Emile comments on Rationality Lessons Learned from Irrational Adventures in Romance - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (609)
It is interesting to me that I feel almost horrified by nearly all of the relationship advice in this post. I think I am fairly rational, but by no means an expert and I am sure I have many areas of incompetency, but I haven't considered relationships to be one of them. I have had successful, reasonably happy experiences with dating even though I have also been through painful breakups. I have not had any desire to get married or to have children and this was a preference I became aware of around age 18 or 19. At the same time, though, I feel much happier with a monogamous relationship and my sex drive has been much lower than what I perceive to be the cultural norm for men. Even the physical act of having sex does not bring much physical pleasure for me and I've never felt that a sexual connection was of any particular importance for me. At the same time, I realize it is not likely that a compatible female will feel this way, so I just try to focus on doing things to satisfy the women I am in relationships with because I care about them. I doubt I am a great lover, and I most assuredly prefer to just 'be myself' and to patently reject any idea that I need to conform to some socially acceptable level of skill in the ability to carry a flirtacious sequence into good sex. Flirting has always left me feeling cold and I would be very unhappy to change that.
I am wondering if my relationship views are similar to the idea of shock levels or if the modern ideas of being polygamous, avoiding commitment, etc., are just themselves worse than some of the traditional values. For example, I feel proud if I am able to control sexual desire towards a female I am not committed to (when I am committed to someone else). The opportunity cost of losing the chance to have sex with her does not strike me as worrisome in any sense. Perhaps my personal sex drive is just many standard deviations lower.
I find similar feelings when it comes to being a vegetarian. I have never had an intrinsic desire to eat meat, despite the fact that I was raised on a farm in Indiana and my parents fed me lots of meat throughout my childhood. As soon as I decided it was unethical to eat meat (and especially later when I discovered how unhealthy it can be), it was a very easy decision that I have never been seriously tempted to change. It's the same with monogamy and commitment for me as well.
The impression I get is that when a couple disagrees about the frequency of sex, in the majority of cases it's the man that wants more and the woman that wants less - so even if you're at the low end of the distribution of sexual appetite for men, chances are there'll be more women around that level.
The problem with this sort of thinking is that women may not express a desire for sexual contact, but they still are strongly influenced by oxytocin / emotional intimacy from love-making.
Also, as an anhedonic (complication of autism) -- I would note that there really aren't many women 'down in my level' as it were. I personally have suspicions that in this category, as in so many other, the bell-curve distribution of motivation/interest/promiscuity is far denser towards the mean in women than it is in men. Same rough average, but fewer outliers.