The analogy is accurate, you’re just being irrational as an emotional reaction to its content.
You said:
Suppose someone said that people are uncomfortable with discussions on how to rape people on lesswrong because of discomfort with science, I explained that that wasn’t the part that bothered me, and they replied by saying that consent is sort of a thorny issue, one that’s imprecisely defined and entangled with other complex concepts. Sure, fine, but that’s missing the point.
In a discussion on LW about how to rape people, the nuances of consent would indeed be a distraction, but only if there was a consensus that the behavior is rape. So I thought that by making pickup analogous to rape, you were presenting it an something that everyone ought to recognize as wrong, such that debating the concept of “manipulation” would be missing the point. That’s what objected to in your analogy.
If there wasn’t a consensus about whether the behavior was rape, then discussing the concept of consent actually would be a great way to approach the disagreement, and it would not be missing the point. But if that’s what you meant, then I don’t know why you made the analogy, because it proves my point, not yours.
(As an example: perhaps 24⁄7 BDSM relationships were under discussion, where the submissive partner gives consent at the beginning of the relationship. Someone might say that the submissive partner is being raped. It would then be perfectly appropriate to discuss the view of consent behind that criticism, and whether someone can consensually give away power at the beginning of a relationship.)
There are also people here on lesswrong who say that the reason people in general (or women in general) are uncomfortable with pickup is because of such discomfort with analysis. That is also “what actually happens”, and it is explicitly what I have been talking about this whole time.
To the extent that people hold this view, I disagree with them. After looking at your three links, this interpretation is only plausible for the first link, and even then I would want that poster to clarify before starting a hype train.
I apologize for my metaphor. It was poorly chosen. I let my desire to make a point forcefully overcome my sense of decency. It is retracted. Perhaps you could consider the card-counting metaphor in its place.
If there wasn’t a consensus about whether the behavior was rape, then discussing the concept of consent actually would be a great way to approach the disagreement, and it would not be missing the point.
The point is that there was a mis-attribution regarding the reasons to object. There is even what seems to be a general consensus that these reasons are legitimate (see cousin_it’s posts, or your own criticisms of PUA).
After looking at your three links, this interpretation is only plausible for the first link, and even then I would want that poster to clarify before starting a hype train.
The posts in the second and third links are part of a larger discussion. In context, the discussion goes something like—“It’s not that women don’t like analysis, it’s that they don’t like PUA” is followed by “Of course they don’t, people don’t like analysis”, then “I don’t dislike analysis” is followed by “no one dislikes analysis, they just become angry when observing it.” I made the above claim then, and no one denied it.
If you are skeptical of my point, I would like to request a summary of said point adjoining a response, if possible.
As an example: perhaps 24⁄7 BDSM relationships were under discussion, where the submissive partner gives consent at the beginning of the relationship. Someone might say that the submissive partner is being raped. It would then be perfectly appropriate to discuss the view of consent behind that criticism, and whether someone can consensually give away power at the beginning of a relationship.
Would such an arrangement typically involve safe words or would the knowledge of that power of injunction destroy the thrill the experience for the subordinate partner?
You said:
In a discussion on LW about how to rape people, the nuances of consent would indeed be a distraction, but only if there was a consensus that the behavior is rape. So I thought that by making pickup analogous to rape, you were presenting it an something that everyone ought to recognize as wrong, such that debating the concept of “manipulation” would be missing the point. That’s what objected to in your analogy.
If there wasn’t a consensus about whether the behavior was rape, then discussing the concept of consent actually would be a great way to approach the disagreement, and it would not be missing the point. But if that’s what you meant, then I don’t know why you made the analogy, because it proves my point, not yours.
(As an example: perhaps 24⁄7 BDSM relationships were under discussion, where the submissive partner gives consent at the beginning of the relationship. Someone might say that the submissive partner is being raped. It would then be perfectly appropriate to discuss the view of consent behind that criticism, and whether someone can consensually give away power at the beginning of a relationship.)
To the extent that people hold this view, I disagree with them. After looking at your three links, this interpretation is only plausible for the first link, and even then I would want that poster to clarify before starting a hype train.
I apologize for my metaphor. It was poorly chosen. I let my desire to make a point forcefully overcome my sense of decency. It is retracted. Perhaps you could consider the card-counting metaphor in its place.
The point is that there was a mis-attribution regarding the reasons to object. There is even what seems to be a general consensus that these reasons are legitimate (see cousin_it’s posts, or your own criticisms of PUA).
The posts in the second and third links are part of a larger discussion. In context, the discussion goes something like—“It’s not that women don’t like analysis, it’s that they don’t like PUA” is followed by “Of course they don’t, people don’t like analysis”, then “I don’t dislike analysis” is followed by “no one dislikes analysis, they just become angry when observing it.” I made the above claim then, and no one denied it.
If you are skeptical of my point, I would like to request a summary of said point adjoining a response, if possible.
I think we are just agreeing violently, at this point.
I suppose that’s a good call. See you in another thread, then.
Would such an arrangement typically involve safe words or would the knowledge of that power of injunction destroy the thrill the experience for the subordinate partner?