PhilGoetz comments on Is masochism necessary? - Less Wrong

8 Post author: PhilGoetz 10 April 2009 11:48PM

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

Comments (143)

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

Comment author: ciphergoth 11 April 2009 07:53:50PM *  6 points [-]

Good question. Here's a few thoughts - let me know if these are useful or whether you think I'm barking up the wrong tree.

  • As you say, the first thing people think of when you say "masochism" is sexual masochism; it's the root of the word and its primary meaning. I'd prefer to keep it that way than to extend it to cover self-defeating behaviour, which falls about as well on my ears as extending "gay" to mean "lame".

  • "Perversion" is judgemental in every other context and has been used to be judgemental about sexuality for years. A neutral word like "behaviour" or "activity" would serve just as well here.

  • This is harder to pin down, but I just don't get a feeling from the way you talk about us that you think of us as having a really good time. I promise you, in our own curious way we really are having a lot of fun.

Comment author: PhilGoetz 12 April 2009 05:02:06AM 1 point [-]

Okay, sorry, I didn't see this before.

As you say, the first thing people think of when you say "masochism" is sexual masochism; it's the root of the word and its primary meaning. I'd prefer to keep it that way than to extend it to cover self-defeating behaviour, which falls about as well on my ears as extending "gay" to mean "lame".

Hmm. I see your point. What Bruce has is called "masochistic personality disorder", but it could also be called "self-defeating personality disorder."

"Perversion" is judgemental in every other context and has been used to be judgemental about sexuality for years. A neutral word like "behaviour" or "activity" would serve just as well here.

I wanted to convey that many people have a judgmental attitude towards masochism, and yet don't have a judgemental attitude towards the other things on the list. If they truly are related, then that's a very interesting mental disconnect.

Comment author: ciphergoth 13 April 2009 10:39:14AM 4 points [-]

Thanks for making the changes you have to the article - they are big improvements from my point of view. It might be good to note in the article that it's been edited following this discussion, otherwise someone reading the comments might wonder what all the fuss is about!

Comment author: clarissethorn 15 March 2010 10:28:26AM 4 points [-]

Yeah, seriously ... I only just came back to this, and I'm rather surprised that a community like LessWrong will countenance editing posts without noting the edits.

Comment author: Morendil 15 March 2010 10:48:40AM 1 point [-]

It's generally frowned upon.

Comment author: ciphergoth 12 April 2009 08:31:12AM 3 points [-]

It's not that surprising - sex is always treated as an exception