That is useful info, thanks.
johnswentworth
Karma: 63,674
I don’t conceptualize them that way. I fucked someone; that does not mean I conquered them in any sense beyond the fucking itself. Perhaps you are bringing in a frame where fucking someone implies bringing them low in some way that extends beyond the sex. But I never said anything like that, do not think anything like that, and do not generally live in that frame. This is your associations talking, not mine, and frankly it does not sound like a healthy way to relate to fucking.
Yup, conquest is also part of the kind of sex denoted by “fuck”.
You mostly seem to be proving my point that the reason the word is jolting is because the kind of sex it denotes makes a lot of people uncomfortable. I claim the majority of people want to fuck and/or like to fuck. (Certainly the overwhelming majority I’ve fucked love it!) So why are you so uncomfortable with people talking about fucking, outside of their own bedrooms? Seems pretty sus to be grossed out by the topic, if you actually do not have any hangups about that kind of sex!
As for what the word choice offers: more information and accuracy, just like I said upthread. Why use less precise and descriptive words, when more precise and descriptive words are readily available and don’t even take extra space? This would just be common sense in any other everyday domain. And indeed, I am talking about fucking in much the same way I would talk about any other everyday domain. Why wouldn’t I?
I disagree, in this very particular case. I was trying to say something similar a day ago and really struggled to come up with a better word.
The point is that the argument is supposed to be about the object-level thing, about whether the object-level claim is true or the object-level advice will have the effects it is claimed to have. The argument is not supposed to be things like “saying this will offend some people” or “you’re a bad person for saying this”. I struggle to come up with a better word or short phrase for that than “rational”; the standard connotations seem basically correct.
“Being disruptive and disconcerting and jolting” is not how I would describe the purpose of curse words. I mean, they can be used that way, but I don’t think it’s the central purpose, I think it’s a side effect of a more useful purpose.
In the case of “fuck”… I’ll quote from Chapter 10 of Passionate Marriage (nominally a book by a therapist on keeping sex alive in long marriages):
“Good sex” and “a good fuck” aren’t quite the same. [...]
Lexicographer Hugh Rawson notes that the English language lacks another transitive verb expressing the basic idea with any degree of vividness. Having sex reinforces sex as behavior rather than as part of our nature. Sleeping with is self-contradictory. Making love and meaningful relationship don’t always live up to their label. Fucking and “making love” differ subjectively and behaviorally. Rawson observes that the taboo we place on this term, combined with our lack of suitable synonyms, results in a fair amount of hypocrisy. Our euphemisms denote how we avoid eroticism. [...]
The trouble is, the kind of sex it is acceptable to be wild about is “making love”. People—women, in particular—are not supposed to fuck. I use the word fuck here because:
It’s the label millions of people use for this subjective experience.
In many people’s minds, it represents one polarity on the continuum of “making love”.
It keeps issues of sexual intent and aggression center-stage.
I claim: the word “fuck” denotes a particular kind of sex. It’s supposed to be very erotic, aggressive, objectifying, primal. The reason the word is jolting is because the kind of sex it denotes makes a lot of people uncomfortable. Our mainstream society is not comfortable with fucking. That’s not a feature of the word, it’s a feature of the real phenomenon the word refers to.
There are adjacent things besides just truth which apply in that case—e.q. arguments that something will not lead to any intellectual progress in any domain, or (in the case of advice posts) arguments that the advice is harmful.
Sure, my standard safeword script runs roughly as follows:
Hold out your arm. <She holds out her arm, and I hold it by the wrist with one hand>
Your safewords are red and yellow. Yellow means caution, red means stop. If you can’t speak, tapping <at this point I tap her arm to demonstrate> also substitutes for “red”. Understand? <Usually she nods>
Now I’m going to cause you some pain, increasing over time. I want you to say “yellow” and then “red” when it feels appropriate.
<Still holding her wrist, I put my thumb on a pressure point near the bicep, and start to squeeze, slowly increasing pressure. Usually that one alone isn’t enough pain for a safeword, so I’ll eventually switch to the hip flexor. Eventually, she says “yellow”, and I ease off a little, then continue the ramp-up a little slower until she says “red”. This whole time, I mostly watch her face, to make sure I can actually tell when she’s feeling bad levels of pain; from my end this is about calibration of pain tolerance and reactions at least as much as safewords.>
<Eventually, she says “red”, and I immediately stop.> Good girl.
(This is assuming someone subby and masochistic, obviously it runs a little different otherwise, but the high level generally stays the same.)
This is LessWrong. If you want something gone, argue that it’s false, or link to previous arguments that it’s false, don’t just come kvetching about how you don’t personally like it.
I am more than happy to update in response to evidence, that’s what I want. I write about dating because I want people to tell me what I’m missing. Complaining that this is all vaguely bad somehow is not that.
<3 that’s the spirit.
First, I have a principled opposition to the entire concept that obscenity is bad. All the hallway monitors of the world can go shove their pointless purity instincts up their collective prudish asses.
Second, the word “fuck” has importantly different connotations from e.g. “make love” or “sex”, and those connotations are generally more correct here; the obscenity makes the statement more accurate.
Since this post started with the “median 30 minutes” thing, I also want to mention one other stat: my retention rate, i.e. what fraction of the women I sleep with want to do it again.
Depends on how we count things, but:
Fraction of women I’ve fucked who have in fact come back for more: about 80%
Fraction of women I’ve fucked who are probably interested in more: 100%
(The remaining roughly 20% are cases where we haven’t fucked again yet but probably will at some point—e.g. Chesed and I will very likely fuck again at some point, but she recently had a baby so there hasn’t been a good time and probably won’t be for a little while.)
Retention rate is the one stat about my sex life which I consider a point of pride.
Some Dating Stories
You know, I used to take an interest in people by default, at least to a much greater extent than I do now.
Five years of living in the Bay Area EA/rat community beat that out of me. In hindsight, years later, taking an interest in the people around me by default cost huge amounts of time, it never did pay off overall, and it probably never will. Experience mostly taught me that marginal time just doing my own work is more valuable than marginal time at conferences, marginal time talking to other researchers, marginal time at house parties, etc.
I didn’t end up here by failing to try the “inherent interest in people” thing. I tried it, for years. It did not actually pay off, on a long timescale. Turns out reality is under no obligation to make people worthwhile to interact with.
I’m not quite sure what you’re seeing here. Is the idea that people with regular experience of oxytocin usually want to form some oxytocin-bond before sex? … Even if that is the idea I’m still entirely not sure what’s off about the post.
… also despite me not getting it yet this is probably helpful feedback, so thank you!
What I’m getting from this comment is your goal in relationships is to have as much sex as possible as fast as possible with as many women as possible?
Not at all. But I’m definitely coming in with an attitude of “How soon is interacting with this person going to be net positive for me?” and “How soon is she going to pull her weight in our interactions at all?”. In practice, sex is by far the most common way to get a positive answer to those questions quickly. (Other paths to a positive answer in-principle include unusually good dancing or her organizing fun outings or me learning interesting things from her. But all of those are rare, and it’s extremely rare for any of them to be as good as my typical sex.)
I’m not fully aromantic, but I’ve only felt limerance toward one person in the last ten years and that was pretty brief, so in practice basically yes, aromantic is a reasonable way of looking at it. And of course there’s the whole no oxytocin thing.
This post is great! Thank you so much for writing it! The main reason I write dating/relationship posts is the hope that other people will come along and tell me what I’m missing, and this post really nailed it.
My biggest update was… five hours!?!? Going through the list of women I’ve slept with, the median is around 30 minutes of direct interaction between first meeting and sex. Granted, some of that was at RMN, but even without those cases the median is still around 30-60 minutes. Five hours sounds absolutely insane to me. That probably explains a large chunk of my confusion; apparently people are spending very large amounts of time flirting/courting/etc.
(… and yeah, I’m pretty happy to filter out two thirds of women on the basis of taking that long. I mean, if she was going to organize fun dates early on that would be another story, but that’s not normally how things work.)
My second biggest update was… apparently about half of women will not offer a visible sign of interest at all until a guy approaches first? That means half of women are basically only open to guys who are playing the numbers game, i.e. just making advances on tons of women prior to them showing any interest, most of whom will not turn out to be interested. I suddenly have way more appreciation for the guys who play the numbers game.
(I am still not going to play the numbers game myself, because as you correctly noticed, I am all about not spending insane-to-me amounts of marginal time and effort on dating/courtship. I have other stuff to do with my time.)
Those sure were some updates. Thank you again.
Imagine a modeling a human. Given infinite compute (which is already assumed, because we’re talking about Kolmogorov complexity), we could model the entire human at the level of quantum fields. Or, we could model the human at the level of preferences and beliefs (including inconsistencies and irrationalities), planning (including imperfectly), etc. So, a low abstraction level and a high abstraction level.
Suppose each of those yield an approximately-shortest program for our observations of the human. We might reasonably expect those programs to look like:
“low-level”: a program which generates a low-level physics engine library (the string
“high-level”: a program which generates an agent-modeling library (the string
Then the theorem says that there exists a third approximately-shortest program which “uses” both levels: it first generates both the low-level physics library and the agent-modeling library, then uses both of them to generate the data. The part which generates the data from the two libraries gains the compression benefits of both: unless one of the strings
One class of cases where that definitely won’t work: S_1 and S_2 independent, so K(data|S_1, S_2) is roughly K(data) - K(S_1) - K(S_2) (as shown in the post at the end of the main section). In that case, the program for data given S_1, S_2 has to be significantly shorter than either the program for data given S_1 or the program for data given S_2 (assuming S_1 and S_2 themselves have significantly more than zero K-complexity).
There is no requirement, either explicit or implicit, that S_1 or S_2 be small relative to the data. Either or both could be e.g. a third the size of the data, or almost as large as the data itself.
Alright. Sorry for being grumpy at you, and thank you for the model.