her mouth — the reason is get some sense of their personality and emotions that makes the whole image effective. But no doubt many photographers know such lessons well. but I also think you might be conflating what 10 years think and do No, my mention of a 10 year old boy was for really simple reasons to make some really simple points. Not all 10 year old boys are just starting puberty Right. I just mentioned that they are curious about female anatomy. Yup, they are. That there are larger problems talking about sex and sexuality, even with boys and girls as young as 3 in US culture, Yup, they way I put it, much of US culture is “hung up”. Point 2Boys AND GIRLS need to know that hurting other PEOPLE irrespective of gender, sex, romantic attachment desires, or sexual attraction desires, at whatever the age, for whatever the reason, is not acceptable. Yup. I’m no expert on such behavior of girls/women. But I did see enough to recognize girls/women playing pursuer-distancer, manipulator, social climber, etc. Right, they are not all sugar and spice and everything nice, but one of the manipulations is to so pretend. you put women on a victorian like pedestal of the “angel in the home” trope I gave up thinking that a man should hope for much more than that in his wife, and, really, that alone is commonly already asking for more than she can do:Apparently the first big problem is when she has had all the kids she wants and the youngest is in the first grade. Then it’s really easy for her to go all bored. She doesn’t have to milk cows, make cheese, spin thread, weave cloth, sew cloth, wash clothes, carry water, sew seed, cultivate crops, harvest crops, make soap, ….I have one heck of a list of cases where the husband was doing just fine but the wife just went down, down, spontaneously, extracted defeat from the jaws of victory, etc. Bummer.IMHO, quite broadly in US society, a women with some children, all over the age of 5, has one heck of a time knowing that to do, being productive, and, thus, being happy. Point 3The premise behind 3 is just, odd. I was addressing essentially just current US culture although maybe what I was saying would also apply to Canada, England, and most of Europe.For nearly all the rest of the world, I don’t get it: E.g., I can’t read facial expressions, tone of voice, body language, etc. Speaking of that framing, many women, particuarly professional women, under the age of 45, can’t really seem themselves in the framing you are describing. Yup, and my first reaction is that they are likely weak, sick, or dead limbs on the tree removing their genes from the gene pool, and, more generally, US human females are currently in by far the most rapid change in their gene pool of at least the last 40,000 years.What will be left will be women really good at motherhood. Mother Nature just f’gets about what doesn’t work and goes with what does.What I’ve been doing here is pretty simple.For the unicorns, my understand is that they have been fairly simple, too.
“As exciting and evocative as the headlines are while the market heats up, they’re going to need to be even more salacious going down.”This is where Bryce loses me. Playboy has become less salacious, in fact, in an attempt to grow. In an increasingly unwieldy market, they’ve ditched the gimmic and put their focus behind creating more substance for their readers. This, supposedly, is the smart way to move forward in such a time.That is the lesson I think should be derived from this post.
I am actually quite confused by this:http://www.adweek.com/news/…As a guy the last thing I would want to be caught with is a print edition of Playboy even if the inside of the magazine changes. [1] The brand has a certain images you can’t just take advantage of the name recognition and ignore the negative connotations of the brand that exist in some people’s mind.[1] Ditto for Playboy branded merchandise.
I love the term porn for….whatever.Anyone can get a hard on fantasizing over any novel, juicy bits, and lose it just as quickly, because it’s an exercise in imagination. When everyone drools over the same shit it’s either become mainstream, or they’ve gotten mainstream. Or worse, they’ve lost their imagination, in my book a fate worse than death.
You’ve been wanting to confess for years, haven’t you?
Some time, if we all ever meet with enough alcohol, I’ll tell you my story about Larry Flynt and Ronald Reagan.
I really want to put Start-up “Beauty Pageants” (e.g. 500 Startups, YC, etc) in this category.
Hi Fred –I’m pretty disappointed with this re-post. I work with one of the organizations your NYC foundation funds, working hard to create opportunities for youth from low income backgrounds to access careers in the tech industry.Comparing startup ventures to pornography is incredibly problematic, particularly in an industry under fire for latent (and sometimes not so latent) sexism. Startups = porn? That’s incredibly not friendly for women, who are so frequently objectified / poorly represented in porn.It’s actually a perfect, perhaps unconsciously drawn, analogy: women in today’s world exist as images / objects to thrill male viewers, as companies exist for the thrill of venture capitalists. The agency, purpose, traits of the individual woman / company are secondary to the thrill they provide.The comments here exemplify my point — there’s some very gross stuff, particularly the individual who used this post as platform to brag about the weeks he spent convincing a friend to pose nude, then claiming he learned his lesson about not keeping negatives once she destroyed the photos. Oh, and also the poster comparing women to bunny rabbits, kittens, puppies, princesses.Incredibly disappointed that such a leader for access and opportunity in the industry would post something that facilitates this boys-club, misogynistic conversation. Women are not consumable objects. We need male industry leaders to speak up & shut this kind of talk down, instead of furthering it.
Hi, Beckano. In solidarity I just want to echo this comment. I’m a regular here, and when I read the full re-post, I made a decision to abstain from AVC conversation today… a sort of silent protest.My faith in Fred is strong, and I’m inclined to give him the benefit of the doubt as best I can here. But, nonetheless, I had to hold my nose to read a lot of these comments and didn’t want to be the only female conversing in this context (although one other did brave the waters).Besides, comparing anything to porn anymore is just tired. I thought it was going to be a comparison to memes like “food porn” and was really disappointed when I read it.From what I understand Fred’s in L.A. right now. Maybe the culture and the sunshine got to him. (I feel the need for levity.)
oy, I should have been here earlier. Next time, shoot me an email, oksame goes @MsPseudolus:disqus
I think the author is using the analogy and Fred is reposting just to picture the *exhibitionism and excess* present in startups today, not meaning to disrespect anyone, less women. Strictly speaking, pornography does not imply female only exhibition, and the human body is equally sacred not minding the gender in my opinion.It reminded me of someone using the term “pornography for civil engineers” referring to structural failure detailed photos and videos of buildings after an earthquake (Chile 2010 “27F”). You can say that it is insensible men’s talk, specially taking into account that during that earthquake we lose near 500 lives. People have different sensibilities.I agree that the commentary in this blog is sometimes boys club talk, sometimes a bit rude, mainly due to the strong character of some regulars, but on the other side I value the honesty, ingenuity and diversity of the commentary and the least I would want is a polite, toned down version.Embracing diversity is a two way street.Peace.
Rinse repeat
Is these are really news to you? Budda explained it thousands years ago :)Having thirst is part of our nature. Most people don’t know how to control it. Masses will devour what they are given and still want more and something new. New food, new car, new women, new porn, etc.And there always will be people who will parasitize on this. Even if at stake the health of society.Thus we have. Family institution is destroyed, men and women roles are mixed up, next generation is more perverted than the previous, so on.What used to be sacred now mixed with the dirt. Welcome to planet Earth.I adore entrepreneurs. They are hard workers capable of implementing great things, making people’s lives’ better, making yourself and others richer.But entrepreneurs are not able to distinguish what is good, what is bad. To stay healthy society need spiritual leaders who don’t care about money and who suppress wrecking.But, alas, modern mentor/leader is the financial system, and it has a very simple morality – who are richer, those the baddest. Thus we have an effect you’re describing.Artem.
Fred, Would really like to know your afterthoughts of this posting.
a box of porn, the phallic unicorn, …and LA. time to pack.
Wow. I read the post, then comments. Just wow.
With the tide going out, we might just want the Swimsuit issue.
So, I’ve been thinking about this post.I think if you and I had been sitting at coffee and you mentioned the post to me and that you thought the comparison was apt, I would have agreed. I probably would have laughed. It’s all about context.I _think_ (and I might be wrong – I often am) that the reason this didn’t work for many of the women in the AVC community is: comments. You can’t control what is said down here under the fold, but you can anticipate it a little. It was easy to anticipate what quite a few people would say (and some outdid themselves — no one pleasantly surprised).Knowing what would go on in the comments, I felt unwelcome yesterday (as did some other women regulars I spoke with).Also, I trust *you*. But I don’t trust anyone who just might show up in the comments enough to have a conversation that involves porn.Now I’m just going to think about all the things you do and have done to be an exemplary partner in the work for equality for women. I know I can trust you to take Beckano’s comments, and mine, and the absence of women here in this post, into genuine consideration.
I read again the original post, Beck’s reply, yours.. and I understand the complain but can’t really feel the offense. Is male talk that offensive? Now I am worried and beginning to feel guilty.(I picture in my mind Fred surfboarding naked and oblivious at a California beach)
I think Beckano’s comment does a good job.”Male talk” as a thing isn’t offensive (you know that, right?).It’s uncomfortable as a woman to walk into a place where a bunch of men are talking about women’s naked bodies. Objectifying someone is to strip them of their humanity.But like I say, it’s all about context.If you’re keen to evolve your thinking there’s more than plenty of good reading online and people to follow on Twitter who you’ll find enlightening. That’s the way to go.
Yes, context and opportunity.The original internet had netiquette.. we are getting sloppy.
I didn’t want to wade in either. But I don’t think the reference to porn I offensive.I hate to say it but I have been saying this for years. Fortune is capitalist porn, TechCrunch startup porn. It is meant as a huge dis on those sites. If you said it as a compliment you would be right but you are saying it with scorn. If I said going somewhere is as distgusting as going to a strip club is that bad?I agree that most of porn degrades women. But in general to me porn depicts acts and people that are a warped fantasy but are very far from reality
You nailed it, Kirsten. It’s all about context and trust. I know how to interpret what Fred meant and what some of the other fine gents we’ve had the pleasure of interacting with over here over the years. They’ll also know (and have enough self-awareness) to understand when something might be crossing the line. What I can’t account for are the thousands of startupeers who read this and other entrepreneurial blogs like a religion and what they’ll take away – especially when Business Insider or similar rag does their inevitable ‘prominent VCs think startups are like porn’ clickbait piece.
We all have different filters as to what is or isn’t acceptable behavior. That said, whenever a post here directly or loosely touches on gender, race or religion, even if used in a metaphorical context, the comments frequently devolve into areas of discomfort. Although there frequently is a “cringe factor” when reading comments (e.g., “I can’t believe s/he actually said that”) I am able to filter and dismiss outliers for the larger benefit of listening and learning from others. These sensitive topics, again when touched upon either directly or indirectly, seem to open the flood gates and stimulate comments from individuals whose own filter likely suggests (at least to them) that they aren’t out of line, while when viewed from a broader perspective they perhaps are. Fred’s “porn post” admittedly did seem a bit out of character and his follow up post today seemed to offer a veiled explanation. Not to digress too much, but I find it interesting that women are horrified by porn’s objectifying and denigratation of women, with reason, but no one ever rallies against males being portrayed as domineering, misogynist pigs. (I’m only half serious here, btw 🙂
Huh. When I think of startups I think more of motherhood — a company requires time and nurturing. It requires carefully chosen mentors and a support system. It requires friends to help you build it together. And let’s not kid ourselves – it requires time, a lot of diaper duty, PTA crap no one enjoys and other less-than-glamorous, time-sucking endeavors that will never be praised or acknowledged (just as it can be a small victory to get a cranky kid out the door, so is that bug-fix release your whole team hotwired together that, if all goes well, no one will notice). That’s the reality.Maybe we’ll all be better off if we frame startups as what they really are instead of what young boys with healthy libidos think they are. Sooner or later the reality sets in.
Thanks for this comment– as a mom and startup founder, I wholeheartedly agree! I’m also always trying to be sure we are asking the right question, as often our focus is simply on the wrong problem, or what we perceive the problem to be.https://medium.com/@bespoke…
Don’t disagree with anything you wrote here but it does demonstrate why this topic is a “slippery slope.” If a male commenter had referenced “motherhood,” “nurturing,” “diaper duty,” “PTA,” etc., for sure they’d be castigated for sexist stereotyping. Just sayin.
How so? Those are necessary parts of parenting that aren’t terribly glamorous but someone has to do them. In most households it’s not always the same parent – and in most startups co-founders bear that initial weight of getting ‘the baby’ off the ground.
Not sure you see my point. Context does matter. Spoken from a female perspective your words has resonance, yet if a male used the same language it likely would be perceived by many as stereotypical gender bias. I’m not condoning such an interpretation but to deny its existence would be a tad shortsighted, no?
A man speaking about his experiences as a parent (which I would hope include diaper duty, PTA, etc) would be accused of gender bias? That would be unfortunate.I do see your point, but I don’t think it universally applies especially since you are highlighting the importance of context (and I vehemently agree with this).
You framed all of this in the context of “motherhood,” not as a parent.
Yes. I chose my language (especially when it’s gendered) precisely and deliberately.
I wasn’t sure where the sentence was heading that began: “Hours later, as I warmed my hands by…”
as off topic as off topic can be. too good not to sharehttps://www.facebook.com/in…
*laughs* What an ending!.. Thanks for sharing Simone
I wish it was broadcast on all main tv news channels and I wish there were more versions for every similar case, e.g. UK
LOL. Great share, Simone 🙂
It’s my understanding that Playboy’s official rationale is not its only reason. In China the company has its brand on cosmetics, apparel and many other consumer goods but the government is very hard on pornography. From a biz pov, the choice is a no-brainer.
Thanks for your response, but “oh come off it, why so PC” is exactly the attitude that allows sexism to continue.
*shrug* I’m more in the sex positive feminist camp. Realistically, we all objectify, and there even may be a time where aspects of objectification are a good thing (like when sleeping with your spouse). The better question is can we move past in general, all forms of objectification in day to day interactions with each other. Not ignore the phenomena all together
Let’s be clear. Playboy is getting rid of the images because they can’t make money doing that anymore. Their business model has collapsed. Not because they had some spiritual awakening about objectifying women.
I appreciate your thoughts. I have no problem with discussions of sexuality, but I have a problem with conflating sex and business, and more specifically, porn and business. This kind of thinking fosters a “boys club” atmosphere that is not welcoming to women — something that I believe Fred Wilson would prefer not to promote (though, unfortunately, he is doing so here).
Hi Andrew. I actually wasn’t responding to the story you wrote, but to the original post. I’m much more interested in discussing the original post, thanks!
Huge fan actually. Love his use of color to create movement, though his overuse of green plus his technique in Ballet Dancers (at the AIC) tends to make nauseous in person
*one eyebrow over glasses raised, peers over glasses*Or a woman, perchance?
he was a midget(way too much family inbreeding) who hung out at the moulin rouge in Monmontre. He was from a noble family with slightly too much debt, and technically I think did or could have inherited the title of count. (it is technically de Toulouse-Lautrec, and the de is only given to families from nobility)he actually is more of a draughtsman than a painter 🙂 – he specializes in drawing more than anything, and is brilliant at it. he also was among the top poster artists in paris (if not the number one one) during the art nouveau period. eg: http://www.toulouse-lautrec…Those posters today do actually come up for sale on occasion, and if you ever want one, let me know, I actually know one of primary dealers for the posters in NYC. (though I am thinking even small ones are like 10k, I actually have never asked o_O too scared of sticker shock)
I didn’t call you any names, or anyone at all any names. I didn’t call anyone sexist.I certainly didn’t call Fred sexist. I never have, and don’t believe I will ever feel the need to. He’s more than demonstrated that he’s an enlightened and active feminist.I wasn’t responding to your comment. I was responding to someone else’s.You’re right, I don’t know you.I also never said you personally suck at business.I know scores and scores of men who aren’t sexist. And for the most part, they’re keenly interested in being informed if they’ve inadvertently done something that comes across as sexist or misogynist (much like I am deeply interested in being informed by anyone of color if I’ve done or said something inadvertently racist). For all of us who care, the work to be done now is addressing our unconscious biases and tackling them head on with courage.You know, it took a bit of courage for me to comment at all, and certainly to criticize Fred. To come at me in ALL CAPS (the equivalent of shouting on the Internet) would indicate you didn’t realize that or consider the possibility.
I think advertising as a whole will continue to use objectification (of women & men) to sell products because it ignites a basic/primal/emotional response. But those industries are also having to adjust to the reality that social media has democratized access to the critical mass and allowed for ‘free’ advertising models.That concerns me less than more interesting conversations happening around the Future of Work, and how we can ‘change the game,’ making traditional consumerism/commercialization of everything a measure of success.
I completely agree. But as I discuss in the article below, many of us (women who are smart, experienced entrepreneurs) are being discouraged by the climate, the ‘pipeline’, the culture, and choosing other careers altogether, or quietly going on their way creating their companies. But if enough of us (men & women together) focus on other paths to success– big success like a Facebook, Microsoft, Google, etc– it will eventually come to light.But how is that success measured? The whole rule book needs to be rewritten. There’s an awesome book on subjects related called ‘The Alphabet Vs. the Goddess’ by Leonard Schlain. Brilliant read on matriarchal and patriarchal societies.https://medium.com/@bespoke…Honestly, creating a company in a meaningful way by my own rules is just scratching the surface. Raising my son to be an empathetic, thoughful & emotionally intelligent human has to be the real priority when looking to create a mindset shift in the business culture of the future.
>> I don’t think parenting is porn.I’m hoping no one does :/