NancyLebovitz comments on More art, less stink: Taking the PU out of PUA - Less Wrong

66 Post author: XFrequentist 10 September 2010 12:25AM

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

Comments (616)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: Alicorn 11 September 2010 10:25:27PM 0 points [-]

Amazon's first pages look interesting - any chance you have an e-copy? Bittorrent is proving useless.

Comment author: NancyLebovitz 12 September 2010 02:27:04AM 8 points [-]

Google has most of the book-- all but the last two chapters. I have a paper copy.

Her Sex and Bacon: Why I Love Things that Are Very, Very Bad for Me is likewise amazing.

The most surprising essay-- she talks about the bacon deficiency economy in which restaurants never give you enough bacon, so she cooks and eats four pounds of bacon to be sure she has enough-- used to be online, but doesn't seem to be there any more.

I will tentatively recommend her books to any of the men here who can't seem to figure out why things keep blowing up when they write about sex, since it seems to me that they have a blank spot in their model of the universe about women having desires and making choices. She's quite emphatic about the inside of her head.

I'm making massive efforts not to blame the guys-- I have some scary blind spots myself, including one that I was at least past 35 before I realized I had. It turned out that I believed women had emotions and men had desires. That is, I believed men wanted things and women had reactions to getting or not getting what they wanted.

What clued me into the blind spot was noticing that men had facial expressions which seemed to indicate emotional reactions, and that I was surprised by this.

Possibly relevant: I was born in 1953-- I hope things were more stereotyped then than they are now, but I don't think things have completely changed.

Comment author: komponisto 12 September 2010 02:57:47AM *  2 points [-]

any of the men here who can't seem to figure out why things keep blowing up when they write about sex, since it seems to me that they have a blank spot in their model of the universe about women having desires and making choices.

Since I made the comment that initiated this latest mini-flare-up, I feel the need to make it clear that I am not myself in that category. I see the non-alignment of desires among humans as a general problem, of which the sex issues discussed above are merely one particular manifestation.

Possibly relevant: I was born in 1953

I had actually gotten the impression that you were older than is typical here; and on thinking about it, I suspect it had to do with your first name (which was a lot more popular at around that time than 20-40 years later).

Comment author: NancyLebovitz 12 September 2010 04:43:30AM 1 point [-]

I see the non-alignment of desires among humans as a general problem, of which the sex issues discussed above are merely one particular manifestation.

Grasping that non-alignment is a general problem is an important start, but I don't think it's the same as understanding what a specific non-alignment is.

Comment author: Alicorn 12 September 2010 02:49:33AM 2 points [-]

Google has most of the book-- all but the last two chapters.

It looks like p. 28-333 are not included.

Comment author: NancyLebovitz 12 September 2010 02:54:41AM 1 point [-]

Apologies-- I trusted that the chapter links in the drop-down menu meant the chapters were there.