I’ve been in spaces where people were comfortable with verbally and physically expressing affection for each other (mostly in groups of young Quakers). It is delicious when it works.
The groups where I’ve seen it work have been largely female. At least in the US, it’s socially easier for women to be affectionate with each other. Personally, I feel a lot more comfortable with physical closeness if I believe it won’t turn into something sexual, so I’m most comfortable cuddling with straight women and gay men. It’s hard for me to imagine how LW gatherings will turn into that kind of space, but there may be ways I’m not seeing.
I’m not sure how to build such spaces. I think it helps to have a few people who have the courage to start a hug, etc. which helps establish it as the culture. But I’m also not sure how to get people to be honest about their boundaries. I was in one such group of mostly liberal North Americans who were fine with hugging and cuddling, but the one Bangladeshi guy was worried sick his parents would find out he had hugged girls. And there wasn’t a comfortable way for him to tell us that until he knew us better.
Personally, I feel a lot more comfortable with physical closeness if I believe it won’t turn into something sexual, so I’m most comfortable cuddling with straight women and gay men. It’s hard for me to imagine how LW gatherings will turn into that kind of space, but there may be ways I’m not seeing.
I was about to suggest that universal adoption and expression of Nyan’s protocol would be a step in the right direction - ie. towards making LW gatherings to be gatherings of gay men. But it occurs to me that technically my actual prediction is that it would cause an increase in the number of bisexual men. That leaves fewer opportunities for people to be comfortable with physical closeness with no sexual possibility—albeit not lost opportunities that would affect you personally,.
I think that the way that Nyan’s rules are actually adopted, on the high status parts of California culture, is for all the men to have some same sex experience and then to identify as gay regardless of the genders of their sex partners, rarely bring it up, tease those who probe, and angrily attack those who insist that they aren’t, using social rules that allow minorities to automatically attack those who talk about their situation. As a last line, they can fall back to “don’t stereotype me, don’t box me in” routines.
It seems that this shouldn’t work, but does. The downside is that you can’t actually engage in PDA beyond what others around you are engaging in, which is arguably a good rule anyway, and that you can’t demand any sort of exclusivity from same sex partners or engage in relationship drama with them, if you want those things. Not sure though.
It seems to me that it would be good if I could figure out a way of getting the sorts of absurd things I tell people digested without coming across as insane, since the impression of insanity obviously lasts even after people have assimilated the now obviously reasonable things. Feel free to email me pointers at my gmail (michael.vassar@gmail.com).
I know I create parsing problems, which is part of why I generally focus on F2F, where people much more frequently do understand.
I read Nyan’s protocol as being about affection, not sex. I wouldn’t classify men who cuddle with men as gay (at least not based on that evidence).
Nor would I. I instead make a prediction (labelled as such) that a significant degree of application of Nyan’s protocol would result in a net increase in bisexual males. Some would call it “making it easier for naturally bisexual men to come out of the closet or come to self awareness of their flexible sexual preferences”.
Wait, why is any particular sexual orientation the right direction?
For the purpose of supplying the specific instrumental good mentioned in the quote. ie. Comfort with physical closeness due to lack of sexual potential.
I mean for the purpose of supplying the specific instrumental good mentioned in the quote. It was a quote by juliawise. It applies to her and anyone anyone sufficiently similar which, yes, implies female.
Personally, I feel a lot more comfortable with physical closeness if I believe it won’t turn into something sexual
sex causes a lot of problems...
It’s hard for me to imagine how LW gatherings will turn into that kind of space
Indeed. My only hope is that it seemed to work at the minicamp.
But I’m also not sure how to get people to be honest about their boundaries. I was in one such group of mostly liberal North Americans who were fine with hugging and cuddling, but the one Bangladeshi guy was worried sick his parents would find out he had hugged girls. And there wasn’t a comfortable way for him to tell us that until he knew us better.
I worried about this a little bit. This is why it is crtitical that it be opt-in. Crocker’s rules doesn’t seem to have this problem (people opting in when they are not ready), so perhaps it is possble to not fail this way.
I’ve been in spaces where people were comfortable with verbally and physically expressing affection for each other (mostly in groups of young Quakers). It is delicious when it works.
The groups where I’ve seen it work have been largely female. At least in the US, it’s socially easier for women to be affectionate with each other. Personally, I feel a lot more comfortable with physical closeness if I believe it won’t turn into something sexual, so I’m most comfortable cuddling with straight women and gay men. It’s hard for me to imagine how LW gatherings will turn into that kind of space, but there may be ways I’m not seeing.
I’m not sure how to build such spaces. I think it helps to have a few people who have the courage to start a hug, etc. which helps establish it as the culture. But I’m also not sure how to get people to be honest about their boundaries. I was in one such group of mostly liberal North Americans who were fine with hugging and cuddling, but the one Bangladeshi guy was worried sick his parents would find out he had hugged girls. And there wasn’t a comfortable way for him to tell us that until he knew us better.
I was about to suggest that universal adoption and expression of Nyan’s protocol would be a step in the right direction - ie. towards making LW gatherings to be gatherings of gay men. But it occurs to me that technically my actual prediction is that it would cause an increase in the number of bisexual men. That leaves fewer opportunities for people to be comfortable with physical closeness with no sexual possibility—albeit not lost opportunities that would affect you personally,.
I think that the way that Nyan’s rules are actually adopted, on the high status parts of California culture, is for all the men to have some same sex experience and then to identify as gay regardless of the genders of their sex partners, rarely bring it up, tease those who probe, and angrily attack those who insist that they aren’t, using social rules that allow minorities to automatically attack those who talk about their situation. As a last line, they can fall back to “don’t stereotype me, don’t box me in” routines.
It seems that this shouldn’t work, but does.
The downside is that you can’t actually engage in PDA beyond what others around you are engaging in, which is arguably a good rule anyway, and that you can’t demand any sort of exclusivity from same sex partners or engage in relationship drama with them, if you want those things. Not sure though.
I totally can’t parse your posts, in general...
FYI.
Edit: took me a while, now I get it.
Sort of like your habit of saying absurd things, but then thinking about it later it becomes obviously reasonable.
You probably wouldn’t be able to parse his face to face conversation either, in that case. From what I’ve seen It’s approximately the same .
When I met him at minicamp, he was understandable but very interesting/possibly insane. see my edit.
It seems to me that it would be good if I could figure out a way of getting the sorts of absurd things I tell people digested without coming across as insane, since the impression of insanity obviously lasts even after people have assimilated the now obviously reasonable things. Feel free to email me pointers at my gmail (michael.vassar@gmail.com).
I know I create parsing problems, which is part of why I generally focus on F2F, where people much more frequently do understand.
I read Nyan’s protocol as being about affection, not sex. I wouldn’t classify men who cuddle with men as gay (at least not based on that evidence).
Nor would I. I instead make a prediction (labelled as such) that a significant degree of application of Nyan’s protocol would result in a net increase in bisexual males. Some would call it “making it easier for naturally bisexual men to come out of the closet or come to self awareness of their flexible sexual preferences”.
Wait, why is any particular sexual orientation the right direction?
For the purpose of supplying the specific instrumental good mentioned in the quote. ie. Comfort with physical closeness due to lack of sexual potential.
You mean it would be more comfortable for women?
I mean for the purpose of supplying the specific instrumental good mentioned in the quote. It was a quote by juliawise. It applies to her and anyone anyone sufficiently similar which, yes, implies female.
sex causes a lot of problems...
Indeed. My only hope is that it seemed to work at the minicamp.
I worried about this a little bit. This is why it is crtitical that it be opt-in. Crocker’s rules doesn’t seem to have this problem (people opting in when they are not ready), so perhaps it is possble to not fail this way.
Worth testing at least.