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.

NancyLebovitz comments on Open thread, Oct. 5 - Oct. 11, 2015 - Less Wrong Discussion

7 Post author: MrMind 05 October 2015 06:50AM

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

Comments (346)

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

Comment author: NancyLebovitz 13 October 2015 05:41:29PM 0 points [-]

Now, at first blush the usual Manospherean reason suggests itself: This proposal unsettles women because they find most men sexually repulsive, even though in monogamous societies where most women have to marry ordinary men and have sexual relationships with their allegedly yucky husbands, they find the experience tolerable and they make a go of it.

It's possible that what he meant was that women shouldn't be allowed to have sex with the men they choose. Instead, they can either be celibate or learn to tolerate sex with men they don't choose. Is this how you interpret what aa said?

Comment author: Jiro 13 October 2015 06:55:19PM 2 points [-]

He wanted to ban sex outside of marriage. Describing that as "can't have sex with the men you choose" is misleading, because it's such a noncentral example of that. It's literally true (if you choose someone outside of marriage, you're not allowed to have sex with him) but the same could be said for banning sex on public busses (if you choose someone on a public bus, you're not allowed to have sex with him).

Furthermore, I find it hard to accept that "ban sex outside of marriage" is such a bigoted policy that anyone who espouses it should not be allowed here. (And it's not even restricted to women--he just thinks the policy would affect women differently than men.)