clarissethorn comments on Undiscriminating Skepticism - Less Wrong

97 Post author: Eliezer_Yudkowsky 14 March 2010 11:23PM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (1329)

Sort By: Controversial

You are viewing a single comment's thread.

Comment author: clarissethorn 15 March 2010 02:23:54AM 10 points [-]

Sorry if this is overly tangential, but as a sex educator I'm interested to know what you all think are your tribal beliefs around sexuality, and what kind of sexuality-related arguments would lead you to consider someone to be defending a non-mainstream belief.

Comment author: Morendil 15 March 2010 10:16:32AM 4 points [-]

Cultural norm for me is "sexuality is a matter of choice between consenting adults".

Non-mainstream beliefs around sexuality that I'm currently curious about include PUA lore, and this interesting site.

Comment author: NancyLebovitz 15 March 2010 01:54:15PM 7 points [-]

I agree about what my cultural norm is.

I disagree with it on two points. I'm pretty sure the legal age of consent is set considerably too high, though I'm not sure where it should be, or whether there should be a legal age of consent.

I think the "enthusiastic consent" standard in Yes Means Yes makes sense.

Comment author: PhilGoetz 15 March 2010 03:12:58PM *  9 points [-]

Someone who believes that homosexuality is not immoral, but believes it is a dysfunction.

Actually I have more answers, but this question is just too toxic. So I'll go meta: Anyone who responds to this question either by saying that rationality is indicated either by signalling acceptance of more-outlandish sexuality, or by signalling intolerance, is indicating their own irrationality; they are turning this question into a tribal test.

Comment author: Morendil 15 March 2010 03:26:06PM 4 points [-]

I'm having difficulty parsing your meta observation.

Comment author: PhilGoetz 15 March 2010 03:33:52PM *  18 points [-]

There's a large community where you are expected to be open to anything except sex with children; and a large community where you are expected to not be open to anything except sex between a monogomous man and woman.

I'm not arguing whether either of these points of view is valid. But both have enough adherents that no position that can be characterized entirely as more liberal or less liberal can identify its holder as rational. Therefore, anyone who says that such a position (for instance, being open to polyamory) indicates rationality, is merely stating their tribal affiliation. The fact that they think that such a stance demonstrates rationality in fact demonstrates their irrationality.

I can think of a few possible exceptions (sexual practices that are far enough beyond the pale that even tongue-pierced goths disclaim them, yet which have no rational basis for being banned), but they're too toxic for me to mention.

Comment author: Morendil 15 March 2010 04:03:51PM *  5 points [-]

Therefore, anyone who says that such a position (for instance, being open to polyamory) indicates rationality, is merely stating their tribal affiliation.

I wouldn't suppose that "being open to polyamory" per se indicates rationality. But I would consider someone rational who, having thought about the matter, and concluded on the basis of sound reasoning that there is no valid reason to condemn polyamory, decided to adopt that lifestyle even in the face of some cultural opposition.

And I would consider someone irrational who, having no sound reasoning behind that position, would act in such a way as to deny others the enjoyment of a non-straight-monogamous lifestyle.

Controversies involving third parties are a valid matter of debate, for instance, I'd concede that there is some grounds to ask whether gay couples should adopt. But to assert, without argument, an interest in what consenting adults do behind closed doors, and that doesn't cause anyone lasting harm, just because it concerns sex - that does strike me as irrational.

Comment author: wnoise 15 March 2010 04:41:55PM *  2 points [-]

This all presupposes a consequentialist and libertarian ethic: that morality is about harm.

Comment author: Morendil 15 March 2010 05:14:38PM 5 points [-]

This all presupposes a consequentialist and libertarian ethic: that morality is about harm.

Not necessarily - I don't think of myself as a consequentialist but as a contractarian. Although I'm less than firm in my metaethical convictions.

Still, I have the clear intuition that someone who would assert a claim against me, based on who I chose to spend time in bed with, isn't all right in the head. They wouldn't deny me the right to have dinner with whomever I choose, and (within some reasonable bounds on consent, privacy, and promises made to other people) I see no sound basis to distinguish sex from another sensual experience like dinner.

At the moment I am straight, monogamous, and in fact legally married (for fiscal reasons mostly), but I see no reason to elevate my personal choices and inclinations to the status of universal moral law.

Comment author: thomblake 15 March 2010 05:21:29PM 1 point [-]

I see no sound basis to distinguish sex from another sensual experience like dinner.

I'm not the first to point this out, but by that reasoning, rape is no worse than forcing someone to eat broccoli.

Comment author: jimmy 16 March 2010 04:36:39AM 3 points [-]

What about forcing 3^^^3 people to eat broccoli?

Comment author: Morendil 15 March 2010 05:32:10PM 8 points [-]

I'd appreciate if you would read my parenthetical qualifications before making misleading comments about my "reasoning".

I disapprove of coercion in general, but it seems clear that people in general experience sex as a much more significant experience than eating, to the extent that rape can make for life-threatening emotional trauma. Given these (possibly local) facts of human nature, we would clearly not agree to a social contract that provided no protection from rape.

Comment author: Jack 15 March 2010 10:08:34PM -1 points [-]

At the moment I am straight, monogamous, and in fact legally married (for fiscal reasons mostly), but I see no reason to elevate my personal choices and inclinations to the status of universal moral law.

I don't see any reason to either. The problem is I'm not sure I see a reason not to. Rationality governs our degrees of belief and how we incorporate new evidence into our degrees of belief. I don't see how rationality can govern our terminal values. You're right that there is no sound basis to distinguish sex from dinner, but there is also no sound basis to distinguish sex from murder. To say otherwise requires a pretty untenable kind of moral naturalism. Moral acts and immoral acts aren't natural kinds. PhilGoetz's original point is fully generalizable to all claims about terminal values. Policy positions are indicative of irrationality only when they are inconsistent with the subscriber's own values.

Thus, in my comment elsewhere on this post, I hedged when it came using support for immigration as an indicator of rationality among conservatives because opposition to immigration may well be the right position to hold if you don't value the welfare of immigrants or value cultural homogeneity.

Comment author: Morendil 15 March 2010 10:33:28PM 3 points [-]

but there is also no sound basis to distinguish sex from murder

There clearly is, at least on my contractarian view. You would not consent to a social contract that left you vulnerable to murder, if it could be avoided.

Comment author: Jack 15 March 2010 10:47:43PM 0 points [-]

I'm not sure this works (Why would a strict social conservative consent to a contract that allowed me to have sex with multiple partners at the same time?). But no matter: If the distinction is only non-arbitrary given your normative ethics then you need to give non-arbitrary reasons why we should all be contractarians. Otherwise you've just pushed the conversation back a step.

Comment author: wnoise 15 March 2010 05:32:28PM 4 points [-]

There really do exist those who consider who you're having dinner with, and what you're eating to be valid regulatory targets.

Comment author: CronoDAS 15 March 2010 08:37:47PM 4 points [-]

Consuming human meat is generally disapproved of...

Comment author: Eliezer_Yudkowsky 15 March 2010 09:49:43PM 10 points [-]

If you uploaded, would you be willing to let someone else eat your body if they were, y'know, into that sort of thing?

Comment author: sketerpot 15 March 2010 09:43:45PM 9 points [-]

Hey, good idea. New question for getting evidence of rationality: "How do you feel about cannibalism? Not killing people, just the act of eating human meat. Imagine that the meat was vat-grown, or you're a starving survivor of a plane crash, or something."

Comment author: [deleted] 16 March 2012 01:03:36PM *  0 points [-]

I suspect that there are good game-theoretical/TDT reasons for the rule that one shouldn't break promises, so if Alice has promised to Bob that she won't have sex to anybody else, I'd say it'd be wrong for Alice to have sex with Charlie even if both Alice and Charlie are consenting. (But the idea that people should never have sex unless they promise each other to not have sex with anyone else I do find silly.)

Comment author: Psychohistorian 15 March 2010 11:18:46PM *  15 points [-]

Therefore, anyone who says that such a position (for instance, being open to polyamory) indicates rationality, is merely stating their tribal affiliation.

"Merely" is incorrect. If people are employing consistent justifications for their beliefs, that indicates rationality. If their beliefs rely on inconsistent justifications, then they are not.

Suppose I believe polyamory is OK, because I believe that sex between consenting parties will make people happier. If you provided me with overwhelming evidence that most people who practice polyamory are especially miserable specifically because they practice polyamory, that would test my rationality. If I continue to be OK with it, I have an inconsistent belief system. If I cease being OK with it, I am consistently adhering to my beliefs.

Conversely, suppose I believe, "Homosexual sex is wrong because two men can't procreate." If you point out, "Post-menopausal women can't procreate," then, if I say, "Well, they shouldn't have sex either!" then I may be a bit crazy, but I'm consistent. If I say, "Well, that's different" without providing a very specific "that's different" principle, my beliefs are inconsistent, and I am irrational. If I say, "Homosexuality is wrong because the bible says so," then I'd better not be wearing clothing made from both cotton and wool while I burn oxen for the Lord.

I think most of what you see in the "internet crowd" is approval of any sexual activity between consenting adults, which is (usually) a highly consistent principle. I am not aware of any such consistent principle among the married hetero-only crowd. I'm not saying there aren't consistent principles that support a married hetero-only lifestyle, only that it is not my understanding that a large group of people embrace such principles.

If this observation is correct, beliefs about sexuality can be a very strong indicator of rationality if inconsistent, or (at least) a weak indicator if consistent. If they remain consistent through difficult or unusual hypotheticals, that is a strong indication of rationality.

Comment author: Eliezer_Yudkowsky 15 March 2010 11:28:06PM 16 points [-]

If this observation is correct, beliefs about sexuality are a very strong indicator of rationality.

The problem is if the supposedly rational beliefs also happen to be the tribal belief system of a large, pre-existing tribe. Then someone was rational, sometime back in the history, but it isn't necessarily the person you're talking to right now.

A better test would be to ask them to defend a sexual view of theirs that they see as unconventional, or at least, not a typical view of their tribe as yet.

Comment author: Psychohistorian 15 March 2010 11:45:47PM 6 points [-]

A better test would be to ask them to defend a sexual view of theirs that they see as unconventional, or at least, not a typical view of their tribe as yet.

This is absolutely true and I've changed the last paragraph to reflect that.

Comment author: Normal_Anomaly 26 June 2011 08:06:32PM 0 points [-]

I can think of a few possible exceptions (sexual practices that are far enough beyond the pale that even tongue-pierced goths disclaim them, yet which have no rational basis for being banned), but they're too toxic for me to mention.

I for one would like you to mention them.

Comment author: NancyLebovitz 15 March 2010 03:24:55PM 6 points [-]

How far can you judge a person's rationality by what sort of evidence they use to support their beliefs about sexuality?

Comment author: PhilGoetz 15 March 2010 03:38:15PM 0 points [-]

That's a specific instance of what this post is about, right?

Comment author: FAWS 15 March 2010 03:17:14PM *  3 points [-]

It's just as dysfunctional as non-vaginal straight sex is.

Comment author: PhilGoetz 15 March 2010 03:23:14PM 3 points [-]

Your position may be valid; but in the context of the current distribution of opinions on sexuality, it does not in itself signal rationality to me. And that's what we're discussing.

Comment author: steven0461 15 March 2010 03:03:07AM 4 points [-]

Sorry if this is overly tangential

open thread

Comment author: Eliezer_Yudkowsky 15 March 2010 02:42:44AM 16 points [-]

Heh. My tribal beliefs are from reading Spider Robinson books as a teen. Ciphergoth is an example of the sort of person I grew up thinking of as normal, and I've always felt a little guilty about not being bisexual. You have to get up pretty early in the morning to go outside that mainstream, which is one reason I went to the lengths of postulating legalized rape in Three Worlds Collide.

Comment author: ciphergoth 15 March 2010 08:43:44AM 7 points [-]

*smiles* I'm sure you know this, but I don't think it makes any sense to think you should enjoy X. And I agree, alt-sex is not a useful discriminator here. I've been having a lot of arguments about cryonics with my friend David Gerard who is also an alt-sex community member, and this article could have been written specifically with him in mind (as well as other contributors to the "RationalWiki" article on cryonics).

There's a warning flag you don't mention: the logical rudeness of the skeptical Gish Gallop. I have over and over again begged David to pick one counter-argument to cryonics and really press it home. Instead he insists on picking up everything that looks to him like shit and flinging it as fast as he can, and it appears to give him no pause at all when one argument after another turns out to be without merit.

Comment author: Eliezer_Yudkowsky 15 March 2010 08:47:51AM 16 points [-]

I'm sure you know this, but I don't think it makes any sense to think you should enjoy X.

Why doesn't it make sense? If there were a pill to turn me bisexual, I'd take it, modulo the fact that in general I take almost no pills (it'd have to be really really safe, but I hold all mind-affecting substances to that standard, don't drink etcetera, it's not a special case for the bisexuality pill).

Comment author: wedrifid 15 March 2010 11:02:19AM 3 points [-]
Comment author: ciphergoth 15 March 2010 09:25:25AM 6 points [-]

Why would you take such a pill? So that you can have more fun, or for some other reason?

Comment author: Eliezer_Yudkowsky 15 March 2010 10:22:41AM 17 points [-]

So I wouldn't miss out on half the fun.

Comment author: CronoDAS 15 March 2010 07:26:26PM 12 points [-]

Technically, given that most people are heterosexual, Woody Allen's quote - "The good thing about being bisexual is that it doubles your chance of a date on a Saturday night." - is inaccurate. It only increases your chances by the percentage of people of your gender who are open to same-sex encounters.

Comment author: Eliezer_Yudkowsky 15 March 2010 09:26:26PM 1 point [-]

Actually, what you really need is the sexchange pill, but that's a lot harder than it sounds.

Comment author: CronoDAS 16 March 2010 02:49:18AM *  7 points [-]

I'll settle for the bisexuality pill, an attractive female-shaped body (including the "vagina-shaped penis"), some time to get used to moving around in it, and the capacity for having multiple orgasms. "Gay man in a woman's body" is close enough for my purposes. ;)

Comment author: ata 15 March 2010 08:52:00PM 2 points [-]

We'll have to make enough bi-pills for everyone, then.

Comment author: Jack 15 March 2010 07:41:33PM 21 points [-]

I think I have enough evidence to say this confidently without unfairly stereotyping: On balance, gay men are so much more promiscuous than straight women that being bisexual really might double or triple the opportunities for a man to have sex. But your point is well taken and certainly applies to chances for a monogamous relationship.

Comment author: Eliezer_Yudkowsky 15 March 2010 09:27:46PM 14 points [-]

Point of curiosity if anyone knows the answer: How promiscuous are bisexual men and do they tend to have more m-m than m-f sex because the m-m sex is much easier to obtain? If not, why not?

Comment author: CronoDAS 16 March 2010 01:37:24AM *  3 points [-]

Is someone who is what might be called "prison gay" bisexual? (That is, someone who will engage in homosexual acts as a substitute for masturbation, but is not physically attracted to members of the same sex. Yes, it's probably a bad/loaded term, but I don't know what a better one is.)

Comment author: Jack 15 March 2010 10:50:34PM 4 points [-]

Bisexual males often don't identify as 50-50 which complicates the matter.

Comment author: Psychohistorian 15 March 2010 11:03:10PM 7 points [-]

My understanding is that bisexuality rarely endures past one's twenties, and that bisexuals of both genders tend to end up choosing men. Of course, that may stem from the fact that publicly displayed bicuriousity is far less ostracized when it occurs amongst women, so more straight-leaning women are tempted to fool around than straight-leaning men, resulting in most bisexuals settling with men.

Of course, there are people who remain bisexual past that, and my data is not exactly rigorously gathered - I have some friends who study psychology and sexuality, and I've heard it from them.

Comment author: Kevin 15 March 2010 11:00:30PM *  8 points [-]

I'm a 1 on the Kinsey scale but I have only had sex with women, not men. I don't identify as bisexual.

I suspect that the median bisexual man has more m-m sex because the median person willing to identify as bisexual is not a 3 on the Kinsey scale but leans towards the homosexual side of the scale. Also, especially for young people just coming to terms with their sexuality, identifying as bisexual is often a path towards identifying as gay, and such people are likely to have more sex with their true preferred type of partners.

There is a negative perception in the gay community that bisexual people are more promiscuous, but this probably isn't true. I'm pretty sure the reason bisexual men tend to have sex with men more often than women is not because getting gay sex is as easy as posting a "Hey, who wants to come over, blow me, and leave right away without talking?" on Craigslist, but because most people that identify as bisexual are just more gay than straight.

Btw, if anyone was intrigued by the possibility of making such a Craigslist post, if you say you're straight you'll get at least twice as many replies! :D

Comment author: thomblake 15 March 2010 10:46:58PM 1 point [-]

There don't seem to be any findable sources that present an unbiased view on the matter (say, relevant statistics), and I suspect that the categories are sufficiently fluid at the moment that the question would be difficult to pin down.

Comment author: CronoDAS 15 March 2010 07:57:40PM 3 points [-]

But what if you're female?

Comment author: Jack 15 March 2010 08:00:40PM *  3 points [-]

I think I have enough evidence to say this confidently without unfairly stereotyping: On balance, straight men are so much more promiscuous than gay women that being bisexual really might double or triple the opportunities for a woman to have sex.

:-)

Edit: On reflection, this might not be right. But yeah, my point doesn't exactly apply to straight women.

Comment author: FAWS 15 March 2010 08:10:06PM 6 points [-]

I think I have enough evidence to say this confidently without unfairly stereotyping: On balance, straight men are so turned on by the idea of girl on girl sex that being bisexual really might double or triple the opportunities for a woman to have sex.

Well, not really. The having enough evidence part at least.

Comment author: CWG 05 June 2015 11:05:59PM *  1 point [-]

It only increases your chances by the percentage of people of your gender who are open to same-sex encounters.

But the other people of your gender are also restricted to this smaller pool in their search for a pairing, giving you a better chance of being accepted/selected by a particular individual that you're attracted to (assuming you spend significant time around people in this pool). So this factor may not have a big effect.

Comment author: ciphergoth 15 March 2010 12:15:45PM 24 points [-]

How do you distinguish the sort of fun it's worth changing your values to enjoy from the sort of fun (like wireheading) it's worth not having access to?

Of course, it's nothing like half the fun you're missing. Adding a gender would increase your fun by less than 100% since it's not that different in many ways. Adding all the sexual variation in the world would be a humongous amount of fun, but you'd start to hit diminishing returns after a while.

Comment author: ata 15 March 2010 09:13:00AM *  14 points [-]

I'm somewhat sympathetic to that idea (I haven't felt guilty about being straightish, but I've wished I were more bisexual once in a while, and succeeded in pushing myself in that direction in some cases), but I'm curious now: is gender the only dimension you'd apply that to? Would you also take a pill (again assuming it's really really safe) that would make all outward physical attributes irrelevant to how attractive you find someone? Would you take a pill that would make you enjoy every non-harmful sexual practice/fetish (not necessarily seeking them out, but able to enjoy it if a partner initiated it)?

(I originally started writing this comment thinking something like "hmm, I'd take the bi-pill, but let's take that reasoning to its vaguely-logical conclusion and see if it's still palatable", but now I'm actually thinking I'd probably take both of those pills too.)

Comment author: clarissethorn 15 March 2010 10:43:50AM 5 points [-]

I'd definitely take all three of the above pills. In fact, I wonder how much harm such pills would have to do for me not to take them.

Comment author: Eliezer_Yudkowsky 15 March 2010 10:25:38AM 10 points [-]

Well, to ask the non-mainstream-relative-to-this-community version of the question, ask "Would I take the loli pill?"

Comment author: CronoDAS 15 March 2010 07:40:49PM 18 points [-]

How about the anti-Westermark effect pill? ;)

Comment author: Jack 15 March 2010 07:53:28PM 2 points [-]

I can't believe I had never heard of that before. Fascinating.

A question if you can answer it. Wikipedia says:

When close proximity during this critical period does not occur—for example, where a brother and sister are brought up separately, never meeting one another—they may find one another highly sexually attractive when they meet as adults

The addition of "highly" seems to suggest that separated brothers and sisters find themselves especially or unusually attracted to one another. Is that the case or is Wikipedia just adding unnecessary adjectives?

Comment author: thomblake 15 March 2010 08:01:40PM 5 points [-]

There are clearer language and relevant citations at (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_sexual_attraction)

Comment author: CronoDAS 15 March 2010 08:00:55PM 4 points [-]

There is a hypothesis that claims that, but the evidence is dubious.

Comment author: ata 15 March 2010 09:28:11PM *  3 points [-]

The two pills I proposed are mainstream relative to this community?
I'm surprised yet not surprised. Good to know, anyway.

(So, alright, would you take the loli pill?)

Comment author: FAWS 15 March 2010 12:10:06PM *  4 points [-]

Does "loli" mean non-persons and emotionally mature persons who look like a child, or are actual children (of average or below average emotional maturity) included by the effect?

Comment author: sketerpot 15 March 2010 09:28:48PM *  20 points [-]

If it meant the former, I would take the loli pill if the (unlikely) circumstances called for it. Why not? If it meant the latter, then you would have to tell your libido "no" a lot, but it wouldn't necessarily lead to doing bad things. I doubt it would be worth the hassle, though, except in very special circumstances.

Actually, the biggest drawback to either version of the loli pill would probably be how society would react if they ever found out. It probably wouldn't matter if the one you're sleeping with is really 700 years old; you'd still get put on every sex offender registry out there, and shunned vigorously, at the very least. People are damn tense on this subject. Just look at how much trouble Christopher Handley got in for his manga collection.

Edit: I felt pretty uncomfortable writing this post, even though I know I shouldn't be. Looks like this really is a good question.

Comment author: kodos96 17 March 2010 12:39:29AM 3 points [-]

upvoted for citing tvtropes :)

Comment author: Alicorn 17 March 2010 12:42:30AM 16 points [-]

Downvoted for encouraging such irresponsible behavior as citing TV Tropes!

Comment author: MBlume 24 September 2011 09:09:30PM 5 points [-]

Upvoted for noticing discomfort

Comment author: wedrifid 15 March 2010 12:44:44PM 0 points [-]

Loli means actual preteen girls.

Comment author: ata 15 March 2010 09:29:37PM *  4 points [-]

If I understand correctly, loli only refers to cartoon depictions of preteen girls (and maybe roleplaying with that theme). Being attracted to actual preteen girls is just pedophilia.

(At least that's what loli fans say. I've always been a bit confused by the distinction — I've known people into loli and shota who seemed to find actual children as unappealing as any normal person does, but I can't quite figure out why a person would be turned on only by a cartoon and not the real thing.)

Comment author: kodos96 17 March 2010 12:42:55AM 0 points [-]

but I can't quite figure out why a person would be turned on only by a cartoon and not >the real thing

Because they're lying

Comment author: Jack 15 March 2010 09:47:00PM 13 points [-]

This is a really a frustrating exchange given the number of terms that need googling and the fact that I am in a public library.

Comment author: Bindbreaker 16 March 2010 06:15:02AM 2 points [-]

Would it be reversible?

Comment author: ata 16 March 2010 06:30:29AM *  6 points [-]

You can just answer it for each case. Would you take either pill if they were irreversible? If they were reversible?

Comment author: Bindbreaker 16 March 2010 06:48:19AM 6 points [-]

Yes in all cases, but absolutely only if reversible.

I am asexual and thus have not experienced any of the romantic/sexual emotions. I feel as if doing so would almost certainly help my understanding of others, as well as broaden my emotional range. However, I seem to do quite fine without these emotions, and they seem to cause more problems than they are worth in many of the people around me. Therefore I would only take such pills if they were reversible, as my present state is quite happy and the alternative could certainly be worse.

Comment author: Jack 16 March 2010 08:08:58AM *  4 points [-]

However, I seem to do quite fine without these emotions, and they seem to cause more problems than they are worth in many of the people around me.

No kidding.

Do people remember that guy who was here at the very beginning and wouldn't shut up about how the key to being rational was castration? I doubt that troll would have had much to say would have been helpful but the position has a certain intuitive plausibility to me. To begin with, I'm pretty sure the ebb and flow of sexual arousal would be really easy to money pump.

Comment author: Morendil 16 March 2010 08:33:23AM 2 points [-]

Easy enough to find by searching. ;)

Those contributions were... interesting. I'm somewhat tempted to doubt the disclosure. While researching permanent forms of contraception, in particular vasectomy, I learned that the procedure was illegal in France up until a few years ago: it was considered "self-mutilation". I'd be rather surprised to learn about someone getting elective castration, unless some plausible details substantiated that story.

Comment author: wedrifid 16 March 2010 08:23:49AM 5 points [-]

To begin with, I'm pretty sure my the ebb and flow of sexual arousal would be really easy to money pump.

Buying and selling bulk cupons for the service of prostitutes?

Comment author: Strange7 15 March 2010 04:16:39PM 4 points [-]

There is a well-established mechanism within the transformation fetish subculture making use of devices which work a bit like temporary tattoos, altering the subject's body and/or personality in ways both profound and fully reversible. Like most magic intended to make a story possible rather than to make it interesting, the patches in question are entirely without negative side effects.

As demonstrated with Clippy, I would be willing to provide further information even if doing so does not serve my long-term interests in any obvious way.

Comment author: clarissethorn 15 March 2010 10:42:04AM *  6 points [-]

Ah, Spider Robinson. I remember buying a stack of his books at Borders around age 12 and having the clerk give my mother an alarmed look. Mom just waved her hand ....

I think it's pretty normal for science-fiction-reading middle- to upper-middle-class kids to think that alternative sexuality is "normal" and to feel guilty for being vanilla/monogamous/whatever. (I used to feel a lot of pressure to be polyamorous.) Interestingly, though, there still seems to be a lot of internalized stigma about certain forms of sexuality, as demonstrated for example in my coming-out story. I would imagine that most people here fit that tribal group.

Still, within that tribal group I still encounter a lot of people with assumptions I'd call weird and/or irrational, which is why I asked specifically what kind of sexuality-related arguments would lead you to consider someone to be defending a non-mainstream belief. I think your legalized rape post (it was forwarded to me last year, actually, and I still haven't decided how I feel about it) is a definite example of defending a non-mainstream belief, but I wonder if there are less dramatic ones.

Comment author: Eliezer_Yudkowsky 15 March 2010 10:48:24AM 1 point [-]

I still haven't decided how I feel about it

I call that a win for literature.

Comment author: Multiheaded 16 March 2012 10:02:05AM *  4 points [-]

I'm adamant that none of us should use the messed-up word "Rape" to point to a benevolent social practice of a made-up libertarian utopia, where that term and its implications are not just forgotten but can hardly be understood. Something like "meta-consensual sex" would be way better. This alone would've allowed us to avoid half the controversy about this relatively minor point.

Comment author: wedrifid 16 March 2012 01:15:10PM 0 points [-]

"meta-consensual sex

I like it. I hope the term catches on - even if the situations where it can be useful are rather uncommon.

Comment author: CronoDAS 15 March 2010 04:01:06AM 8 points [-]

Hi Clarisse, and Welcome to LessWrong! I've seen your blog, and I'm happy to see you commenting here. (I comment as "Doug S." on various feminism-related blogs - I'm not very prolific, but you may have seen a couple here and there.)

Comment author: clarissethorn 15 March 2010 10:30:13AM *  4 points [-]

Hi Doug! Yes, I remember you. I've actually read a number of posts here, and I've commented once here before, but I was too angry and irrational and in feminist-community mode during that little fracas, so I decided to give myself lots of time to cool off before posting again. (Note that the original post has been edited to the point where it is no longer clear what pissed me off.) (I also discussed some of the cultural differences between this site and the feminist blogosphere that contributed to that blowup in the comments here.)

Comment author: RobinZ 15 March 2010 02:33:19PM 9 points [-]

Emotionally, I feel I have two tribes: the meatspace upper-middle-class collegiate culture and my Internet circle of acquaintances.

In the meatspace tribe, vanilla heterosexuality or homosexuality are considered normal and unremarkable, things like 2 girls 1 cup, goatse, etc. are considered disgusting/gross-out material - and I cannot remember anyone acknowledging anything else.

In the Internet tribe, sexual relations of any kind between consenting adults are considered fine provided that they are carried out in private, sexual intercourse between teenage minors is considered normal (fine or not may vary), and crossing the line ... well, I haven't heard Snape/Hermione strongly condemned, but pedophilia is definitely out. I note that no-one I know talks about anything involving permanent damage, however.

Comment author: Strange7 27 June 2011 09:06:00AM 1 point [-]

If you're looking for unusual concepts for use as test cases (and have a strong stomach), I recommend poking around and asking some open-ended questions on gurochan.net. The site has, of necessity, a very diverse and open-minded attitude toward anything which does not directly threaten it's primary objectives.

Comment author: rwallace 15 March 2010 02:37:04PM 7 points [-]

Almost every tribe tacitly accepts the assumption that it is healthy and appropriate to have a passionate interest in the sex lives of complete strangers. Disagreement with that assumption would lead me to consider someone to be defending a non-mainstream belief.