I’m not voting on this because, um, well, okay. I completely understand your point about how “monogamy good, non-monogamy bad” is largely a cached thought, but a part of my current beliefs it is nonetheless. Does it pay rent? Well, in our current monogamy-dominated society, it does pay in the form that “if you are a faithful partner you will be appreciated and if you are an ‘unfaithful’ partner you experience negative consequences”, but whether polygamy is actually optimal is another question entirely. Whether “relationships that are purely sexual are damaging to all parties involved and sexual relationships should always be tied to reciprocated romatnic feelings” pays the same amount of rent, god knows what. Extricating genuine harm caused by the actions themselves from the intense shame and other negativity that’s culturally imposed is way too difficult. That and as a virgin I’m really not qualified to speak on that matter at all. So all these are points in your favor, but I have reservations.
I find the paragraph after the “Rationality Lessons from Romance” somewhat confusing in its structure and had to reread it a second time, but cannot put my finger on exactly why it confused me on the first reading, now that I understand it.
But what REALLY puts a bad taste into my mouth is the casual mention that you basically slept with several different women for research purposes. This is due to a combination of the aforementioned cached thoughts, and… seriously, dude? I mean, are you down with animal testing? Because if you are that’s cool, but… gosh. Seriously. It just bothers me and… I can’t really be coherent here, it’s a cached reaction but damn.
I also would have liked to see some mention of bisexuality as “rational” orientation as I’ve heard many LWers discuss, though for all I know that might be in the other piece.
But what REALLY puts a bad taste into my mouth is the casual mention that you basically slept with several different women for research purposes. This is due to a combination of the aforementioned cached thoughts, and… seriously, dude? I mean, are you down with animal testing? Because if you are that’s cool, but… gosh. Seriously. It just bothers me and… I can’t really be coherent here, it’s a cached reaction but damn.
The only part I agree with is that you are not being coherent. Having sexual experiences for the sake of growth and experience is approximately what most people do throughout their teens as a part of natural human development. It is certainly not harmful to others, all else being equal.
For me “research purposes” implies something completely different from the “experiences for the sake of growth and experience” you describe. A lot of his terminology implied to me that he was using these fancy new techniques of his to get women to sleep with him on pretenses, some of which seemed to be false to me (e.x. claiming he has to go so he can get the woman interested in coffee later, etc).
But what REALLY puts a bad taste into my mouth is the casual mention that you basically slept with several different women for research purposes.
I would be interested to know why this comment leaves such a bad impression. Some people have casual flings primarily for pleasure. Some people have them to raise their self-esteem. lukeprog had them mostly for research purposes. Are any of these goals incompatible with the other person enjoying themselves?
Is your intuition that empirically, if people are pursuing casual flings for the conscious goal of research, then it is likely that they won’t treat their partner in a beneficial way?
I have seen cases where this happens, but merely an experimental motivation isn’t enough. I’ve seen some cases of people experimenting on others and being a jerk, but that’s mainly because experimenting merely amplified some pre-existing negative traits, like lack of empathy, resentment of others, or a desire for revenge on other people.
Personally, I’m consciously trying to learn something from my interactions with everyone, all the time. I don’t feel that this attitude is counter to recognizing their personhood, or that it entails viewing people as lab rats. Actually, this curiosity motivates me to be very attuned to the responses of others, which is a necessary-but-not-sufficient condition of treating them beneficially.
This is due to a combination of the aforementioned cached thoughts, and… seriously, dude? I mean, are you down with animal testing?
Unlike animals, women are human beings. This analogy seems to downgrade the agency of the women involved. If a casual fling is consensual and mutually enjoyable, and one or both people are motivated by curiosity, I don’t see any problem. Many young people of both genders are motivated by curiosity and a desire for a variety of experiences; they are constantly learning from their experiences with each other.
If someone uses words associated with “science,” like “research,” or “experiment,” does their empathy turn off, and they suddenly start acting like sociopaths? I understand that these words carry negative associates with many people, but it’s not clear to me what that association is based on, and if it needs to exist.
I’m not voting on this because, um, well, okay. I completely understand your point about how “monogamy good, non-monogamy bad” is largely a cached thought, but a part of my current beliefs it is nonetheless. Does it pay rent? Well, in our current monogamy-dominated society, it does pay in the form that “if you are a faithful partner you will be appreciated and if you are an ‘unfaithful’ partner you experience negative consequences”, but whether polygamy is actually optimal is another question entirely. Whether “relationships that are purely sexual are damaging to all parties involved and sexual relationships should always be tied to reciprocated romatnic feelings” pays the same amount of rent, god knows what. Extricating genuine harm caused by the actions themselves from the intense shame and other negativity that’s culturally imposed is way too difficult. That and as a virgin I’m really not qualified to speak on that matter at all. So all these are points in your favor, but I have reservations.
I find the paragraph after the “Rationality Lessons from Romance” somewhat confusing in its structure and had to reread it a second time, but cannot put my finger on exactly why it confused me on the first reading, now that I understand it.
But what REALLY puts a bad taste into my mouth is the casual mention that you basically slept with several different women for research purposes. This is due to a combination of the aforementioned cached thoughts, and… seriously, dude? I mean, are you down with animal testing? Because if you are that’s cool, but… gosh. Seriously. It just bothers me and… I can’t really be coherent here, it’s a cached reaction but damn.
I also would have liked to see some mention of bisexuality as “rational” orientation as I’ve heard many LWers discuss, though for all I know that might be in the other piece.
The only part I agree with is that you are not being coherent. Having sexual experiences for the sake of growth and experience is approximately what most people do throughout their teens as a part of natural human development. It is certainly not harmful to others, all else being equal.
For me “research purposes” implies something completely different from the “experiences for the sake of growth and experience” you describe. A lot of his terminology implied to me that he was using these fancy new techniques of his to get women to sleep with him on pretenses, some of which seemed to be false to me (e.x. claiming he has to go so he can get the woman interested in coffee later, etc).
I would be interested to know why this comment leaves such a bad impression. Some people have casual flings primarily for pleasure. Some people have them to raise their self-esteem. lukeprog had them mostly for research purposes. Are any of these goals incompatible with the other person enjoying themselves?
Is your intuition that empirically, if people are pursuing casual flings for the conscious goal of research, then it is likely that they won’t treat their partner in a beneficial way?
I have seen cases where this happens, but merely an experimental motivation isn’t enough. I’ve seen some cases of people experimenting on others and being a jerk, but that’s mainly because experimenting merely amplified some pre-existing negative traits, like lack of empathy, resentment of others, or a desire for revenge on other people.
Personally, I’m consciously trying to learn something from my interactions with everyone, all the time. I don’t feel that this attitude is counter to recognizing their personhood, or that it entails viewing people as lab rats. Actually, this curiosity motivates me to be very attuned to the responses of others, which is a necessary-but-not-sufficient condition of treating them beneficially.
Unlike animals, women are human beings. This analogy seems to downgrade the agency of the women involved. If a casual fling is consensual and mutually enjoyable, and one or both people are motivated by curiosity, I don’t see any problem. Many young people of both genders are motivated by curiosity and a desire for a variety of experiences; they are constantly learning from their experiences with each other.
If someone uses words associated with “science,” like “research,” or “experiment,” does their empathy turn off, and they suddenly start acting like sociopaths? I understand that these words carry negative associates with many people, but it’s not clear to me what that association is based on, and if it needs to exist.