= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Eugine_Nier 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)
You do realize which social norm was being referred to? (It was the one you implied would be followed by any "reasonable person" in this comment.)
Hrm?
"I want more sex" is a totally valid reason to break up with someone. It's much healthier to say it explicitly rather than communicate via passive-aggressive behavior.
To quote you:
Yes, that is the position that I think is wrong. That's why the next sentence I wrote was:
"But that's not how any reasonable person should expect the world to work."
So were you using "assholes" ironically there?
Dude, it's a linked quote. If you can't understand what I meant, go read it in context.
In brief, the person behaving like an asshole by treating other people as vending machines is doing social interaction wrong. No irony is intended.
EDIT: For additional clarity: There are two independent points at issue here.
1) Explicit communication about sex is better than implicit communication, particularly passive-aggressive implicit communication.
2) Regardless of the explicitness one uses to ask for sex, sometimes the answer is no. Being offended that someone won't have sex with you when you have (been really nice / taken that person to several expensive dinners / bought the person a drink / etc) is very entitled behavior.
There is no contradiction and barely any relationship between those two points. This sub-branch of comments was about the first issue (norms of communication). You raised my quote about the second issue (entitlement norms) as if it contradicts the communication norm, and I just don't see it.
Why? I realize this is a traditional social norm, but you seem to be in favor of doing away with traditional social norms related to sex.
Apocryphally, there once was a time when the sex norm was "no sex before marriage, minimal unchaperoned contact between sexes." When people say "traditional social norm" in the context of relationships, this is the one I assume is being referenced. One fictional presentation is Pride and Prejudice, which is set sometime between the late 1790s and the early 1810s in England.
Regardless of when, if ever, this norm was dominant, or if it was applied in a sex-neutral way, or any of the other critiques one might raise, the fact of the matter is that this norm is dying, if not dead, in the youth of the secular West.
The norm that replaced it is that sex is permissible, and is less frowned upon the more committed the relationship is. One night stands bad, sex later in the relationship ok. One archetypal example of this norm is The Rules (published in the 1990s), which is explicitly written as a guidebook for how women should act to maximize their utility (presuming that a certain understanding of marriage maximizes a woman's utility).
The problem with the current norms is that they create a sense that one does wrong not to have sex once the relationship has reached a certain, fairly low, level of commitment. Under the prevailing norms, if the guy has taken the girl to 4 or 6 or 8 very nice dates, he should expect sex. Much like how, after I put 6 quarters in a vending machine, I expect a soda. That's a very entitled view when dealing with another person's choices.
In short, I don't think the norm you discussed here is particularly traditional, in that both the chaperone-model and the modern-dating-model seem to incorporate it. If anything, it is more central to the modern-dating model, because the chaperone model could probably be made to function without it.
I am opposed to the current social norms about sexuality. But I don't think those are the traditional social norms about sexuality. Don't get me wrong, I'd oppose the traditional norms as well, but they are dying without any action on my part, and aren't really the topic of conversation in this thread.
This isn't quite the current norm yet (witness the negative reaction PUA tends to get on non-PUA sites). Although why shouldn't it become the norm?
Taboo "entitled". To use your example, is it entitled of me to expect a soda after putting 6 quarters into a vending machine.
Are there several not's missing for misplaced in that paragraph?
Sure, the actual norms in operation are more complicated than "Every woman follows The Rules." I think it is a reasonable generalization, and it certainly is a more accurate description than what I called the traditional sexuality norms.
That said, I think pushback to PUA comes from a variety of different sources:
- Unwillingness to admit we don't follow what I've called the traditional sexuality norms (including those who think this will help return us to those norms)
- Social activists advocating for additional changes to the sex norms
- Advocates of the current sex norms (such as they are) being upset about attempts to hack them
- Application of the general norm that we should be unwilling to explicitly examine our norms.
I decline to get into a separate fight that LW has shown itself unable to do with sufficient rationality. You are conflating a discussion about what the specific sex norms should be with a distinct discussion about whether being reflexive about what the norms are is a good idea.
It is not wrong of me to assert a moral right to receive the soda, because there is an explicit social understanding that essentially everyone has accepted. Further, analytical challenges to that understanding are met with reasoned arguments that follow from explicit premises. And those arguments acknowledge and accept the premises.
By contrast, there is not an explicit social understanding of sexuality. To the extent there is any consensus at all, the consensus is implicit, not explicit. Analytical challenges to the consensus are met with hostility. To the extent that reasoning is used against the challenges, it is often unwilling to accept the premises used to justify the conclusions.
"Don't be explicit about examining norms" is part of both traditional sexuality norms and "The Rules" sexuality norms. Beyond that, I'm not sure what you think I was trying to say, so I'm not sure how to clarify.
That seems to be taking considerable liberties with his argument. A vending machine, after all, can't possibly have any objection to dispensing a drink after money has been inserted into it. The vending machine has no desires or expectations in the transaction.
If you want a drink, you can buy one from a vending machine at a fixed rate, but that doesn't mean that you can count on being able to take the same six quarters and buy someone else's drink off them. They might be thirsty and not have another drink, and value the one they have more than six quarters. They might feel uncomfortable being approached by a stranger for such a transaction. For that matter, they might just say "here, I'll give you the drink, you clearly want it more than I do."
Expecting to be able to buy someone else's drink off them as if they were a vending machine reflects a significant degree of disregard for their wants and concerns. You're placing your own convenience in being able to rely on that transaction over whatever concerns might cause them to refuse. I think this is what TimS means by "entitlement."
I agree with that.
And that's another thing the OP missed. How about telling Jane how you feel, and though you want to be with her, the situation is unacceptable as is?
He seems to be unwilling to do this, thinking it will make him a bad guy who is "pressuring" her into sex. And certainly many would see it that way. Others would see it as him giving her the option of weighing the trade off herself. If he really wants to be with her, he should treat her like an adult and let her make her own choices.
Conversational implicatures can be cancelled.