2 - By now, if you’ve done as instructed, you should have a pretty interesting life. Nonetheless, I think it’s worth exploring this in more detail. If there’s one thing pick-up artists get right, it’s the value of confidence; but it’s important to remember that this doesn’t mean dominance, aggressiveness, or surliness. Confidence means being comfortable in your own skin, remaining centred in a conversation, listening with calm interest but also having something interesting to say about yourself and about your projects, your passions, the adventures you’ve had. It means having a life of your own beyond the object of your affections, and being friendly and courteous but not too eager to please. And yeah, a bit of a teasing or arrogant streak doesn’t hurt. Above all, though, you want to be self-reliant: keep your own shit together and you’ll be more attractive.
1 - THIS IS THE MOST IMPORTANT POINT, not only for getting laid but also as a general principle: you must learn to communicate. Healthy communication is a very complex skill, and there’s no simple formula; I may yet get around to writing a full post or two on the topic. Nevertheless, one way or another, you need to learn to be honest while still showing respect and courtesy, and you need to learn to inspire honesty in others. Try to foster this attitude in your broader community and everyone will benefit (this is how the communal house I live in still functions as well as it does, despite a number of difficult circumstances we’ve faced over time).
I do want to say a word about communication in the bedroom. Sex is an attempt to create a mutually enjoyable and fulfilling interaction of an intimate sort, and you simply can’t do that without indicating, in some fashion, what you want and how you want it. A lot of this communication ends up being nonverbal, but you should learn to be comfortable voicing your desires. You’ll also want to pay attention to what your partner wants, whether based on their vocalizations and body language or sometimes by asking questions: “Is that good?” rolls off the tongue nicely.
I should also say a word about consent. Body language and other implicit cues can only take you so far; before you hit the bedroom, you’d better make sure your partner is enthusiastic about the prospect, and that requires verbal communication. This can be a little awkward, but it becomes significantly less so with practice. Remember: this is YOUR responsibility. “I thought s/he seemed into it” or “They seemed to go along with it” is no excuse.
So there you have it: how to have a satisfying sex life—by extension of an otherwise satisfying life—in six monumental steps.
Trouble is, most of what you write is extended far beyond what’s written in the original list, or it’s equally vague and thus of no practical use.
Take for example your advice to “start flirting.” (Which, by the way, it would be quite a stretch to see as an interpretation of the original point five, except insofar as it’s vague and allegoric enough to mean anything you want to see in it.) For a man who is socially inept, or even just clueless about women, flirting is like differential equations for someone who is stumped by basic algebra—and useful and systematic learning materials to remedy this situation can be found only you-know-where.
On all other points, you similarly extend and reinterpret the original statements creatively and liberally, but even so, the advice you give falls far short of practical usefulness. Insofar as your advice makes sense, the only men who are able to imagine some concrete and workable ideas for action based on it are those who already understand these issues well enough that they don’t even need it. For those who actually have such problems, much more concrete, detailed, and practical guidance is needed, and again, I know of only one sort of venues that offer it. (And in fact, at a few places where your advice approaches something resembling useful guidelines, it says basically the same things you’ll read there.)
I should also say a word about consent. Body language and other implicit cues can only take you so far; before you hit the bedroom, you’d better make sure your partner is enthusiastic about the prospect, and that requires verbal communication.
If you said that verbal communication was one of the most effective ways to communicate enthusiastic consent, I would agree. But is it really required? That notion seems to counter-intuitive to me, because I can think up some ways to nonverbally communicate enthusiastic consent that don’t seem ambiguous (to me). What if your partner tries something like the following:
Waves a condom at you while pointing at their crotch.
Slowly physically guides you with their hands into initiating sex.
I can understand the reluctance to admit nonverbal ways of communicating, since so many of those methods are indeed ambiguous. But saying that verbal communication is required seems to either miss out on the possibility of non-ambiguous nonverbal communication like the above, or be some sort of noble lie.
Waves a condom at you while pointing at their crotch.
That one made me laugh. Reading the quote you provided prompted me to think of all sorts of body language and non-verbal cues that are more than sufficient in communicating physical consent. Such as him to the bedroom herself, tearing off his clothes or touching him on the penis. But waving a condom at you while pointing at her crotch takes the prize.
Everything I said about consent applies just as much to women as to men. If he’s actually uninterested, tearing his clothes off or grabbing his crotch isn’t a signal, it’s sexual assault.
For the record, everything I said about consent applies just as much to women as to men. If he’s actually uninterested, tearing his clothes off isn’t a signal, it’s sexual assault.
Everything I say about consent applies to men as much as women. A guy does not have to verbally express a wish to have his clothes torn off for it to be ok. He too can use more natural means of communicating.
Furthermore judging either of these two as engaging in sexual assault is not a neutral or innocent act. It is invasive and damaging to your victims. As well as slandering their reputation the act of giving that label implies the need for and potentially causes a direct punishment and restriction of freedom. That is something I consider unacceptable (when done so aggressively and obviously dependent on degree of credible social threat.)
Furthermore judging either of these two as engaging in sexual assault is not a neutral or innocent act. It is invasive and damaging to your victims. As well as slandering their reputation the act of giving that label implies the need for and potentially causes a direct punishment and restriction of freedom.
Well I’m no fan of the criminal justice system either, but I’m trying to keep this on the topic of sexuality; if my anarchist leanings come into the conversation we’ll be here all week. :p
But anyway, please see my comment here. A person can nonverbally express their desires, and a person can correctly pick up on that expression and act upon it, but they can also incorrectly interpret the signals they’re getting. I’m saying that mistakes, although still rare, happen a lot more often than you’d think, and the consequences are serious enough that this is not an ethically acceptable position to take with a new partner. You need to ask.
A person can nonverbally express their desires, and a person can correctly pick up on that expression and act upon it, but they can also incorrectly interpret the signals they’re getting. [..] You need to ask.
Am I correctly inferring here that you believe, by contrast, that desires expressed in language, in response to a question asked in language, cannot be incorrectly interpreted? Or at least that such mistakes don’t happen “a lot more often than you’d think”?
Okay, so it’s not a fundamental necessity, but it’s not a noble lie either; it’s a matter of ethics. The consequences of misunderstanding, probabilistically weighted, are still serious enough that it’s ethically better to maintain a habit of making a bit of sexy talk before hopping in bed with any new partner.
For the record, I have indeed misinterpreted what I thought were totally unambiguous “go” signals. Fortunately things did not progress far, but it was a big wake-up call for me.
Okay, so it’s not a fundamental necessity, but it’s not a noble lie either; it’s a matter of ethics.
So it’s an ethical necessity? Or something that’s just a good thing to do but not ethically required?
The consequences of misunderstanding, probabilistically weighted, are still serious enough that it’s ethically better to maintain a habit of making a bit of sexy talk before hopping in bed with any new partner.
I lean in the same direction, but there are some things that make me uncomfortable about this argument.
The practice you advocate is only one point along a continuum of certainty over consent. Why does a “bit” of sexy talk put you other the ethical cutoff, but those body language cues aren’t good enough? Why not draw the cutoff line somewhere less restrictive, or somewhere even more restrictive?
If the costs of misunderstanding are so high, then why only make a “bit” of sexy talk? If you should ask once, why shouldn’t you ask twice? If you should ask twice, why not ask three times? If you should ask three times, why not give a week-long cool-off period and see if you two still want to have sex? Why not have consent forms? Actually, to completely avoid any probabilistic costs, why not stay home?
To make up some numbers, let’s say that the body language cues I mentioned give a conditional probability of 95% person that someone is communicating consent to sex, and verbal communication gives 96%. Meanwhile, even more extensive communication could get you up to 99%. Lawyers could get you up to 99.9%.
Until we identify the moral principle behind picking a point on this continuum, there is no way to avoid a reductio ad absurdum.
The other factor not present in your comment is the benefits of sex, and the costs of attempting communication. Your comment only recognizes the probabilistic cost of abstaining from verbal communication. Recognizing the costs of various forms of verbal communication could explain why we aren’t bringing in consent forms and lawyers. But if you say that those extra measures aren’t necessary, or that they are costly, then why is explicit verbal communication necessary over the forms of nonverbal communication I suggested? Why does just a bit of sexy talk just happen to hit the sweet spot of costs vs. benefits of communication?
Some people find communication over consent to be costly: not just to themselves, but to the other partner. If a sufficient fraction of the class of people you date find it undesirable when you attempt to communicate verbally about consent, then you must consider that possibility in your moral calculation about how to initiate sex with them. You must not only consider the cost of failing to communicate verbally when the other person wants you to; you must also consider the cost of communicating verbally when the other person expects you to initiate purely based on a nonverbal signal. Those costs are not symmetrical, but both most get some kind of weight.
You might hold that even if communicating about consent verbally is probabilistically costly, the expected value (to the other person) of communicating is still positive. I would agree, for the class of people that I generally date, and my skills and level of attractiveness. With pickup skills, I can take the potential attractiveness loss of sexual communication, or avoid that loss altogether by knowing how to frame my communication in an attractive way.
I don’t find basic communication over consent around sex to be too costly, but I do find other sorts of sexual communication to be costly. For example, asking someone what they want to do sexually, or how I can please them, usually results in women looking at me like I’m an alien (they prefer that I just initiate something, or that they do so, “spontaneously”). So I’ve stopped asking that question unless I am sure that the other person would enjoy that sort of communication.
However, I am uncomfortable taking what works for you and me, and ethically requiring it of other people. If you are trying to date a population of people who absolutely hate verbal communication over sex, then resorting to strong nonverbal signals might actually be way to initiate with the highest expected value. If you did attempt communication, you might simply be discarded as a mate in favor of people who are even less scrupulous than you, and who are more likely to harm others. In such a (sub)culture, the ethical strategy (at least, from a consequentialist standpoint) might be to do everything in your power short of verbal communication to confirm consent.
I’m uncomfortable with people like you and me (who are probably psychometric outliers) taking our preferences and defining them as the “right” way to do things, while the preferences of others are defined as “wrong,” without them getting any say. And then we go and demand that everyone initiate in the way that we say, or they are being “unethical.” If we are going to make a demand like that, we better be damn sure that we are right.
2 - By now, if you’ve done as instructed, you should have a pretty interesting life. Nonetheless, I think it’s worth exploring this in more detail. If there’s one thing pick-up artists get right, it’s the value of confidence; but it’s important to remember that this doesn’t mean dominance, aggressiveness, or surliness. Confidence means being comfortable in your own skin, remaining centred in a conversation, listening with calm interest but also having something interesting to say about yourself and about your projects, your passions, the adventures you’ve had. It means having a life of your own beyond the object of your affections, and being friendly and courteous but not too eager to please. And yeah, a bit of a teasing or arrogant streak doesn’t hurt. Above all, though, you want to be self-reliant: keep your own shit together and you’ll be more attractive.
1 - THIS IS THE MOST IMPORTANT POINT, not only for getting laid but also as a general principle: you must learn to communicate. Healthy communication is a very complex skill, and there’s no simple formula; I may yet get around to writing a full post or two on the topic. Nevertheless, one way or another, you need to learn to be honest while still showing respect and courtesy, and you need to learn to inspire honesty in others. Try to foster this attitude in your broader community and everyone will benefit (this is how the communal house I live in still functions as well as it does, despite a number of difficult circumstances we’ve faced over time).
I do want to say a word about communication in the bedroom. Sex is an attempt to create a mutually enjoyable and fulfilling interaction of an intimate sort, and you simply can’t do that without indicating, in some fashion, what you want and how you want it. A lot of this communication ends up being nonverbal, but you should learn to be comfortable voicing your desires. You’ll also want to pay attention to what your partner wants, whether based on their vocalizations and body language or sometimes by asking questions: “Is that good?” rolls off the tongue nicely.
I should also say a word about consent. Body language and other implicit cues can only take you so far; before you hit the bedroom, you’d better make sure your partner is enthusiastic about the prospect, and that requires verbal communication. This can be a little awkward, but it becomes significantly less so with practice. Remember: this is YOUR responsibility. “I thought s/he seemed into it” or “They seemed to go along with it” is no excuse.
So there you have it: how to have a satisfying sex life—by extension of an otherwise satisfying life—in six monumental steps.
Trouble is, most of what you write is extended far beyond what’s written in the original list, or it’s equally vague and thus of no practical use.
Take for example your advice to “start flirting.” (Which, by the way, it would be quite a stretch to see as an interpretation of the original point five, except insofar as it’s vague and allegoric enough to mean anything you want to see in it.) For a man who is socially inept, or even just clueless about women, flirting is like differential equations for someone who is stumped by basic algebra—and useful and systematic learning materials to remedy this situation can be found only you-know-where.
On all other points, you similarly extend and reinterpret the original statements creatively and liberally, but even so, the advice you give falls far short of practical usefulness. Insofar as your advice makes sense, the only men who are able to imagine some concrete and workable ideas for action based on it are those who already understand these issues well enough that they don’t even need it. For those who actually have such problems, much more concrete, detailed, and practical guidance is needed, and again, I know of only one sort of venues that offer it. (And in fact, at a few places where your advice approaches something resembling useful guidelines, it says basically the same things you’ll read there.)
If you said that verbal communication was one of the most effective ways to communicate enthusiastic consent, I would agree. But is it really required? That notion seems to counter-intuitive to me, because I can think up some ways to nonverbally communicate enthusiastic consent that don’t seem ambiguous (to me). What if your partner tries something like the following:
Waves a condom at you while pointing at their crotch.
Slowly physically guides you with their hands into initiating sex.
I can understand the reluctance to admit nonverbal ways of communicating, since so many of those methods are indeed ambiguous. But saying that verbal communication is required seems to either miss out on the possibility of non-ambiguous nonverbal communication like the above, or be some sort of noble lie.
That one made me laugh. Reading the quote you provided prompted me to think of all sorts of body language and non-verbal cues that are more than sufficient in communicating physical consent. Such as him to the bedroom herself, tearing off his clothes or touching him on the penis. But waving a condom at you while pointing at her crotch takes the prize.
Everything I said about consent applies just as much to women as to men. If he’s actually uninterested, tearing his clothes off or grabbing his crotch isn’t a signal, it’s sexual assault.
Everything I say about consent applies to men as much as women. A guy does not have to verbally express a wish to have his clothes torn off for it to be ok. He too can use more natural means of communicating.
Furthermore judging either of these two as engaging in sexual assault is not a neutral or innocent act. It is invasive and damaging to your victims. As well as slandering their reputation the act of giving that label implies the need for and potentially causes a direct punishment and restriction of freedom. That is something I consider unacceptable (when done so aggressively and obviously dependent on degree of credible social threat.)
Well I’m no fan of the criminal justice system either, but I’m trying to keep this on the topic of sexuality; if my anarchist leanings come into the conversation we’ll be here all week. :p
But anyway, please see my comment here. A person can nonverbally express their desires, and a person can correctly pick up on that expression and act upon it, but they can also incorrectly interpret the signals they’re getting. I’m saying that mistakes, although still rare, happen a lot more often than you’d think, and the consequences are serious enough that this is not an ethically acceptable position to take with a new partner. You need to ask.
Am I correctly inferring here that you believe, by contrast, that desires expressed in language, in response to a question asked in language, cannot be incorrectly interpreted? Or at least that such mistakes don’t happen “a lot more often than you’d think”?
If so, I’d say this is simply false.
I have never done so in the past and do not intend to start. I believe my behavior is appropriate and a desirable norm.
Okay, so it’s not a fundamental necessity, but it’s not a noble lie either; it’s a matter of ethics. The consequences of misunderstanding, probabilistically weighted, are still serious enough that it’s ethically better to maintain a habit of making a bit of sexy talk before hopping in bed with any new partner.
For the record, I have indeed misinterpreted what I thought were totally unambiguous “go” signals. Fortunately things did not progress far, but it was a big wake-up call for me.
So it’s an ethical necessity? Or something that’s just a good thing to do but not ethically required?
I lean in the same direction, but there are some things that make me uncomfortable about this argument.
The practice you advocate is only one point along a continuum of certainty over consent. Why does a “bit” of sexy talk put you other the ethical cutoff, but those body language cues aren’t good enough? Why not draw the cutoff line somewhere less restrictive, or somewhere even more restrictive?
If the costs of misunderstanding are so high, then why only make a “bit” of sexy talk? If you should ask once, why shouldn’t you ask twice? If you should ask twice, why not ask three times? If you should ask three times, why not give a week-long cool-off period and see if you two still want to have sex? Why not have consent forms? Actually, to completely avoid any probabilistic costs, why not stay home?
To make up some numbers, let’s say that the body language cues I mentioned give a conditional probability of 95% person that someone is communicating consent to sex, and verbal communication gives 96%. Meanwhile, even more extensive communication could get you up to 99%. Lawyers could get you up to 99.9%.
Until we identify the moral principle behind picking a point on this continuum, there is no way to avoid a reductio ad absurdum.
The other factor not present in your comment is the benefits of sex, and the costs of attempting communication. Your comment only recognizes the probabilistic cost of abstaining from verbal communication. Recognizing the costs of various forms of verbal communication could explain why we aren’t bringing in consent forms and lawyers. But if you say that those extra measures aren’t necessary, or that they are costly, then why is explicit verbal communication necessary over the forms of nonverbal communication I suggested? Why does just a bit of sexy talk just happen to hit the sweet spot of costs vs. benefits of communication?
Some people find communication over consent to be costly: not just to themselves, but to the other partner. If a sufficient fraction of the class of people you date find it undesirable when you attempt to communicate verbally about consent, then you must consider that possibility in your moral calculation about how to initiate sex with them. You must not only consider the cost of failing to communicate verbally when the other person wants you to; you must also consider the cost of communicating verbally when the other person expects you to initiate purely based on a nonverbal signal. Those costs are not symmetrical, but both most get some kind of weight.
You might hold that even if communicating about consent verbally is probabilistically costly, the expected value (to the other person) of communicating is still positive. I would agree, for the class of people that I generally date, and my skills and level of attractiveness. With pickup skills, I can take the potential attractiveness loss of sexual communication, or avoid that loss altogether by knowing how to frame my communication in an attractive way.
I don’t find basic communication over consent around sex to be too costly, but I do find other sorts of sexual communication to be costly. For example, asking someone what they want to do sexually, or how I can please them, usually results in women looking at me like I’m an alien (they prefer that I just initiate something, or that they do so, “spontaneously”). So I’ve stopped asking that question unless I am sure that the other person would enjoy that sort of communication.
However, I am uncomfortable taking what works for you and me, and ethically requiring it of other people. If you are trying to date a population of people who absolutely hate verbal communication over sex, then resorting to strong nonverbal signals might actually be way to initiate with the highest expected value. If you did attempt communication, you might simply be discarded as a mate in favor of people who are even less scrupulous than you, and who are more likely to harm others. In such a (sub)culture, the ethical strategy (at least, from a consequentialist standpoint) might be to do everything in your power short of verbal communication to confirm consent.
I’m uncomfortable with people like you and me (who are probably psychometric outliers) taking our preferences and defining them as the “right” way to do things, while the preferences of others are defined as “wrong,” without them getting any say. And then we go and demand that everyone initiate in the way that we say, or they are being “unethical.” If we are going to make a demand like that, we better be damn sure that we are right.