LESSWRONG
is fundraising!
LW
$

by [anonymous]
2 min read
112

-26

David is an atheist. He is dating Jane, who is a devout Christian. They have a fairly good relationship, except in the sex department: David thinks that having regular sex is important in a relationship, whereas Jane would like to remain a virgin until marriage due to religious reasons. Before they became a couple, David assumed that not having sex was something that he could tolerate, since he liked Jane very much, and was really eager to be with her. However, as months go by, David has become increasingly frustrated with the lack of physical intimacy, and is beginning to consider breaking up with Jane, even though he is still very fond of her.


What would you advise David to do? Given my experience, I think the most common response would be to advise David to leave Jane. Some people might even say that David shouldn't have started the relationship with Jane in the first place, since he has known all along that she intends to remain a virgin until marriage. They say that, if he really loves her and respects her religious beliefs, he should not ask her to have sex before marriage. Instead, he should break up with her so that they may both go on to look for more suitable partners.

Why is it that nobody says that Jane shouldn't have started the relationship with David in the first place, since she has known all along that he thinks that sexual compatibility/activity is very important in a relationship? Why is that nobody says that if she really loves him and respects his values, she should not make him abstain, and should instead engage in sex with him? Why do her religious beliefs render her position more privileged?

Perhaps the response would be this: Well, the criticism is mostly directed at David because he is the one who went into the relationship with unrealistic views of what he can or cannot do. Besides, since Jane lay out the terms clearly before they became a couple, then she could hardly be faulted.

That is a reasonable response. But imagine if the situation were reversed: What if, while they were still discussing whether to commit to each other, David lay out the terms that Jane would be expected to have sex regularly with him? Even if she agreed, chances are that people would say that he should have respected her religious convictions. Those who criticise David might point out that perhaps Jane was very reluctant when agreeing to it, but thought that it was something on which she could compromise, and that David should not have put her in such a difficult position in the first place. Well, then, perhaps David was very reluctant when agreeing to not have sex as well, but thought that it was something on which he could compromise, and Jane should not have put him in such a difficult position in the first place.

The emotional harm done to Jane by making her engage in pre-marital sexual activity could be as severe as the emotional harm done to David by making him agree to abstain from pre-marital sexual activity, and yet few people acknowledge it, at least in my experience. Or maybe many people do acknowledge it, but nevertheless there are few of them who would admit it openly and defend David. Why is wanting sex worse than not wanting sex?

What is it about being religious that gives one the more privileged position in love?

 

Personal Blog

-26

The more privileged lover
New Comment
112 comments, sorted by
top scoring
Click to highlight new comments since:
Some comments are truncated due to high volume. (⌘F to expand all)Change truncation settings
[-]TimS300

What is it about being religious that gives one the more privileged position in love?

Look, sex needs a yes from every partner (at least two total "yes" responses). You're describing a "yes" and a "no." Thus, no sex. In terms of the sex act, it literally doesn't matter why one partner says no.

EDIT: Asking why we privilege "no" over "yes" is . . . let's just say problematic.

In terms of the relationship, I agree with the other commentators that the relationship you've described doesn't seem like it is going anywhere, and thus, has no reason to continue.

Reply
2saturn
I can see that someone who has made it beyond childhood without learning this (perhaps by willfully ignoring the answer) has a problem. But does asking, in itself, create an additional problem?
4TimS
Asking is not separately problematic from not internalizing the correct answer. But there is a social context, and we can't pretend we are writing on a blank slate. In the social context that exists, asking the question substantially raises an observer's probability that the questioner has not completely internalized the correct answer. Essentially, asking the question is somewhat like privileging the hypothesis. EDIT: Of course, there is mostly a problem because this particular topic (consent for sex) is so filled with conflict. With a topic that is less contentious, there is less reason to think that asking the question implies anything about what the questioner thinks See also this comment, describing the issue in terms of implicit assertions.
1Eugine_Nier
I agree ( possibly module details of exactly what constitutes consent). However, this is the kind of thing that's hard to justify on utilitarian grounds. For example, why does this apply to sex but not other forms of touching? To take an even more extreme example: what would you make of a Namboothiri's complaint that a Dalit got within 96 feet of him without his consent and thus caused him to become ritually polluted?
[-]Desrtopa180

In terms of utilitarian practicality, I'd say that prohibiting others from approaching within 96 feet of you is a far greater imposition on others than prohibiting others from having sex with you.

From a utilitarian point of view, it's not that having sex must always entail the consent of all participants, it's just that situations where no sex has worse consequences than nonconsensual sex (say, a person is given an ultimatum by sadistic pirates to rape a woman or have their village razed) are vanishingly rare and improbable.

Reply
-2Eugine_Nier
And these "worse consequences" are? How would you explain them to say the super-happies from Three Worlds Collide or for that matter to the human culture from Three Worlds Collide?
7Desrtopa
Greater total distress between the participants, and the broader community if applicable, over time. I don't know if the Superhappies could relate to the idea of reproductive defensiveness, and while I understand what Eliezer was going for with the human sexual culture in Three Worlds Collide, I think it's pretty unlikely that our culture will ever actually develop in that way. Reproductive defensiveness is a lot like sexual pleasure in that it varies in degree from person to person, but is probably, in a general way, hardwired into our species. For women particularly, inability to exercise choice in picking a reproductive partner could mean the difference between continuation and extinction of a genetic line. And speaking as a man, I've felt a repulsion from having sex with a partner (a "don't stick your dick in the crazy" response,) which was absolutely visceral. Having sex with the wrong partner can create disadvantageous social ties which can be positively ruinous for an individual. Some cases are necessarily going to be borderline; an individual can be ambivalent regarding whether to have sex with a particular partner or not. But when one allows others to push the borders of their willingness to engage in sex, they're liable to start down a slippery slope where it becomes more and more difficult to refuse sex they don't want (particularly if they acquire a reputation which travels between partners.) I've very often seen people who gave in to pressure to have sex they didn't want come away with long lasting regrets, whereas people who've gained long term satisfaction from sex they pressured a particular other person who didn't want it into having seem much harder to find.
8Oligopsony
How is it difficult to justify on utilitarian grounds? If one were both a deontologist and committed to elegance in one's theories, admittedly not the most common combination outside of ancaps, one might be in a poor place to say that one form of subjective harm must be resolved in favor of the offended party without saying so for all harms. But if you think that contingent facts matter, then you can just look at the world and see that rape produces these harms and ritual pollution does not. In fact, if you really squint you can just look and see that ritual pollution as such doesn't exist at all, unlike the brain's inborn mapping of me-ness onto a body. As it happens, contingently, there do seem to be - even beyond sex - ways of touching people that very generally do, and do not, make them uncomfortable. The fact that there's no remotely elegant way to distinguish between the two doesn't mean not touching people in ways that make them uncomfortable is almost always a bad idea! Bad touching is bad! So this does in fact seem to apply to touching in general, with the caveats that 1) for a lot of kinds of touching a norm like "prior, verbal, enthusiastic consent is required" would be unweildly, and we can take consent as the default instead, and 2) that while there is basically never outside of contrived ethical thought experiments a really great reason to have sex with someone against their consent, there are commonly if unfortunately really great reasons to physically restrain or even kill people without their consent.
2A1987dM
What value of “very generally” are you using? IME there are ways of touching people which would likely make (say) a American freak the hell out but would likely be barely noticed by (say) an Italian. EDIT: “IME” is nowhere near an unbiased sample of all human experience, so it is probably much more complicated than that. OTOH there's a female American LWer who described how uncomfortable she was when someone had kissed her on the cheeks, but I have a very hard time imagining that happening with a female Italian. (EDIT 2: To clarify, in informal contexts in Italy, kissing a woman on the cheeks is roughly analogous to shaking a man's hand -- I could imagine a woman not wanting her cheeks kissed or a man not wanting his hand shaken, but it'd most likely be someone they'd already have some reason to dislike.)
2Oligopsony
Generally enough in any given person's social context that they should have a decent but not infallible sense of what's acceptable. Obviously there's a great degree of cultural variation.
0Eugine_Nier
Would you consider that an acceptable justification for the treatment of Dalits? What about for a culture that permitted non-consensual sex?
6Oligopsony
See Yvain's parable of the salmon and Vladimir's reply. If there are people who are genuinely not make uncomfortable by suddenly having sex with them, and you know this, then sure. (That such people could exist on a culture-wide level I find tremendously implausible, but LCPW and all that.) Of course what we usually mean when we talk about "cultures that permit non-consensual sex" is ones where a husband can rape his wife all he likes, or just rape culture more generally, which is obviously a different axis of variation than how much personal space people tend to have.
0[anonymous]
The OP was about people from two different social contexts (atheists vs Christians), so that doesn't help that much. (And if you think that religion doesn't count as a social context, there have been places where people from different religious backgrounds have even had different native languages.)
5ThrustVectoring
Is it just me, or is non-consensual sex obviously a bad thing? And by bad, I mean orders of magnitude worse than how good consensual sex is. It would take an awful lot of happy sex to make up for non-consensual sex, and I support social policies that prevent non-consensual sex more than whatever the ratio is of happy sex that is of equivalent utility (you can't just support preventing non-consensual sex, because "nobody has sex ever" prevents non-consensual sex). Banning Dalits from going within 96 feet of Namboothiris has much more harm done to Dalits than Namboothiris' feelings of ritual pollution. This isn't the case with non-consensual sex. Furthermore, the feelings of ritual pollution can be avoided without Dalit cooperation, by the simple expediency of having Namboothiri-only isolated communities.
0prase
"Obviously bad" isn't a utilitarian justification. To play the Devil's advocate: 1. I expect you seriously underestimate the strength of Namboothiris' feelings. To us it seems like pure religious madness, moreover we feel outrage at the extreme inequality existing because of ancient caste prejudices, so we tend to sympathise with the Untouchables and regard the traditional Brahmin rights as unjust. But it doesn't seem that way from the Brahmin perspective. 2. Some of the unpleasantness connected with non-consensual sex is probably status related - being raped makes one lose a lot of status and we tend to avoid status loss. I wonder how much less serious problem would rape become in a society where the negative status effects were removed. We find it acceptable to solve the caste problem by rebuilding the society and changing the people's values - even when many people are objecting; why not attempt the same approach to rape? (Disclaimer: I think that caste society is unjust and I don't actually wish to change our society to be more rape-tolerant. But I am no utilitarian. This comment is a warning against creating fake utilitarian explanations of moral judgements made on non-utilitarian grounds.)
0A1987dM
I think that's also culture-related: there might have been cultures where in certain cases being raped is less of a status hit than consenting to sex with the same person, in which case someone might falsely claim to have been raped to avoid the status hit.
0Eugine_Nier
In many cultures including at least tradition Judeo-Christian ones adultery is a major sin and a betrayal of one's husband but being raped is not the victims fault so she can't really be blamed. Yes, this did cause some adulterers to claim to have been raped, heck fake rape allegations happen to this day.
4CronoDAS
To steel man this:
2TimS
Taboo "toughing." I don't know what you are referencing. EDIT: If the replies below are correct that this is a typo for "touching," then the answer to your question is that non-consensual touching is also not allowed. But it's not as big a deal because the misconduct is less harmful.
7CronoDAS
I think it's a typo for "touching".
2ThrustVectoring
I read it as a typo and that they meant to say "touching"
0Eugine_Nier
Yes it was a typo. As for your question, see my reply here.
2A1987dM
Ah, that makes sense. (I had guessed it generically meant “interactions you'd rather not participate in”, and was going to answer: “Does it really just apply to sex? I want to sell you my empty water bottle for $2000. You don't want to buy my empty water bottle for $2000 (and if I'm wrong about this, please PM me). Guess whose desire is going to stay unsatisfied, and why.”)
-2buybuydandavis
No it's not. He's not suggesting that anyone be forced to have sex. It's about differing preferences for levels of sexual intimacy. Why is the partner who wants more automatically the bad guy? The scenario is two people with different preferences that both can't be fulfilled simultaneously. Whether David gets his way, or Jane gets her way, one of them gives up what they want. Yes, religion is privileged as a source of values one is not supposed to question. But that is hardly all of it, and not primarily the issue, IMO. Jane could be an atheist, and still say she wants to wait until marriage. She would probably get slightly less sympathy for her position, but I don't think it would fundamentally change the situation. If David gives in, he's being respectful and considerate. If Jane does, she's being bullied, used, and some would probably claim raped. Why is the pro sex preference abusive, and the anti sex position unobjectionable? Some of it is anti sex bias. And some of it, as men's rights activists will point out, is anti male bias. Men are supposed to satisfy the needs of women. And women? They are to supposed to have their needs satisfied by men. Take any need or preference, and a man will get less sympathy for asserting that need than a woman, and less sympathy if he refuses his partner's need.
3TimS
I agree. The central point of my comment was that discussion of religion was a distraction, which is why I said that "it literally doesn't matter why one partner says no." I agree with army1987 that it is unclear whether the OP intended to invoke the gender dynamics in addition to the sex dynamics (but I recognize that you disagree). Regarding the having-sex dynamics, I don't have much to add to what I said above. Some . . . people are going to be assholes operating under the mistaken impression that you are a vending machine, and that if they feed you enough suck-up coins, you will dispense whatever it is they want. But that's not how any reasonable person should expect the world to work. Regarding the gender dynamic, I was avoiding mentioning it quite deliberately. I don't think this is an example of anti-male bias. No matter how sexually excited any man is, he is perfectly capable of not having sex - regardless of the context. Asserting otherwise is invoking the myth of the boner werewolf. Help me understand this question. When I have a car and you offer me money for it, your offer is pro-selling and my refusal is anti-selling. If you bully me enough and take the car, you run the risk of being accused of theft. So what? Criticizing me in that circumstance includes an implied premise about the appropriate amount of selling, and we generally leave those sorts of decisions to the individuals involved.
6buybuydandavis
Again, this looks like you're trying to school someone (this time me) on the issue of consent. I know that taking someone's car without their consent is theft. Why did you feel it necessary to explain that to me? The natural parallel in this discussion would be rape, but you just finished saying that you weren't suggesting that either. So what are you suggesting? Ok. People in relationships compromise on their preferences all the time. They do things to make their partner happy, which they wouldn't do if their partner didn't want to do it. Why is sex an area where any suggestion of compromise and having more sex than one would otherwise prefer is considered treating the less amorous partner as a "a vending machine"?
5wedrifid
Partial answer: Social norms (and quite possibly behavioral instincts) prefer sexual negotiations to be implicit rather than explicit. So for example saying outright "If you do not have sex---good sex--- with me at least twice a week I will leave you for another mate" is vulgar, coercive and also unlikely to work. On the other hand making equivalent behavioral signals that indicate that you are the kind of person who has sexual options and have the kind of personality that considers satisfying your preferences to be important and having the other person's instincts adjust to the implied incentives is basically just everyday social behavior.
3Eugine_Nier
Well, our culture has spent the past 50 years discarding a lot of traditional social norms about sex. Assuming you agree that we were right to discard those norms, why shouldn't that norm also be discarded?
5TimS
Yes! A THOUSAND times, Yes! But people who want to restore the traditional norms are not supportive of this effort.
1Eugine_Nier
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.)
8TimS
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.
0Eugine_Nier
To quote you:
0TimS
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."
0Eugine_Nier
So were you using "assholes" ironically there?
4TimS
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.
2Eugine_Nier
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.
2TimS
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
-1Eugine_Nier
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?
6TimS
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.
2Desrtopa
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."
2TimS
In fairness to Eugine's point, there are humans lurking somewhere behind the soda machine - the shareholders of the soda company, if no one else. However, steel-manning his point in that way doesn't address the remainder of your post. ---------------------------------------- EDIT: Thanks to wedrifid for suggesting better phrasing of my point. I endorse the linked version over my prior phrasing, which I leave as is for thread continuity.
1wedrifid
Surely "steel manning" what Desrtopa was replying must at the very least make it as reasonable as a literal interpretation of the words. If not then the very concept would seem to be devalued. In this case, Eugine was asking for an explanation of what the word 'entitled' is supposed mean. This seems necessary since it is clear that the intent is to convey strong connotations that those not familiar with feminist jargon may not be familiar with. After all, in some circles an 'entitled' attitude has positive connotations and refers to a somewhat different set of observable behavioral tendencies. (This is not to say that I expect you to steel man Eugine. It may be legitimate for you and Desrotopa to assume Eugine is asking that question only with the intent to follow it up with some other provocative point---that even seems likely. However if making those assumptions you are no longer entitled to call what you are doing 'steel manning'. )
0TimS
For what it is worth, I don't think "entitled" is feminist jargon. As a lawyer, I would say the general usage of "entitled to X" is: When someone criticizes you for having an entitled attitude, they have an implicit premise that you don't have the moral right that you claim. Thus:
0wedrifid
(Not exclusively, no. That is merely where your intended usage is most common and the most relevant to the context.) The strong negative moral connotations you intend when you use that word are not universally associated with the word itself. It is often used very differently by subcultures. That is, "entitled" is also used as a non-morally-loaded description and even as a compliment. As such sometimes someone (in this case Eugine) may inquire about your meaning, giving you the chance to make your claim clear, as you have done here.
0TimS
Sure, the negative connotation applies only when the implicit premise of "lack of moral right" is also present. I think the presence of that implicit premise can be determined by context, like my example at the end of my post. I didn't write it that way in my own response to Eugine because my experience is that discussions about object-level brute moral facts lead down an irrational rabbit hole in this venue.
0wedrifid
I agree, and certainly I had no trouble following your meaning. Mind you I tend to distance myself from such utterances because they convey a way of thinking about morality that I must emulate as if speaking a foreign language. Absolutely.
0TimS
I don't understand your recommendation for my future actions. Desrotopa said something that could be interpreted as "asserting a moral right to a position that hurts the soda machine does not hurt any human being." That is not precisely true, because harms to the soda machine are harms to the owner of the soda machine - and eventually, that reasoning traces to a human being. I was trying to improve Eugine's argument by including that point (tracing back to humans) explicitly. That is, I predict a reasonable person asserting Eugine's positions would express the point I made. I wouldn't have do that if I didn't think it made Eugine's overall argument better. I think the point is valid, as far as it goes, but it doesn't address all of Desrtopa's points. In my experience, explicitly laying out the points of agreement and disagree enhances rational argument by focusing attention on the disagreement. If that's not what you think steel-manning should mean, so be it. Saying the other side's arguments in ways they would agree with, for the purpose of clarifying a disagreement, is at least potentially rationality enhancing. If Eugine finds it unhelpful, I'll stop doing it with him. If he thinks I mis-stated his position, then I will correct.
2wedrifid
The quote from Eugine being responded to was: The description you made was less reasonable than a literal interpretation of Eugine's request. Therefore it cannot be said to be a steel man. At best it could be said to be "steel manning Desrtopa's straw man". This is an improvement but still not a steel man of Eugine's claims. Saying that it is a steel man (and in the process suggesting that even then it is inadequate) both sends a false message about Eugine's words and devalues the 'Steel Man' process. So that cannot possibly be said that you do not understand my recommendation for future actions: In similar circumstances do not say this: To be clear, let me disclaim that I heartily endorse the other part of the comment, which was: The above does all those virtuous things that you describe in the parent.
2TimS
That makes sense. Thus, better phrasing of my intended point would be:
-1buybuydandavis
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.
1A1987dM
Conversational implicatures can be cancelled.
0[anonymous]
Good luck.
-3buybuydandavis
That doesn't really address the issue, because being explicit cuts both ways, whether a sexual advance or a sexual rebuff. But your "everyday social behavior" strikes me as quite dysfunctional. To put a relationship under continual threat on an everyday basis strikes me as extremely harmful to a relationship, and I believe I've read research to that effect. People should expect that their mates will leave them if they're unhappy with the relationship, but making that a prominent subtext of everyday give and take seems quite unpleasant to me.
1wedrifid
You are disapproving of a straw man. Things like 'continual threat on an everyday basis' are (once again) your construction, not mine. My judgement tells me it is time for me to embrace the BANTA and leave this thread. Neither the subject ("let's decide who to shame and blame!") nor the style seem desirable.
0buybuydandavis
You wrote: I wrote: Doesn't look like a straw man to me, but have fun embracing the Banta.
0Desrtopa
This is a way in which people compromise in relationships all the time. Plenty of couples have sex more than one partner wants, because the other partner pressures them into it. There's a big difference between this and a situation where one partner, knowing that the other partner wants it, still says no, and the other partner forces sex anyway. But that being said, couples that need to compromise a lot on things that are important to them tend to be considerably less happy together than ones who agree on the matters that are important to them, and a high degree of sexual compromise isn't a healthy sign for a relationship.
-7buybuydandavis
0A1987dM
Did you read my mind or something? :-)
0wedrifid
Of course he is perfectly capable of not having sex. I don't think anyone was doubting that (or even saying anything that used that as a background assumption).
2TimS
When we talk about reducing rape risk in terms of women dressing less sexy, the unstated implication is that men won't be able to resist their sexual urges.
3buybuydandavis
wedrifid: Yes. That was yet another instance where you said something as if people needed to hear it, where I had not suggested otherwise in any way, and neither did the OP. Who here is part of that "we"? Are you? "We" should imply that you are part of that group. Are you? That's not my unstated assumption, and I doubt it's an assumption held by anyone here.
1TimS
Then I'm confused by this entire conversation. Relevant quotes: or
-4buybuydandavis
IMO, mugasofer expressed himself poorly to begin with when he said "getting away with it risk", and despite your efforts to make the distinction between that and desirability risk, he continued to treat that phrase as if it meant "getting raped risk". If you go through his responses, they're consistent with the latter, and not the former, and he states explicitly and A short skirt doesn't entitle anyone to rape, and he is clear on that. And I don't see anyone even touching on the idea you posed: All I see is the implication that more men won't resist, not that more men won't be able to resist.
4TimS
But men do resist. They risk all the time. The majority of male responses to sexual desire is to resist.
-2[anonymous]
I'm not sure, Eneasz's comments in this thread seemed to be at least going in that direction.
1TheOtherDave
If you have to act in one of a few specific ways in order to fulfill my preference, and I can fulfill your preference by refraining from acting in a few specific ways, a bias in favor of your preference being fulfilled over mine can in some cases be explained without further reference to our personal attributes, or to attributes of the specific acts themselves. Is this one of those cases? Perhaps; perhaps not. Bald assertion one way or the other isn't terribly convincing.
[-]Qiaochu_Yuan150

You ask several questions of the form "why is X true?" without first addressing the more basic question "is X true?" I dispute your framing of the situation and agree with the other commenters (commentators?), especially TimS.

Even if you want to vigorously defend the point of view that David has a right to sexual satisfaction, it does not follow that David has a right to sexual satisfaction with Jane.

Reply
0A1987dM
Provided they are mono (which given everything else in the post seems extremely likely), so long as they don't break up David doesn't have a right to sexual satisfaction with either Jane (because of her religion) or anyone else (because they're in a mono relationship).
8DanielLC
He has the right to leave the relationship with Jane.
[-]A1987dM140

I would have switched the gender of the two partners, because otherwise that pattern-matches a stereotype which had better be kept separate from the issue you're discussing.

Reply
-2buybuydandavis
Except that gender is part of the issue. Switch the genders, and the sympathy for each character does not remain the same in the general population.
2A1987dM
Then part of the reason why people sympathize more with Jane is her gender, not just her religion; and AFAICT the OP meant to discuss the latter, not the former.
0buybuydandavis
I think he meant to discuss why people sympathize more with Jane, and mistakenly inferred that the cause was a preferential attitude toward religious belief.
[-]wedrifid90

Why is it that nobody says that Jane shouldn't have started the relationship with David in the first place

They do say that as well. Some outright say that Jane is sinning by 'unevenly yoking' herself.

, since she has known all along that he thinks that sexual compatibility/activity is very important in a relationship?

All else being equal it is better for people to look after their own preferences than for others to mind read them and do it for them.

Reply
[-]Eneasz80

This couple dodged a bullet. Sexual incompatibility is just as bad as ideological incompatibility, and they've got both. They should both thank their lucky stars and move on.

I'm assuming you're American. In our crazy sex-negative culture the status quo is that sex doesn't matter when people "love" each other, which is complete bullshit. So whenever there's a sexual incompatibility issue the received wisdom is that the party who wants less sex is in the right. This is simply another case of society being mad.

Reply
[-]wedrifid130

So whenever there's a sexual incompatibility issue the received wisdom is that the party who wants less sex is in the right.

They are totally in the right. If they don't want sex with their partner then it is quite right for them to not have sex. And also quite right for them to expect to have to find a new partner (or come to a polyamorous arrangement). ie. Don't try to fight the 'right', just choose the BATNA.

Reply
3Eneasz
Sorry, that came out sounding wrong. The right to say no is paramount, I didn't mean to imply that one party should "put out" more. What I meant was that our culture generally ignores the importance of sexual compatibility, to the point that it's implied it shouldn't be considered as a factor in relationships at all. As such, the unhappy party in a sexually incompatible couple is always seen as in the wrong, because if they "really loved" the other person than something as trivial as sex shouldn't break up a "perfectly good" relationship. This perverse downplaying of one of the most important aspects of a romantic relationship has lead to huge amounts of entirely avoidable heartbreak and divorce. Every decent pre-marriage questionnaire or councilor includes questions about financial styles, parenting, and life goals, but almost none ask "What is the optimal amount of sex?" - even though this should be a required question in big bold letters! Sexual compatibility is important, and society is stupid for ignoring it.
1wedrifid
Don't they? Really? That's a really bizarre oversight if so. I've usually had that question come up even pre "actually formally calling it a relationship" conversations.
4Eneasz
Well, it probably varies based on where you live. It was certainly was a blind spot in my teen/young adult environment, so I'm very aware of it. Much of America is still stuck in the pre-sexual dark ages.
-2buybuydandavis
Do you apply that to everything in a relationship? Is someone who wants the other partner to stop talking to them also "totally in the right"?
1wedrifid
Yes. It isn't an especially controversial or remarkable standard. "All else being equal people can do what they want to, particularly regarding the disposition of their own person, so long as it does not interfere with other people". It is a valid preference for them to the have and in they are "totally in the right" in expecting to be left alone if they actively seek privacy. The "right" to have another person unable to speak doesn't follow. Responding to the inferred intent of your questions I'd like to emphasize the phrase in the grandparent "just choose the BATNA". Thinking through the implications of that you may find that my position isn't quite as objectionable as your first impression suggests. Someone being "in the right" when doing a thing doesn't preclude dumping them the instant they do it and finding someone more suitable. That too is a 'right' (for whatever that is worth).
-1buybuydandavis
Ok. That seems to be a distinction. Rights as prerogatives versus right as approved of. Someone has "a right" to say "my way or the highway in all things" in a relationship. But I wouldn't call such a person "totally in the right", I'd call them totally a douchebag.
3wedrifid
The "in all things" was your addition, and yes, that does seem to make them a douchebag. An alternative that seems more in accord to your agenda here is "if my sexual needs are not met". Is that not the practical outcome you are advocating? Or do you explicitly need for the less sexual partner to be labelled 'bad' by external observers for the scenario to be satisfying to you?
-2buybuydandavis
Need is an extremely loaded term that I rarely find helpful. There is one's preferred optimal level, there are less than optimal levels that one is willing to accept, and less than optimal levels that one will not accept. If that second zone is a null set, you are something of a douchebag, barring hypothetical gymnastics. An unwillingness to trade of any of your preferences for the good of your relationship or your partner does make you a douchebag. This gets a little more complicated in binary situations, where it's not the amount of sex, but whether you have any at all. As some have pointed out (maybe you?) there are ways to make that less binary, and find mutually agreeable alternatives, so that again, zone 2 is non empty. No, only that the same potential exists for them to be labelled as bad as their more sexed partners. That's the point of the original - why is the partner who wants more automatically the bad guy?
0A1987dM
The first “right” is a countable noun, the second “right” is an adjective except in the phrase “in the right”, so in any given context they're distinguishable.
-2A1987dM
Note that you're not actually giving a low-complexity ‘first principle’ from which to derive stuff, but merely hiding complexity away into the word “interfere” -- ‘normal’ humans (who already know what you're saying on some level) will understand (except possibly in borderline cases), but try explaining to an alien or an AI what exactly counts as “interference” and what doesn't.
0wedrifid
Just? If you think that my statement doesn't do anything more than hide complexity then you are mistaken in a sense very similar to this. I was referring to a human concept that a reasonable human could be expected to at least approximately understand. That's why we have words. Many things are hard to explain in full reduced detail. Sometimes it appropriate to attempt such an explanation. Sometimes it is better to just say "It's a tiger".
-2A1987dM
I didn't clearly express what I was thinking. Edited -- is it better now?
0wedrifid
The same reply applies. You have given a much more detailed explanation of a principle that does not fit the context. Lack of clarity was never a problem.
[-]Shmi50

Uh, seems like a wrong forum for this. Anyway, why don't they compromise by engaging in oral or even saddlebacking?

Reply
-3A1987dM
I think that the official position of the Catholic Church is that deliberately ejaculating somewhere other than into your wife's vagina is bad, no matter where that is.
3wedrifid
Which church, precisely? (It wasn't, for example, in the one I was raised in.)
0A1987dM
Edited it in. You mean vaginal sex with someone you weren't yet married to wasn't OK but anal sex in the same circumstance was?
5wedrifid
No, saddlebacking was not considered OK. I was specifically replying to your quote about deliberately ejaculating somewhere other than into your wife's vagina being bad. There are all sorts of potential ejaculations that are not outlawed by my church but are outlawed by that rule. For example there was no explicit rules forbidding masturbation or oral sex (the latter within marriage). Nor any rules forbidding ejaculation into sample containers at a medical clinic for the purpose of IVF, for that matter.
0A1987dM
Now that I think about it, I can't remember Catholics explicitly forbidding oral sex, either, though I can't recall them endorsing it either (unlike vaginal sex during the woman's infertile days), so I'm assuming they aren't technically OK with it. They do clearly forbid IVF (which is one of the zillion reasons why Angels and Demons by Dan Brown is ridiculous), though, since many of them are kind-of sort-of reasonable, I wouldn't expect that to make much of a fuss about semen analyses (given that the pleasure of the orgasm isn't the point, and figuring out whether you haven't had a baby yet because of bad luck or because you're sterile is).
[-][anonymous]10

I think you are brave in raising an interesting point. The general consensus is that the negative freedom to deny sex is more important than the positive freedom to choose sex. Some things in society give more status to the positive freedom, and more status to other negative freedoms. A contrasting example to the one you have illustrated is a shop keeper serving people. The general concensus is that the right of a customer to choose a product is more important than the right of a shop keeper to deny that person service (say on the basis of the colour of their skin).

Reply
3Richard_Kennaway
In law, the shopkeeper has a general right to refuse service to anyone. Discrimination law makes explicit exceptions to that general principle. At least, that is the law in the UK, and I believe in the US as well. Similarly, someone who wants to buy something has the right to decline to do business with anyone. As yet, I don't think any exceptions to that have been made in law. Custom agrees with the general principle that associations of whatever sort between people are made only by the agreement of both parties. This applies even to the newer forms of association that have been invented in recent years. For example, Facebook friendship must be offered and accepted, in order to be created, and can be terminated by either party at will.
[-]buybuydandavis10

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.

Reply
7drethelin
I downvoted because it came to a dumb conclusion after analyzing a vague situation in a shitty way.
0TimS
I didn't downvote, and I don't think he was advocating rape.
1buybuydandavis
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?
2TimS
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.
-2Eugine_Nier
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.
-2TimS
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."
0Eugine_Nier
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.
-3buybuydandavis
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.
-2TimS
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?
1buybuydandavis
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.
-1buybuydandavis
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.
0[anonymous]
Some people decree standards of what is required for 'consent' that others do not agree with.
Moderation Log
112Comments