How do you – or how does anyone – think Roko’s sentiment could have been rephrased to not come across as objectifying? The only change obvious to me is making it clear that money and status are not sufficient conditions for sexual success, but I doubt that’s a significant part of the problem.
“Get” is a large part of what bothers me. I don’t like your first statement—“women are attracted to rich men” is still a disturbing generalization even if this attraction isn’t supposed to lead to “getting” anybody, and I’m not terribly comfortable with the implied goal of just “sleeping with attractive women” (although I won’t ethically condemn that goal as long as it’s pursued honestly). But the second statement is definitely worse.
How do you – or how does anyone – think Roko’s sentiment could have been rephrased to not come across as objectifying? The only change obvious to me is making it clear that money and status are not sufficient conditions for sexual success, but I doubt that’s a significant part of the problem.
See here.
ok, I see your issue. You’re OK with
but not
Do I understand you correctly? It’s the “get” that bothers you?
“Get” is a large part of what bothers me. I don’t like your first statement—“women are attracted to rich men” is still a disturbing generalization even if this attraction isn’t supposed to lead to “getting” anybody, and I’m not terribly comfortable with the implied goal of just “sleeping with attractive women” (although I won’t ethically condemn that goal as long as it’s pursued honestly). But the second statement is definitely worse.
Well, the goal could be to cause it to be the case that one has an unusually attractive wife, as in my case.
So having concluded that talk of “getting” women is a big part of why I don’t like the things you say, you go on to use it again immediately?
Oh no! I’m really sorry, I didn’t realize I had done that!
Ugh. Did you edit the word “get” to “cause it to be the case that one has”?