anonymous259 comments on Rational Romantic Relationships, Part 1: Relationship Styles and Attraction Basics - Less Wrong

48 Post author: lukeprog 05 November 2011 11:06AM

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

Article Navigation

Comments (1529)

Comments (1529)

Sort By: Best

Show:

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

Comment author: hairyfigment 23 November 2011 10:18:15PM -1 points [-]

I don't want to have a mind-killing argument

Then don't just tell us what the moral categories are without explaining how you decided this. While I think physical violence usually adds to the wrongness of a crime, I'd still call blackmail-for-sex wrong and I'd still point to the same reason that makes violent rape wrong. In fact, I'd say that true consent makes a lot of seemingly violent acts morally fine. So explain to me why I shouldn't view this as a natural dividing line.

Comment author: anonymous259 24 November 2011 01:14:26AM 1 point [-]

I don't want to have a mind-killing argument

Then don't just tell us what the moral categories are without explaining how you decided this.

That is precisely the argument (read: flamewar) that I am trying to avoid! The point is I didn't want to get into a detailed discussion of sexual ethics, how wrong rape is, and what constitutes rape. This is something that is emotionally controversial for many people. It's what we might call a "hot-button issue".

While I think physical violence usually adds to the wrongness of a crime, I'd still call blackmail-for-sex wrong

So would I. But there are degrees of wrongness, and in my opinion blackmail-for-sex is, if you'll pardon the expression, less wrong than rape.

Do you see what you did there? You automatically assumed that my moral categories were "Wrong" and "Not Wrong", when I was actually talking about "Wrong", "Very Wrong", "Very Very Wrong", etc.

and I'd still point to the same reason that makes violent rape wrong.

I view "violent rape" as a redundant pleonasm (to coin a self-describing phrase), and think that violence is most of what makes rape wrong. The getting-someone-to-do-something-they-don't-want-to-do aspect is also bad, but it's not 10-years-in-prison bad.

This is provided purely FYI, as a statement of my position; I do not intend it as an invitation to attack and demand that I justify myself further. This is not the right setting for this argument.

Comment author: hairyfigment comment score below threshold [+] (9 children)

Comment author: anonymous259 24 November 2011 01:43:20AM -2 points [-]

No, I didn't

Yes, you did. Here is what you said:

While I think physical violence usually adds to the wrongness of a crime, I'd still call blackmail-for-sex wrong

This clearly implies that you didn't think I would call it wrong; you were setting up what you perceived as a contrast between your view and mine. If you disagreed with me but correctly understood my position, you would have written "I'd still call blackmail-for-sex as wrong as violent rape" or something similar.

Comment author: hairyfigment 24 November 2011 01:52:59AM * 0 points [-]

How do you think the link in the grandparent fits into my motives?

ETA: People, if you downvote me and I can't tell why I may give you more of the same just to annoy you.

In this case, I'd feel surprised if anon259 considered knife-play wrong after thinking about it. And I'd feel downright shocked if said user called it "10-years-in-prison bad". This seems inconsistent.

Comment author: DSimon 24 November 2011 05:21:25AM 3 points [-]

ETA: People, if you downvote me and I can't tell why I may give you more of the same just to annoy you.

Please don't say this, that will just encourage people to downvote you because they'll feel like you're taunting them.

If you get downvoted and don't know why, then the standard thing to do is to respond to your own comment asking "Why was my comment downvoted? I'm genuinely curious."

Comment author: [deleted] 24 November 2011 02:36:56AM * 2 points [-]

Oh my! You freaked me out with your knife-play link. I opened it and didn't look at it immediately, so later came to find I had a tab that had googled knife play. I was like "omg!!! I swear I didn't google knife play!!!". I am happy to discover that google isn't reading my mind, it is just you linking to unexpected things.

But it does bring up a point that there are many puritanical holdovers (besides just mono/poly/swing/etc, which was brought up in the OP) that even the most rationalist thinker may still have, especially in regards to sex and romance. I think it would make a good post if someone wanted to do it.

Comment author: Prismattic 24 November 2011 04:07:41AM 2 points [-]

I don't think that feeling an aversion to the idea of knife play (or masochism more generally) is a "puritanical holdover" in the same sense as an objection to deviations from traditional western monogamy. Most people really do dislike pain for self-evident evolutionary reasons.

Bloodless knife-play looks like an application of misattribution of arousal, but with a lot more potential for something to go seriously wrong if somebody miscalculates a bit than there is, say, standing on a swaying bridge.

I think consenting adults should pretty much be able to do whatever they want in the bedroom, but no one is ever going to interest me in knife play, and I would strenuously object to my aversion being labelled "puritanism." I prefer the term "self-preservation instinct."

Comment author: [deleted] 24 November 2011 04:41:45AM * 1 point [-]

I think you made some really good points, and I agree that I surely would never want to say that people who don't participate in thing x or y have puritanical beliefs.

Let me see if I can re-word better: Some things that we grew up with, we tend to accept. They seem so natural that we often don't question them rationally. It would be interesting if someone else (not me because as you can tell, I suck at writing a lot of this stuff) made a post about more things that even rationalists might not generally think to question.

The types of puritanical holdovers that I was personally thinking about deal more with things like "slut shaming" or body issues. On the flip-side there is the equally harmful idea that men will chase anything and have no self-control, etc.

Did you know that for much of history people actually believed the reverse; You kept women locked up because they are ruled by their passions and would go run off and sleep with any young thing, while the males could control their desires.

Thank you for the wikipedia link. I had not heard of that study before.

Comment author: Prismattic 24 November 2011 04:54:07AM 1 point [-]

Did you know that for much of history people actually believed the reverse; You kept women locked up because they are ruled by their passions and would go run off and sleep with any young thing, while the males could control their desires.

Another history BA here, so yes. Blame the Cistercian monks for the pre-Victorian view of male and female libido. I mean, who better to rely on for accounts of sexual psychology than a bunch of cloistered celibates?

Comment author: wedrifid 24 November 2011 05:34:28AM 0 points [-]

ETA: People, if you downvote me and I can't tell why I may give you more of the same just to annoy you.

Downvoted for professing to be a troll.

anonymous259 comments on Rational Romantic Relationships, Part 1: Relationship Styles and Attraction Basics - Less Wrong

Article Navigation

Comments (1529)

Nearest Meetups

Virtual Study Room

Recent Comments

Recent Posts

Recent Rationality Quotes

Recent Wiki Edits

Top Contributors, 30 Days

Recent Karma Awards

Comments (1529)

Top Contributors, 30 Days

You'll need to login or register to do that

(Don't worry, it only takes a few seconds)

Create

Login