= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
heteronormatizes the content
Seems to reflect the content reasonably well actually, since it's a man reflecting on his experience with women...
...true. But as I say here, I'd like to think that Luke intends the material to be more possible to generalize than merely about how men should deal with women, though the concrete examples his personal experience and pursued knowledge provide are relevant to the experience of a man in pursuit of women. In other words, these are "Rationality Lessons Learned from Irrational Adventures in Romance", not "How to Become Vir Sapientior and Get the Girl of Your Dreams".
Color me marginalized.
In response to
comment
by
[deleted]
on
Rationality Lessons Learned from Irrational Adventures in Romance
Exactly! Instead of this being a generic discussion of how maybe you can get the romantic utilons you want from more than one person, suddenly it's about the conflict between the educated man's logical evolutionarily dictated interest being directed towards multiple concubines, and the irrational woman's investment in marriage, imposed upon her by society. The shot's composition itself supports this, with the man clearly on top by virtue of more than just being naturally taller.
Is all this Luke's intent? Well, I'd like to think not, especially given his comments about trying to reduce the perception of misogynistic tones in the piece. But as he is a heterosexual man (yes? as far as I've been able to tell Luke's not bisexual or at least didn't present that way during the time period of these stories, please correct me if I'm wrong) Luke's story doesn't deviate from these norms, and the picture is definitely reinforcement.
I think that the picture detracts from the article. It's a deviation from most other LW pages, heteronormatizes the content, and in addition since the in-picture and out-of-picture background is white, the people look like cutouts in this really awkward way.
In response to
Building Weirdtopia
10% of women have never had an orgasm.
I think this is way too optimistic for a sexual dystopia.
In response to
How to incentivize people doing useful stuff on Less Wrong
The thing is that in the current karma model, karma simply can't be treated as currency, because every time someone upvotes something, that karma is drawn anew from the aether, it's not a transfer of existing electronic karma bills or anything like that. You can't even say there's an infinite bank it comes from, because there's not. Karma currently exists only as a ranking, and although that's a goal in itself for some people, I'd say it's not for everyone.
In response to
How to incentivize people doing useful stuff on Less Wrong
Are there people willing to purchase LessWrong karma with Second Life dollars, World of Warcraft money, or even real US dollars?
If it were possible to sell LessWrong karma for a dollar a point, some people could quit their jobs and write for LessWrong full time.
One problem is that this would in itself probably devalue karma against the dollar.
An alternate system would be to add another button next to 'thumbs up' that would use paypal to pay people a dollar directly for a clever comment or $5 for a post.
(This raises an interesting question: Would the karma system be more informative if we had no downvotes? As it stands, a karma of +/- 2 is usually a strong signal; but for a controversial comment, that doesn't rise above the noise.)
LW Karma is in all objectivity worth less than a dollar a point. You can earn twenty karma just for a statement being particularly witty even if it's fairly obvious to the clever in the context of the post made, such as saying "I'm not!" in response to a post characterizing LWers as contrarian. Then we're asking where the money comes from -- singinst can't have that kind of money in its coffers, they're not just going to ship $100 to anyone who's lurked on the site long enough to rack up a hundred points. At this value I'd peg karma closer to a cent.
Because it's not like there's clear evolutionary evidence for other potential reasons to have sexual attraction, right?
Most people demonstrate heterosexual behavior in modern heteronormative society. There is a huge difference between this and the generalization "most people are heterosexual".
If "is heterosexual" is determined by "sexually attracted to given gender" and sexual attraction to genders is mostly controlled by the sexual normativity of a society (is this the case? I believe so but I notice I have no evidence) then there is less of a difference between the two than you'd think.
Basically I distinguish "capable of experiencing sexual feelings towards" from "will ever actually have an experience with", here. It's like saying that "I'll, like, never fall in love with a black man" (due to the demographics of my current location) versus "I never could fall in love with a black man". It seems to me that the logical extension of these principles is that people may be capable of sexual feelings differing from the sexual norms of their society, to a greater extent than deviation already present, but do not articulate, understand, acknowledge, or have opportunity to experience these feelings. (There has to be a more sophisticated way to phrase this than "almost everyone is secretly a little bisexual", because that of course dramatically oversimplifies the matter and gives the wrong mouthfeel, but.)
Most people are heterosexual. Anyway, you obviously are angry at me from our exchange in the racism thread. Please don't go around digging up my old posts to respond to just out of anger. Instead, you might ask yourself why exactly you are feeling angry. Could there be cognitive dissonance at work?
Most people demonstrate heterosexual behavior in modern heteronormative society. There is a huge difference between this and the generalization "most people are heterosexual". In ancient Greece, "most people" (or men, anyway) were capable of having both pederastic relationships and productive heterosexual marriage. I have no data but I'd really like to see some, on how much societal norms affect orientation. Which is itself a relatively new concept.
= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d){kind=logo}
I presume that tenshiko isn't suggesting a photo of a gay couple. Tenshiko is suggesting no picture. Kevin's point does still seem relevant in that context however.
You predict my opinion correctly - as I've said elsewhere I have other aesthetic concerns due to the picture itself. At the very least I think it'd look much better with a colored background, because of the cutout effect I mention.