You're looking at Less Wrong's discussion board. This includes all posts, including those that haven't been promoted to the front page yet. For more information, see About Less Wrong.

Lumifer comments on Open thread, September 15-21, 2014 - Less Wrong Discussion

6 Post author: gjm 15 September 2014 12:24PM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (339)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: Lumifer 16 September 2014 06:34:30PM 8 points [-]

Let's first separate sexual aspects from the need for other companionship

It's not self-evident to me that they are separable.

Comment author: hyporational 17 September 2014 03:52:37PM 2 points [-]

When my heterosexual male friends tell me companionship isn't about sex I ask them how many male companions they've had. Not many, I've gathered from the silence.

Comment author: Lumifer 17 September 2014 04:00:06PM 5 points [-]

how many male companions they've had.

For hetero males the usual term for male companions is "close friends". I bet the great majority have some.

But go ask some hetero women whether they think sex and companionship are well-separable :-/

Comment author: Azathoth123 19 September 2014 03:37:26AM 6 points [-]

Also I get the feeling 21th century Americans have fewer close friends than the historical human norm.

Comment author: Lumifer 19 September 2014 05:33:37AM 2 points [-]

I don't know what the "historical human norm" is and I suspect there is a lot of variation there.

Comment author: Azathoth123 20 September 2014 08:02:41PM 3 points [-]

Try reading literature written before the past 50 years and preferably before the 20th century. That will give you an idea.

Comment author: Lumifer 21 September 2014 12:43:32AM 3 points [-]

Try reading literature written before the past 50 years and preferably before the 20th century.

I am afraid Victorian England is not all that representative of the historical human norm.

Comment author: Azathoth123 23 September 2014 03:22:47AM 4 points [-]

I wasn't primarily thinking of Victorian England. Also "before the 20th century" isn't just the 19th century.

Comment author: hyporational 17 September 2014 04:07:33PM *  2 points [-]

In Finnish the connotations of "companion" are more obviously sexual I see, at least in my circles.

Comment author: Lumifer 17 September 2014 04:16:24PM 3 points [-]

It's probably a language issue, in standard English the word "companion" has no sexual overtones.

More to the point, this subthread is explicitly about separating sex from companionship.

Comment author: EStokes 20 September 2014 02:45:55PM 0 points [-]

Ah, but it's quite likely that they're heteroromantic as well as heterosexual.

Comment author: hyporational 20 September 2014 04:14:29PM 1 point [-]

Perhaps, but why haven't I come across any homoromantic heterosexuals or heteroromantic homosexuals?

Comment author: EStokes 20 September 2014 04:21:00PM *  1 point [-]

AFAIK people with mismatched romantic and sexual orientations, though very much existent, are quite rare and the -romantic terms are most often used by asexual spectrum people to describe their romantic preferences.

Comment author: hyporational 20 September 2014 04:31:17PM 2 points [-]

Asexuals with romantic orientations came across my mind too. I can't imagine romantic and sexual orientations as separate, but the stakes aren't high enough for me to commit the typical mind fallacy so I'll keep my mind open to the possibility :)