PhilosophyTutor 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.

Comments (1529)

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

Comment author: PhilosophyTutor 24 November 2011 06:23:51AM *  -1 points [-]

This subtopic, unless I've gotten confused, relates specifically to one proposed method for trying to make discussion of the broader relationship topic more productive, that being the proposition that we hold a discussion of effective PUA methodology while holding off on any ethical discussion about the topic whatsoever. The argument against this proposition was that there are serious ethical issues which trying to figure out the maximally effective ways of getting sex without any regard for ethics.

Your response seems to be (and I am open to correction if I have misunderstood) that PUA methods, if indeed they worked, could be abused but that we do not need to discuss this because anything could be abused and hence discussing the potential abuse of this particular thing is a waste of time.

It seems likely that what's going on is that you have as an implicit premise in your argument that PUAs are all "good guys" or close enough to all that it doesn't matter, and that PUA skills will mostly only ever be used "for good". Whether that is a definition of "good" that includes manipulating women into acts they will predictably regret and which they would not have chosen to engage in were they fully informed and rational is an interesting discussion that, if the original proposal were followed, we would not be able to engage in. However if one held such an implicit premise I could see why you saw no value in discussing the relevant ethical issues, since the relevant ethical issues are all dissolved by the assumption that PUAs are good guys.

However another possibility is that you have in mind a definition of "PUA methods" which excludes archetypal rape and most other acts which meet the legal and moral definition of rape but are not archetypal, and hence you think that a discussion of "PUA methods", even if it taboos all ethical discourse, will thus by definition not involve anything meeting the legal and moral definition of rape. If so you need to make this definition explicit, I think, and then resolve the issue of whether obtaining sex while concealing information which you know is highly relevant and important to the other party's decision to consent meets the legal or moral definition of rape. If needed I can cite cases where people have been imprisoned for obtaining sex by withholding information which they knew would have been highly relevant, so this is not an entirely academic concern.

At this time I can neither confirm nor deny that I am a dummy account belonging to a member with vast karma, super powers, a sports car and a girlfriend who is an underwear model.

Comment author: wedrifid 24 November 2011 07:12:50AM *  1 point [-]

It seems likely that what's going on is that you have as an implicit premise in your argument that PUAs are all "good guys" or close enough to all that it doesn't matter, and that PUA skills will mostly only ever be used "for good".

Not even remotely. That position would be the opposite of stupidity.

However if one held such an implicit premise I could see why you saw no value in discussing the relevant ethical issues, since the relevant ethical issues are all dissolved by the assumption that PUAs are good guys.

Have I said I have no interest in discussing ethical issues? That doesn't sound like something I would say. In fact.

Comment author: [deleted] 24 November 2011 07:01:45AM *  0 points [-]

At this time I can neither confirm nor deny that I am a dummy account belonging to a member with vast karma, super powers, a sports car and a girlfriend who is an underwear model.

Eliezer Yudkowsky drives a sports car?!?!?? ;)