= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
buybuydandavis comments on The more privileged lover - 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 (108)
I don't think this guy should have been karma hammered into oblivion. He brought up a perfectly reasonable point about mutual satisfaction in a relationship.
I think he's mistaking a few things in his analysis, but the comments implying that he was advocating non consensual sex are way over the top in abuse.
I downvoted because it came to a dumb conclusion after analyzing a vague situation in a shitty way.
I didn't downvote, and I don't think he was advocating rape.
Then why is it that you felt the need to explain that sex required a yes from every party? I saw no indication that he was unaware of that, and needed it explained to him.
If not the issue of consent and getting to yes, what is "problematic" about that?
For discussion of my comment at issue, I suggest my response here.
Most members of society just don't talk about what is and is not acceptable behavior in close cases. Being specific what is and is not acceptable helps reduce bad behavior and hopefully prevents bad actors from asserting that society is willing to tolerate their behavior.
There are many reasons not to talk about close cases, primarily to save status and avoid friction with those who might disagree with you.
But referring to the fact that people often don't discuss close cases to wash your hands of your criticism of someone else seems to me writing yourself a blank check for condemnations of others without ever justifying, examining, or even identifying your premises. I doubt that such a license to condemn leads to better behavior.
I disagree
As you use the term, status preservation has a strong status quo bias. I don't like the current status quo. Let Justice be done, though the heavens fall. When we approach a better status quo, we can put in effort to stop there. Yes, I'm aware of the risks of this approach.
Arguments are not soldiers. Let's figure out where to aim before we decide what compromises we are willing to make along the way.
I've gone out of my way to limit my criticism of the OP, and you think I want a blank check? OP is not a rapist, but he sure was acting entitled. Further, the particular way he was acting entitled gives aid to bad actors.
Elsewhere, you said that modern sexual negotiation, based on implicit communication, is dysfunctional. I agree. I don't think there's ever been a time when there has not been a dysfunctional sex negotiation dynamic. What negotiation scheme do you suggest society adopt?
The reasons I listed were what I deemed the actual motivations of people. I don't share those motivations much. I probably should busy myself with social signaling more, but I don't.
That's going our of your way not to criticize? You shouldn't be so shy, so we can get to the point sooner.
I'd say you're flatly wrong. He has shown no indication of believing he is entitled to having his way in the relationship, and just objects to the assumption that she is entitled to having her way in the relationship. Neither of them is entitled to a relationship with the other, to have sex with the other, or go bowling with the other. He asks, rather reasonably in my opinion, in the context of their relationship:
He mistakes it for a religious issue, but it's really the privileging of not wanting sex over wanting it in a relationship, and the privileging of what a woman wants over what a man wants in a relationship.
Be more explicit about your sexual intent both during the act and at other times. Done directly and without approval monitoring or apology, it's usually well received.
It also makes the underlying Schelling point more likely to slip.
Edit: another way to say this is: Being specific means that a bad actor who finds a loophole can now sight chapter and verse for why his behavior is in fact acceptable.
Schelling points are not values. At best, the concept is useful only for figuring out how to mediate conflicting values.
Chesterton's Fence is a valuable argument, but repeating citing it to me is a barely veiled accusation that I haven't thought things through (and if Chesterton's Fence isn't what your second link is intended to argue, then I am simply confused).
I'm opening to addressing specific problems that you identify, but you haven't actually identified any problems with talking about what the social expectations already are.
Moreover, the particular moral positions I'm asserting (e.g. non-consensual touching is not generally allowed in a functioning society have been supported by the overwhelming majority of moral thinkers for longer than you and I have been alive. We might suspect those thinkers were insincere, but it is no defense to say "Don't listen to me, I was being a hypocrite."
See my edit.
I suppose this is technically true for certain values of "non-consensual", specifically you have to assume there is a presumption of implicit consent to certain types of touching in many situations. In some cases this definition is extremely stretched. In any case there is a lot of room to slip one way or the other on what kind of touching one is presumed to have consented to.