AllanCrossman 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: AllanCrossman 12 April 2009 06:55:55PM *  2 points [-]

I think you intended it to look like some sort of anti-gay rhetoric (didn't you?) so it's odd that it could be read as a pro-homosexual statement, i.e.:

"Many think homosexuality is a sexual perversion, but as I shall show, homoeroticism is perfectly ordinary and socially accepted in many arenas."

It's odd that nobody has defended Phil with the observation that the description of masochism as a possible sexual perversion was immediately followed by the word "but".

Update: This post no longer makes sense because the top-level post has been edited. :)