Either “Nonconsentual (or coerced) sex” or “Not getting written permission from your date’s mother and the universal approval of internet critics before having sex”. Seems to depend on who you are talking with and what they are trying to prove.
“Not getting written permission from your date’s mother and the unilateral approval of internet critics before having sex”
No no no wedrifid, the date’s mother is clearly not objective.
You need to approach a local sociology or woman’s studies professor, for preliminary consultation. After that schedule an appointment with your lawyer to set up a proper contract (since an informal written agreement wouldn’t stand up to later scrutiny if parties are dissatisfied with the outcomes) that is then reviewed, supplemented by hearings of all involved, by an ethics committee that includes legal experts, psychologists, doctors, philosophers and social workers.
I strongly urge you to reconsider this entire argument. I’m really worried about the sorts of reactions and arguments flying in this thread / topic. I don’t think MixedNuts’ post was based on cynical disingenuous argumentation, but rather an honest disagreement with you, a differing view of reality, as in the parable of the blind men and the elephant. If you don’t know “what on earth [your interlocutor is] talking about”, this should make you less sure of your footing.
The umbrella of PUA encompasses harmless advice that seems to have helped a lot of people, as well as vicious misanthropy. Some techniques focus on improving oneself, others on harming others. There are parts of PUA that are problematic wrt consent, and that could help to coerce sex from others. There are (different) parts that should be analyzed here.
I’m not attacking you. I’m asking you to be careful. There are vivid warning signs in an alarming proportion of posts on this topic. I do not trust everyone to judge the effects of their actions on others, especially when they could benefit from hiding from themselves the harm they could do. More to the point, in such situations, we should not trust ourselves.
If you don’t know “what on earth [your interlocutor is] talking about”, this should make you less sure of your footing.
I’m pretty sure the question was rhetorical.
I do not trust everyone to judge the effects of their actions on others,
Unfortunately, the mere fact that you are raising this concern specifically in this context communicates a certain stance on the underlying issue(s), or, more bluntly, alignment with a certain faction in this particular power-struggle.
...and I’m probably communicating the opposite alignment by replying in this manner. So it goes.
I have a policy of not commenting on the “underlying issue(s)”, but I will permit myself the meta-level remark that the topic in question really does apparently amount to a hot-button dispute in contemporary social politics. In which case, quite frankly, it should be avoided as far as possible on Less Wrong.
I do have a stance. Stances. I’m arguing here that 1) wedrifid and MixedNuts are talking past each other, 2) we need to be more careful about PUA than many think. In particular, the idea of somehow just diving in while avoiding any discussion of ethics seems awfully ill-advised, if it’s even possible. It does seem like a valuable topic for some of LW to pull apart, if it can be done properly (on the one hand, how likely is it that sex & sexual politics is a mindkiller topic? on the other, if LW can’t handle a little sex & politics, I’d like to know.)
And branching off of your comment about factions—to whom it may concern, I wish to explicitly distance myself from any given LW faction, real or illusory. Yes, even yours, even if I may agree with you on some / many topics.
Indeed. It’s a figure of speech that I didn’t even consider when using. I suppose it could be replaced with “That’s utter nonsense and it is amazing that something so nonsensical appeared in a context where it doesn’t seem to fit!”—but the question seems to be a bit milder.
I assert that the replacement means basically the same thing. I don’t think you and MixedNuts are on the same page. Your surprise is a blinking warning light.
I assert that the replacement means basically the same thing.
You are mistaken. The meanings are entirely different. The sort of rhetorical equivocation Mixed used is not accepted here no matter the subject and when it comes to something as important as rape it is something I consider offensive.
I gave my example because it is the closest related ethical consideration that is, in fact, sane. I assumed that at very least it is something you would agree with and could possibly be similar to what you had resolved Mixed’s words to. This was to establish that I was rejecting any and all arguments along the lines of “PUA means rape” but not rejecting questions of whether certain social practices are or not ethical in their own right.
Your surprise is a blinking warning light.
To be frank it was disgust, not surprise that I experienced.
You are mistaken. The meanings are entirely different.
?? Can we be a little more explicit about what exactly we’re referring to? I meant that your replacement of “What on earth are you talking about?” with “That’s utter nonsense and it is amazing that something so nonsensical appeared in a context where it doesn’t seem to fit!” still indicates an acknowledgement on your part that your interpretation of MixedNuts’ post seems wildly incongruous, and therefore that said interpretation should be subject to closer scrutiny.
Similarly, when you say
I gave my example [...]
is that “Persuading people to do stuff (like shag you) that you know damn well they really don’t want to do is totally a dick move!”
If so then I think we pretty much agree except WRT MixedNuts’ meaning, and our other apparent disagreements flow from that issue.
To me it seems clear that MixedNuts was NOT saying “PUA means rape” or similar. My reading was more along the lines of “PUA is concerned, to a large extent, with methods of obtaining sex. If you’re discussing PUA sans ethics, then you are likely to discuss ‘methods of obtaining sex’ sans ethics, which conspicuously includes rape—a problematic situation if you’re banning ethical objections.” You appear extremely confident in your reading—could you point to something in particular that convinces you?
Of course if MixedNuts could resolve our disagreement that would be quite helpful.
Rather than trying to resurrect this one particular argument may I suggest that it would be better to make a new argument about an ethical problem with respect to particular strategies for seducing mates. Because there are valid arguments to be made and ethical questions to be considered. But that particular argument is sloppy thinking of the kind we don’t accept here and offensive—both to the actual victims of rape who are having their experience trivialized and to the group that is being vilified as rapists.
This highlights a further problem that is sometimes encountered when ethical questions come up. When people are moralizing they often make terrible arguments—and in the wild terrible arguments about moral questions tend to suffice. But here terrible arguments and sloppy thinking tends to be brutally rejected. This means observers are going to see a whole lot of obnoxious, incoherent arguing in the general direction of a perceived virtuous moral positions rejected. Naturally that leads people to believe that the community is totally in support of the opposite side to whatever the nonsense comments are.
There are parts of PUA that are problematic wrt consent, and that could help to coerce sex from others.
If someone were to, say, argue “Persuading people to do stuff (like shag you) that you know damn well they really don’t want to do is totally a dick move!” then I suspect it would meet with overwhelming support. Some would enjoy fleshing out the related concepts and details.
Um. I think I perhaps was unclear? I have added more posts, which may explain my position better. I almost certainly read MixedNuts in a very different way than you did.
may I suggest that it would be better to make a new argument about an ethical problem with respect to particular strategies for seducing mates.
Wasn’t the topic of the thread whether we should discuss ethics? That argument, as I understand it, wasn’t trying to highlight an actual ethical problem with respect to seducing mates; rather, it was an argument in favor of including ethics in the discussion.
Wasn’t the topic of the thread whether we should discuss ethics?
The topic was whether we should have a separate thread for ethics and for discussing models of how the world actually works. MixedNuts was arguing against that proposal by alleging one ethical problem it would cause (“Rape”). Regardless of whether CuSeth is intending to argue that seperating ‘is’ from ‘should’ is bad because of ethical problem that are caused by the split or intending to talk about an ethical problem for its own sake it is better off using her own argument than MixdNuts’. Because if she used her own I would be able to take her seriously.
Either “Nonconsentual (or coerced) sex” or “Not getting written permission from your date’s mother and the universal approval of internet critics before having sex”. Seems to depend on who you are talking with and what they are trying to prove.
No no no wedrifid, the date’s mother is clearly not objective.
You need to approach a local sociology or woman’s studies professor, for preliminary consultation. After that schedule an appointment with your lawyer to set up a proper contract (since an informal written agreement wouldn’t stand up to later scrutiny if parties are dissatisfied with the outcomes) that is then reviewed, supplemented by hearings of all involved, by an ethics committee that includes legal experts, psychologists, doctors, philosophers and social workers.
I strongly urge you to reconsider this entire argument. I’m really worried about the sorts of reactions and arguments flying in this thread / topic. I don’t think MixedNuts’ post was based on cynical disingenuous argumentation, but rather an honest disagreement with you, a differing view of reality, as in the parable of the blind men and the elephant. If you don’t know “what on earth [your interlocutor is] talking about”, this should make you less sure of your footing.
The umbrella of PUA encompasses harmless advice that seems to have helped a lot of people, as well as vicious misanthropy. Some techniques focus on improving oneself, others on harming others. There are parts of PUA that are problematic wrt consent, and that could help to coerce sex from others. There are (different) parts that should be analyzed here.
I’m not attacking you. I’m asking you to be careful. There are vivid warning signs in an alarming proportion of posts on this topic. I do not trust everyone to judge the effects of their actions on others, especially when they could benefit from hiding from themselves the harm they could do. More to the point, in such situations, we should not trust ourselves.
I’m pretty sure the question was rhetorical.
Unfortunately, the mere fact that you are raising this concern specifically in this context communicates a certain stance on the underlying issue(s), or, more bluntly, alignment with a certain faction in this particular power-struggle.
...and I’m probably communicating the opposite alignment by replying in this manner. So it goes.
Indeed.
I have a policy of not commenting on the “underlying issue(s)”, but I will permit myself the meta-level remark that the topic in question really does apparently amount to a hot-button dispute in contemporary social politics. In which case, quite frankly, it should be avoided as far as possible on Less Wrong.
I do have a stance. Stances. I’m arguing here that 1) wedrifid and MixedNuts are talking past each other, 2) we need to be more careful about PUA than many think. In particular, the idea of somehow just diving in while avoiding any discussion of ethics seems awfully ill-advised, if it’s even possible. It does seem like a valuable topic for some of LW to pull apart, if it can be done properly (on the one hand, how likely is it that sex & sexual politics is a mindkiller topic? on the other, if LW can’t handle a little sex & politics, I’d like to know.)
And branching off of your comment about factions—to whom it may concern, I wish to explicitly distance myself from any given LW faction, real or illusory. Yes, even yours, even if I may agree with you on some / many topics.
Indeed. It’s a figure of speech that I didn’t even consider when using. I suppose it could be replaced with “That’s utter nonsense and it is amazing that something so nonsensical appeared in a context where it doesn’t seem to fit!”—but the question seems to be a bit milder.
I assert that the replacement means basically the same thing. I don’t think you and MixedNuts are on the same page. Your surprise is a blinking warning light.
You are mistaken. The meanings are entirely different. The sort of rhetorical equivocation Mixed used is not accepted here no matter the subject and when it comes to something as important as rape it is something I consider offensive.
I gave my example because it is the closest related ethical consideration that is, in fact, sane. I assumed that at very least it is something you would agree with and could possibly be similar to what you had resolved Mixed’s words to. This was to establish that I was rejecting any and all arguments along the lines of “PUA means rape” but not rejecting questions of whether certain social practices are or not ethical in their own right.
To be frank it was disgust, not surprise that I experienced.
?? Can we be a little more explicit about what exactly we’re referring to? I meant that your replacement of “What on earth are you talking about?” with “That’s utter nonsense and it is amazing that something so nonsensical appeared in a context where it doesn’t seem to fit!” still indicates an acknowledgement on your part that your interpretation of MixedNuts’ post seems wildly incongruous, and therefore that said interpretation should be subject to closer scrutiny.
Similarly, when you say
is that “Persuading people to do stuff (like shag you) that you know damn well they really don’t want to do is totally a dick move!”
If so then I think we pretty much agree except WRT MixedNuts’ meaning, and our other apparent disagreements flow from that issue.
To me it seems clear that MixedNuts was NOT saying “PUA means rape” or similar. My reading was more along the lines of “PUA is concerned, to a large extent, with methods of obtaining sex. If you’re discussing PUA sans ethics, then you are likely to discuss ‘methods of obtaining sex’ sans ethics, which conspicuously includes rape—a problematic situation if you’re banning ethical objections.” You appear extremely confident in your reading—could you point to something in particular that convinces you?
Of course if MixedNuts could resolve our disagreement that would be quite helpful.
Rather than trying to resurrect this one particular argument may I suggest that it would be better to make a new argument about an ethical problem with respect to particular strategies for seducing mates. Because there are valid arguments to be made and ethical questions to be considered. But that particular argument is sloppy thinking of the kind we don’t accept here and offensive—both to the actual victims of rape who are having their experience trivialized and to the group that is being vilified as rapists.
This highlights a further problem that is sometimes encountered when ethical questions come up. When people are moralizing they often make terrible arguments—and in the wild terrible arguments about moral questions tend to suffice. But here terrible arguments and sloppy thinking tends to be brutally rejected. This means observers are going to see a whole lot of obnoxious, incoherent arguing in the general direction of a perceived virtuous moral positions rejected. Naturally that leads people to believe that the community is totally in support of the opposite side to whatever the nonsense comments are.
If someone were to, say, argue “Persuading people to do stuff (like shag you) that you know damn well they really don’t want to do is totally a dick move!” then I suspect it would meet with overwhelming support. Some would enjoy fleshing out the related concepts and details.
Um. I think I perhaps was unclear? I have added more posts, which may explain my position better. I almost certainly read MixedNuts in a very different way than you did.
Wasn’t the topic of the thread whether we should discuss ethics? That argument, as I understand it, wasn’t trying to highlight an actual ethical problem with respect to seducing mates; rather, it was an argument in favor of including ethics in the discussion.
The topic was whether we should have a separate thread for ethics and for discussing models of how the world actually works. MixedNuts was arguing against that proposal by alleging one ethical problem it would cause (“Rape”). Regardless of whether CuSeth is intending to argue that seperating ‘is’ from ‘should’ is bad because of ethical problem that are caused by the split or intending to talk about an ethical problem for its own sake it is better off using her own argument than MixdNuts’. Because if she used her own I would be able to take her seriously.