I think the most important question is “Is it ethical to obtain sex by deliberately faking social signals, given what we know of the consequences for both parties of this behaviour?”.
“Deliberately faking social signals”? But, but, that barely makes any sense. They are signals. You give the best ones you can. Everybody else knows that you are trying to give the best signals that you can and so can make conclusions about your ability to send signals and also what other signals you will most likely give to them and others in the future. That is more or less what socializing is. I suppose blatant lies in a context where lying isn’t appropriate and elaborate creation of false high status identities could be qualify—but in those case I would probably use a more specific description.
A close second would be “Is it ethical to engage in dominance-seeking behaviour in a romantic relationship?”.
A third would be “could the majority of humans have a romantic relationship without dominance-seeking behavior?” and the fourth : “would most people find romantic relationships anywhere near as satisfying without dominance-seeking behavior?” (My money is on the “No”s.)
One more question: What principles would help establish how much dominance seeking behavior is enough to break the relationship or in some other way cause more damage than it’s worth, considering that part of dominance is ignoring feedback that it’s unwelcome?”
One more question: What principles would help establish how much dominance seeking behavior is enough to break the relationship or in some other way cause more damage than it’s worth
Yes, that part is hard, even on a micro scale. I have been frequently surprised that I underestimate how much dominance seeking would be optimal. I attribute this to mind-projection. ie “This means she would prefer me to do that? Wow. I’d never take that shit if it was directed at me. Hmm… I’m going do that for her benefit and be sure not to send any signal that I am doing it for compliance. It’s actually kind of fun.”
(Here I do mean actual unambiguous messages—verbal or through blatantly obvious social signalling by the partner. I don’t mean just “some source says that’s what women want”.)
considering that part of dominance is ignoring feedback that it’s unwelcome?
Fortunately we can choose which dominance seeking behaviors to accept and reject at the level of individual behavioral trait. We could also, if it was necessary for a particular relationship, play the role of someone who is ignoring feedback but actually absorb everything and process it in order to form the most useful model of how to navigate the relationship optimally. On the flip side we can signal and screen to avoid dominance seeking behaviors that we particularly don’t want and seek out and naturally reward those that we do want.
“Deliberately faking social signals”? But, but, that barely makes any sense. They are signals. You give the best ones you can. Everybody else knows that you are trying to give the best signals that you can and so can make conclusions about your ability to send signals and also what other signals you will most likely give to them and others in the future. That is more or less what socializing is. I suppose blatant lies in a context where lying isn’t appropriate and elaborate creation of false high status identities could be qualify—but in those case I would probably use a more specific description.
PUAs have trouble grasping that there is a difference between appearance and reality, which is ironic in some ways. It’s an implicit part of their doctrine that if you can pass yourself off as an “alpha” that you really are an “alpha”, in the sense of being the kind of person that women really do want to mate with.
However it seems obvious to me that the whole PUA strategy is to spoof their external signals in a way they hope will fool women into drawing incorrect conclusions about what is actually going on within the PUA’s mind and what characteristics the PUA is actually bringing to the relationship table. It’s a way for socially awkward nerds to believe they are camouflaging themselves as rough, tough, confident super-studs and helping themselves to reproductive opportunities while so camouflaged.
They excuse this moral failing by saying “Everybody else is doing it, hence it’s okay for me to do it only more so”.
However it’s well-established in general societal morals that obtaining sex by deception is a form of non-violent rape. If you’re having sex with someone knowing that they are ignorant of relevant facts which if they knew them would stop them having sex with you, then you are not having sex with their free and informed consent.
The fact that someone is a PUA using specific PUA techniques to misrepresent their real mind-state seems to me like highly relevant information in relationship decision-making.
A third would be “could the majority of humans have a romantic relationship without dominance-seeking behavior?” and the fourth : “would most people find romantic relationships anywhere near as satisfying without dominance-seeking behavior?” (My money is on the “No”s.)
Is there proper scientific evidence for this? If not do you acknowledge that this is at least potentially a moral excuse of the same form as “Everyone else is doing it, so it’s okay for me to do it”?
I suspect it would actually turn out that correctly socialised people would prefer and flourish more completely in relationships which are free of dominance games, and I think my naive folk-psychological guesswork is just as good as yours.
They excuse this moral failing by saying “Everybody else is doing it, hence it’s okay for me to do it only more so”.
I find that those with any significant degree of PUA competence are not particularly inclined to try to excuse themselves to others. Apart from being an unhealthy mindset to be stuck in it sends all the wrong signals. They would instead bock out any hecklers and go about their business. If people try to shame them specifically while they are flirting or socializing they may need to handle the situation actively but it is almost certainly not going to be with excuses.
However it’s well-established in general societal morals that obtaining sex by deception is a form of non-violent rape. If you’re having sex with someone knowing that they are ignorant of relevant facts which if they knew them would stop them having sex with you, then you are not having sex with their free and informed consent.
Acting confident and suppressing nervousness is not rape.
Is there proper scientific evidence for this?
It is a third and fourth question added to a list. Unless the first two were supposed to be scientific proclamations this doesn’t seem to be an appropriate demand.
If not do you acknowledge that this is at least potentially a moral excuse of the same form as “Everyone else is doing it, so it’s okay for me to do it”?
No to the “if not” implication—not presenting proper scientific evidence wouldn’t make it an excuse. No to the equivalence of these questions to that form. Most importantly: nothing is an ‘excuse’ unless the person giving it believes they doing something bad.
and I think my naive folk-psychological guesswork is just as good as yours.
I really don’t think naivety is a significant failing of mine.
I find that those with any significant degree of PUA competence are not particularly inclined to try to excuse themselves to others. Apart from being an unhealthy mindset to be stuck in it sends all the wrong signals. They would instead bock out any hecklers and go about their business. If people try to shame the specifically while they are flirting or socializing they may need to handle the situation actively but it is almost certainly not going to be with excuses.
So far in this conversation those I have mentally labelled pro-PUA have inevitably introduced scenarios where both parties are using “seduction techniques”, which I think is a term which is dangerous since it conflates honest signalling with spoofed signalling, or by claiming (as you did) that the idea of spoofing social signals “barely makes any sense”. I take those arguments to be excusing the act of spoofing social signals on the basis either that all women also spoof their social signals and that two wrongs make a right, or that there is in fact no such thing as social spoofing and that hence PUAs cannot be morally condemned for doing something which does not exist.
Acting confident and suppressing nervousness is not rape.
In and of itself, it seems to me that at least potentially it is deliberately depriving the target of access to relevant facts that they would wish to know before making a decision whether or not to engage socially, sexually or romantically with the suppressor.
However unless you believe that pick-up targets’ relevant decision-making would be totally unaffected by the knowledge that the person approaching them was a PUA using specific PUA techniques, then concealing that fact from the pick-up target is an attempt to obtain sex without the target’s free and informed consent. If you know fact X, and you know fact X is a potential deal-breaker with regard to their decision whether or not to sleep with you, you have a moral obligation to disclose X.
I really don’t think naivety is a significant failing of mine.
″ In this trifling particular, then, I appear to be wiser than he, because I do not fancy I know what I do not know”.
Socrates
Edit in response to edit: I was asked what I thought the most important ethical questions were with regard to PUA, and answered that question with two ethical questions. You responded by asking two factual questions of your own, which if answered in the negative would make my second question redundant, and stated that your money (which since you are posting here I took to mean that you have a Bayesian conviction that your answer is more likely to be right than not) was on the answer to those questions being negative.
You must have some basis for that probability estimate. Saying that it’s not an “appropriate demand” to ask for those bases doesn’t solve the problem that without access to your bases we can’t tell if your probability estimate is rational.
It is also a category error to put ethical questions and factual questions in the same bin and argue that because my ethical questions are not “scientific proclamations” that this means you don’t have to provide support for your factual probability estimates.
It is odd that a reply that is entirely to wedrifid quotes is made in response to NancyLebovitz comment which makes an entirely different point. Did you click the wrong ‘reply’ button?
“Deliberately faking social signals”? But, but, that barely makes any sense. They are signals. You give the best ones you can. Everybody else knows that you are trying to give the best signals that you can and so can make conclusions about your ability to send signals and also what other signals you will most likely give to them and others in the future. That is more or less what socializing is. I suppose blatant lies in a context where lying isn’t appropriate and elaborate creation of false high status identities could be qualify—but in those case I would probably use a more specific description.
A third would be “could the majority of humans have a romantic relationship without dominance-seeking behavior?” and the fourth : “would most people find romantic relationships anywhere near as satisfying without dominance-seeking behavior?” (My money is on the “No”s.)
One more question: What principles would help establish how much dominance seeking behavior is enough to break the relationship or in some other way cause more damage than it’s worth, considering that part of dominance is ignoring feedback that it’s unwelcome?”
Yes, that part is hard, even on a micro scale. I have been frequently surprised that I underestimate how much dominance seeking would be optimal. I attribute this to mind-projection. ie “This means she would prefer me to do that? Wow. I’d never take that shit if it was directed at me. Hmm… I’m going do that for her benefit and be sure not to send any signal that I am doing it for compliance. It’s actually kind of fun.”
(Here I do mean actual unambiguous messages—verbal or through blatantly obvious social signalling by the partner. I don’t mean just “some source says that’s what women want”.)
Fortunately we can choose which dominance seeking behaviors to accept and reject at the level of individual behavioral trait. We could also, if it was necessary for a particular relationship, play the role of someone who is ignoring feedback but actually absorb everything and process it in order to form the most useful model of how to navigate the relationship optimally. On the flip side we can signal and screen to avoid dominance seeking behaviors that we particularly don’t want and seek out and naturally reward those that we do want.
Wow, really? How? I make the opposite mistake all the time (at least I think I do) so I’d be interested in hearing some examples.
PUAs have trouble grasping that there is a difference between appearance and reality, which is ironic in some ways. It’s an implicit part of their doctrine that if you can pass yourself off as an “alpha” that you really are an “alpha”, in the sense of being the kind of person that women really do want to mate with.
However it seems obvious to me that the whole PUA strategy is to spoof their external signals in a way they hope will fool women into drawing incorrect conclusions about what is actually going on within the PUA’s mind and what characteristics the PUA is actually bringing to the relationship table. It’s a way for socially awkward nerds to believe they are camouflaging themselves as rough, tough, confident super-studs and helping themselves to reproductive opportunities while so camouflaged.
They excuse this moral failing by saying “Everybody else is doing it, hence it’s okay for me to do it only more so”.
However it’s well-established in general societal morals that obtaining sex by deception is a form of non-violent rape. If you’re having sex with someone knowing that they are ignorant of relevant facts which if they knew them would stop them having sex with you, then you are not having sex with their free and informed consent.
The fact that someone is a PUA using specific PUA techniques to misrepresent their real mind-state seems to me like highly relevant information in relationship decision-making.
Is there proper scientific evidence for this? If not do you acknowledge that this is at least potentially a moral excuse of the same form as “Everyone else is doing it, so it’s okay for me to do it”?
I suspect it would actually turn out that correctly socialised people would prefer and flourish more completely in relationships which are free of dominance games, and I think my naive folk-psychological guesswork is just as good as yours.
I find that those with any significant degree of PUA competence are not particularly inclined to try to excuse themselves to others. Apart from being an unhealthy mindset to be stuck in it sends all the wrong signals. They would instead bock out any hecklers and go about their business. If people try to shame them specifically while they are flirting or socializing they may need to handle the situation actively but it is almost certainly not going to be with excuses.
Acting confident and suppressing nervousness is not rape.
It is a third and fourth question added to a list. Unless the first two were supposed to be scientific proclamations this doesn’t seem to be an appropriate demand.
No to the “if not” implication—not presenting proper scientific evidence wouldn’t make it an excuse. No to the equivalence of these questions to that form. Most importantly: nothing is an ‘excuse’ unless the person giving it believes they doing something bad.
I really don’t think naivety is a significant failing of mine.
So far in this conversation those I have mentally labelled pro-PUA have inevitably introduced scenarios where both parties are using “seduction techniques”, which I think is a term which is dangerous since it conflates honest signalling with spoofed signalling, or by claiming (as you did) that the idea of spoofing social signals “barely makes any sense”. I take those arguments to be excusing the act of spoofing social signals on the basis either that all women also spoof their social signals and that two wrongs make a right, or that there is in fact no such thing as social spoofing and that hence PUAs cannot be morally condemned for doing something which does not exist.
In and of itself, it seems to me that at least potentially it is deliberately depriving the target of access to relevant facts that they would wish to know before making a decision whether or not to engage socially, sexually or romantically with the suppressor.
However unless you believe that pick-up targets’ relevant decision-making would be totally unaffected by the knowledge that the person approaching them was a PUA using specific PUA techniques, then concealing that fact from the pick-up target is an attempt to obtain sex without the target’s free and informed consent. If you know fact X, and you know fact X is a potential deal-breaker with regard to their decision whether or not to sleep with you, you have a moral obligation to disclose X.
″ In this trifling particular, then, I appear to be wiser than he, because I do not fancy I know what I do not know”.
Socrates
Edit in response to edit: I was asked what I thought the most important ethical questions were with regard to PUA, and answered that question with two ethical questions. You responded by asking two factual questions of your own, which if answered in the negative would make my second question redundant, and stated that your money (which since you are posting here I took to mean that you have a Bayesian conviction that your answer is more likely to be right than not) was on the answer to those questions being negative.
You must have some basis for that probability estimate. Saying that it’s not an “appropriate demand” to ask for those bases doesn’t solve the problem that without access to your bases we can’t tell if your probability estimate is rational.
It is also a category error to put ethical questions and factual questions in the same bin and argue that because my ethical questions are not “scientific proclamations” that this means you don’t have to provide support for your factual probability estimates.
I certainly wouldn’t say is true either.
Like what?
It is odd that a reply that is entirely to wedrifid quotes is made in response to NancyLebovitz comment which makes an entirely different point. Did you click the wrong ‘reply’ button?
It looks like I did. Is the correct move in this situation to delete the misplaced post, repost it in the correct spot, and delete this one too?
I would just leave it. No big deal and there are already replies.