= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Luke_A_Somers comments on Useful maxims - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (110)
This works for romance/sex, too. Have a hard wall on how far you'll go, and only move it when you're alone and calm. When you're in the heat of the moment, keep in mind that you can move it when you're alone and calm. You can even intend to do so -- and if when the time comes, you still think so, there you go.
Having that pressure release helps actually stay within the bounds you set. Otherwise it requires a great dal more patience.
I have to say, I'm not sure I know why you would want to set strong bounds here, particularly when it comes to sex. I have never had occasion to think "I wish I hadn't done that sexual thing that seemed like a good idea in the heat of the moment".
There are some other people of whom this is true, but not in a good way.
Safety in general is a whole different thing. I think Luke's maxim is about regrets rather than safety.
They are not mutually exclusive. I can't think of anything I would regret more than causing a permanent injury to myself or another person.
Is there a better word for the distinction I'm trying to draw?
Not really, because I don't think they are distinct in the way you suggested; rather, I think safety issues are a subset of "things I'll likely regret".
ADDED: Or at least safety issues where things actually do go wrong are "things I'll likely regret".
The set of regrets NOT related to safety, and the set of regrets over safety, are two separate sets. Or, if you must, two separate subsets of "things I'll likely regret."
Most people seem to intuitively understand the idea of "emotional" vs "safety" regrets when it comes to sex. i.e. the difference between "I wish I hadn't slept with her, because it ruined our friendship" vs "I wish I hadn't slept with her, because now it burns when I pee."
This is much more commonly true for men than women.
Have you ever been in a position in which you were tempted to cheat on a significant other? (I think you've written about being in polyamorous relationships...)
I've never been in a monogamous relationship. But that would seem like a situation where you already have decided on a bound in advance, and so a rule reminding you to set such a bound doesn't move you forward.
Boundaries have a way of getting fuzzy in the moment. Is it cheating if you kiss someone? If you kiss with tongue? If you put hands on breasts? Etc. Slippery slope, and all that.
this seems like a rule for permanently stifling the unadventurous.
Not necessarily! If you work out ahead of time what your reasonable limits are, this can serve as mental license to stop worrying and go right up to those limits -- and no one said you had to set them cautiously.
This has been one of my most effective tricks for having fun doing things that are kind of scary.
If it ever seems stifling when you're not in the heat of the moment - which is almost all the time - then change your rule. Was I unclear?
Not unclear. My point was that some people will never do things they wind up enjoying until someone pushes their boundaries in the heat of the moment.
Oh, sure. And in that case, such a person suddenly realizes that they WANT to cross that line. They'll remember wanting to cross the line and reconsider when they're calm.
It only gets to be a problem if someone's line is drawn so far away that they never even get a hint that they might want to cross it, and so never reconsider. I have seen one case of that, and it lasted a few years. It is possible that was from trauma, and the limit contracted once she recovered. I do not think being more aggressive in tearing down the wall would have been any help.
This would severely interfere with most people's ability to comfortably maintain hypocritical inconsistent ideals. Not recommended.
Please elaborate.
wedrifid excuses his lax morals by claiming that others act like him but pretend not to want to.
For most people their instincts have far better judgement than whatever abstract ideas they have floating around in their head. It takes a lot of self awareness and rational thinking for "far mode" thinking to be as useful as "near mode" when it comes to actual behaviors.
This somewhat makes sense to me. Note that I still think consent is extremely important; it's a terrible idea to e.g. sleep with someone who has never let themselves think in far mode that they want sex, but who would probably like it if they had it - way too risky. But if one knows that a person wants, in far mode, to get laid, I think it's generally okay to push the idea onto them in near mode.
ETA: I'm not disagreeing with OP, just pointing out that for some people, near-mode doesn't impel them to go further, it impels them to hold back.
It took me some effort to link "this" to "never buy when you're in the shop" :)
Note that you can also move the walls to go less far. (A little harder to explain to your partner, though.)