= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
pencilears comments on Interlude with the Confessor (4/8) - 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 (90)
alright, you've taunted me into posting. girds my uterus
I wasn't going to post just because weird and anti-female ideas about what sexuality should be in an ideal world are obsequious to science fiction. the idea that women should be nude all the time is a common example, or just that sexuality should be free from emotional commitment (drama), that sex should be considered healthful and natural to be engaged in with as many people as possible with no jealousy or competition. that these ideas are common to science fiction says more to me about what kind of person writes science fiction and what they think of sex than what would be realistic or reasonable. but this series references the ship having it's own 4chan, realism is not to be expected and I understand that.
it's just, I wish the author had thought about what non-consensual sex, about what rape as a concept, as a thing used to torture and to dominate women, really meant before tossing it off as a badly explained line about how much more mature and well adjusted this polyglot culture of the future is.
does the author mean that in this supposed shining utopia of the future that a person can attack another person if the context is sexual? does it mean that all ideas of pair bonding, of marriage and commitment between equals has been abandoned in favor of one night stands? were those stands initiated through an attack, through an impingement on another person's right to autonomy? does it mean that rape in the context of arranged marriages between unwilling strangers is the norm?
this is not explained. rape is legal, that's all there is to it. rape of the underage, rape of the indigent, rape of minors, legal of course, the right of a free society. as far as this was explained.
it seems odd to me that a people so viscerally opposed to cultural infanticide would condone sexual attack.
because that is what rape is, it is an attack. is harming people in other ways legal as well? can I go out for a night on the town of stabbing people? no?
anyway, allow me this moment to object, as rationally as I can, as a person in actual possession of a working vagina, against the idea that rape is, was, or could be, legalized or condoned in any way.
if by rape the author did not mean rape, as many commenters suggest as a defense, then he is either insufficiently articulate or misguided, if he did not mean Rape-rape, but merely snuggle-kisses-rape-hugs then that intent should be better reflected in the text itself. as it is not I am forced to conclude that by rape, the author meant the forcible unwanted sexual victimization and attack on a person or persons by another person or persons.
I would suggest the author examine the blowback around the idea of the Open Source Boob Project for more articulate arguments about the right of women to posses their own bodies. http://feministing.com/archives/009066.html
For context, see also the original "Open Source Boob Project" article.
fair enough.
I don't think this future society was intended to be perfect or utopian or a recommendation for how we should develop. I don't think that EY is seriously (or non-seriously) suggesting that society would be better with decriminalized rape.
Rather, this is most likely an expression of the principle that the future will contain things that we would consider a moral outrage, just as every century in recorded history so far has contained things that the people of one or two centuries previous to them would have considered a moral outrage.
There's a lot of discussion in this comment thread already looking at the question from different angles, and I recommend you take the time to look through it.
I agree, though, that the logical implications are not well-thought-out. Can I delay or prevent someone from getting from point A to point B by accosting them in the hallway for sex? What if three people all decide they want sex with the same person at once? Twelve people? A hundred? At a certain point, sexual intercourse is an unavoidably rivalrous good this side of forking uploads.
I wonder how much fiction has been written about fucking forking uploads.
Legal does not mean "accepted". For us you could replace it with hugging: "Can I delay or prevent someone from getting from point A to point B by hugging them in the hallway? What if three people all decide they want to hug same person at once? Twelve people? A hundred?"
Most interaction between people is controlled by people losing social status when behaving wrong, and some mild violence (mostly pushing away) for more extreme misbehavior. Laws are only needed for really extreme cases.
My first thought was that the word "rape" must have come to mean something different, for example maybe it's been redefined so that women can still rape men, but a man who forces himself upon a woman is assaulting her, not "raping" her. Changes like this happen in language/culture. (As in the Old Testament, wherein the only reason lesbians aren't sentenced to death is that Moses didn't think of sex as something women could do, but only have done TO them.) But this would have been trivially easy to make clear (ten more words of exposition from the Confessor would have done it), and the author didn't bother.
It seems as though the author was trying to show that The Future Is Shocking and Offensive. It most certainly will be. But the culture we see isn't consistent with the Hey Rape Is Legal Now bombshell, and he's made no attempt to reconcile them. So, yes, the conclusion we're left with is that either the author doesn't understand what rape is, or doesn't care.
I am from the actual future - four years after you posted this - and ... what?
Seriously, if your future self is around and can clarify here it would help immensely.
Jerry_ hasn't commented on LW since January 2010.
... maybe this will be his surprise return!
Maybe?
Think about Free Speech. People have the right to lie to you, to say anything they want to you. A stranger can walk up to you on the street and say horrible, uncomfortable, distress-causing sequences of words and symbols to you, and theres not really much you can do to stop it. Why should a person be allowed to say to you a thing that is not true, a thing that you do not want to hear, just in the interest of his own free expression? Now just include sexuality to be included under the umbrella of free expression, blur the lines between mental and physical pain and discomfort, and there you go. And before anyone assumes that this kind of reasoning makes me at all pro-rape or sympathetic to the idea of it, please know that i personally consider Free Speech laws to actually be in their ultimate effect, regressive and detrimental to veracity within the sociopolitical spectrum. That which is true is sustained by its own evidence and merits, only insanity and falsehood needs establishment power to prop it up.
We are just simply too good at taking our own norms for granted. Thank you for explaining this in a way I can really get behind.
I think we sometimes forget that not only is all ethics relative, but that we have skewed weightings based on what is 'normal'. The number of people driven to depression and suicide by legal means...
I wonder, if certain negative strains of human social interaction were made illegal, and guiltworthy, while rape was made legal, and we waited for a couple hundred years, would people still rank them in the same order? If rape was something to 'get over', while surprise polygamy (trying for a word with as few connotations as possible - couldn't find anything) and bullying were horrible events to 'survive'...
Hmm, it's certainly a good question. Now, since I'm not a rape victim, I couldn't presume to guess very accurately, but perhaps the knowledge that it's a bad thing reinforces that it's a bad thing? I can't help but draw a rather unfortunate parallel with the broad range of human experiences that are scary at first, and then enjoyable. Before I get voted down into submission, consider that I have used the most physical descriptions I can, since those are the ones we are less likely to change.
In the least offensive way possible, would we want to go bungee jumping (again) if it was treated as a terrible thing? If we were told it was terrible our entire lives, then forced into doing it? Traumatic in the extreme. Consider, however, that some people are pushed in these heights-based sports. Off cliffs, out of airplanes, onto ziplines. They enjoy it in the end, so it's ok, right? Would they enjoy it if they weren't supposed to? If it was rape?
Interesting questions.
Don't worry for my morality, if this musing leaves you fearing for your orifices. I'm a perfectly well-adjusted nihilist, who values his continued (enjoyable) existence enough not to do anything silly.