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: clarissethorn 12 April 2009 06:39:18PM 3 points [-]

Presentation is endorsement, unless it's framed with disclaimers.

Let's return to the LGBTQ example. Consider the following potential sentences:

"Many people think of homosexuality as a sexual perversion. But there are ordinary, socially-accepted behaviors that seem partly homoerotic to me:"

Would you call that a neutral statement? Would you claim so passionately that it revealed no bias on the part of the person who said it?

Comment author: PhilGoetz 12 April 2009 08:15:29PM *  1 point [-]

I want to get across the point that, if it's true that sexual masochism and other behaviors have some underlying pleasure mechanism in common, then it's remarkable that people demonize sexual masochism yet have no guilt about riding rollercoasters. I can't do that without saying something like "Many people think masochism is evil." There's no way to get my idea across without using negative terms.

(The thought just occurred to me as I wrote this: Maybe the puritans (the stereotypical puritans, as opposed to the real ones, whom I am less familiar with) were just being consistent! Seeing sexual pleasure as immoral should lead to seeing dancing, card-playing, and many other things as immoral.)

If I had just written

"There are ordinary, socially-accepted behaviors that seem partly masochistic to me",

that would be less neutral, as it would imply that I myself believed masochism was wrong.

I changed it. I think it's weaker and less interesting this way, but it's not in my advantage to repell people who have the expertise necessary for this conversation.