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: NancyLebovitz 12 September 2010 04:46:10PM 0 points [-]

How many hours a week of mercy fucks would you say that women owe to the world?

I don't think you should necessarily avoid talking about changing preferences. I do think you should consider that people only change their preferences for reasons that make sense to them, and that contextless statements that the world would be better if only people would make themselves more convenient for someone else (who coincidentally is more like you than they are) are not likely to go over well, and why.

I wonder if it's time someone made the bound-to-be-controversial suggestion that women in modern society are excessively conservative when it comes to granting sexual favors.

When you said it was bound to be controversial, did you have any specific controversies in mind?

Comment author: Jonathan_Graehl 21 September 2010 03:22:07AM 3 points [-]

The obligation should be no stronger than the obligation to welcome a homeless person into your dwelling for a night's sleep, or to donate a large portion of one's savings+income to feed the starving - that is, nonexistent.

The typical person would not necessarily offer sex to all comers on a pro bono basis, but could fund professionals who choose such a line of work.

Comment author: NancyLebovitz 21 September 2010 08:10:50AM *  2 points [-]

If it had been phrased as you put it, I don't think things would have blown up.

Correction: If it had been conceived as you put it, things wouldn't have blown up.

Comment author: Jonathan_Graehl 21 September 2010 08:17:18AM *  0 points [-]

Glad to hear it. It's painful than seeing people try to blow up rationally :)