smk

Karma: 322

smk Oct 2, 2011, 7:35 PM
1 point
in reply to: Alicorn’s comment on: Fix My Head
Any news?

smk Sep 25, 2011, 7:33 AM
12 points
in reply to: Alicorn’s comment on: Undiscriminating Skepticism
The thread seems to be resurrected, so I’ll present myself. :)

I am a cissexual slightly genderqueer exclusively androsexual monogamously married woman. I think about sexuality and orientation a lot. Including my own. I don’t recall ever being sexually or romantically attracted to a woman. Intellectually, monosexuality seems a little weird to me, but nevertheless it seems to describe me. In fact I think of my monosexuality as a gender fetish, but I hesitate to apply that paradigm to other people’s monosexuality.

smk Sep 17, 2011, 3:40 AM
0 points
on: Fix My Head
Perhaps you could tell us—if it’s not too personal—what potential diagnoses you have already looked into/been tested for/discussed with a doctor.
What links here?
- pedanterrific's comment on Fix My Head by Alicorn (Sep 30, 2011, 11:25 PM; 0 points)

smk Sep 9, 2011, 9:42 AM
0 points
in reply to: atucker’s comment on: Open Thread: September 2011
Yep, it’s from the same folks who do the Mr. Deity bits, which are usually pretty funny as well.

smk Sep 7, 2011, 5:31 PM
7 points
in reply to: Zack_M_Davis’s comment on: Harry Potter and the Methods of Rationality discussion thread, part 8
Huh, I missed that. I thought it was EY’s way of dropping in a cultural tidbit about the wizarding world, where a transsexual girl is naturally thought of by everyone as a girl, though they all know that she makes her body the way it is by being a metamorphmagus, and she reverts to her non-metamorphed form when she’s startled. Then I started wondering what non-metamorphmagus trans people would do. Maybe there are permanent sex-change potions. Or perhaps temporary ones that you have to keep taking, like polyjuice but without copying anyone. Or maybe all trans wizards are metamorphmagi, but I doubt it.

smk Sep 7, 2011, 5:00 PM
4 points
in reply to: moridinamael’s comment on: Harry Potter and the Methods of Rationality discussion thread, part 8
It was Snape that Harry called a Nazgul.

smk Sep 7, 2011, 4:45 PM
15 points
in reply to: NancyLebovitz’s comment on: Harry Potter and the Methods of Rationality discussion thread, part 8
Now I am imagining a secret language spoken only by postal workers. :)

smk Sep 7, 2011, 2:44 PM
0 points
in reply to: APMason’s comment on: Open Thread: September 2011

There is a drug called Reproductene. Taking it causes extreme pain, permanently disables your ability to feel happiness, damages your memory, destroys your imagination, and causes you to have strong cravings for more Reproductene.

Is it awful that that makes me burst into giggles?

smk Sep 7, 2011, 2:36 PM
0 points
in reply to: Eugine_Nier’s comment on: Open Thread: September 2011
I wish I could upvote that more than once.

smk Sep 7, 2011, 2:30 PM
6 points
on: Open Thread: September 2011
A kind of uncomfortably funny video about turning yourself bisexual, a topic that’s come up a few times here on LW. http://youtu.be/zqv-y5Ys3fg

smk Sep 7, 2011, 1:43 PM
0 points
in reply to: TheOtherDave’s comment on: Polyhacking
Temporary but lasting several months, I’m told.

smk Sep 7, 2011, 1:35 PM
29 points
in reply to: Eliezer Yudkowsky’s comment on: Polyhacking
Every time I have ever pointed out specific things I don’t like in answer to “Why won’t you date me?” (back when I was available) the guy has used my reply to insist that he will change and beg for another chance. Then I have to say, “No, I don’t believe you will ever change in that way, and even if you did it wouldn’t be anytime soon, and offering to change yourself for me is really weird.” And then he argues that no, he can change right away, it’s no trouble, please give him a chance. It’s terribly unpleasant. I stopped giving specific answers, and instead said things like, “I guess we just don’t have the right chemistry.” Actually I think that’s a perfectly good and honest answer, and it’s the one that’s always true even when there’s no specific thing I can put my finger on.

I can’t pick out exactly what about someone turns me on or doesn’t turn me on because it’s subconscious, it’s my subconscious mind processing a million details all at once, and even when a person does have, say, bad BO, that’s just something that I was actually able to notice consciously so I might think of that as The Reason but once they fix their BO, all the other stuff, the millions of details only my subconscious picks up, those will still be there and the person will be pissed that the “fix” didn’t work. So I think actually giving a specific reason, or even two or three, is not as honest as just saying chalking it up to “chemistry” (which of course is shorthand for “it’s too complex and subconscious to explain”).

If I really wanted to try explaining a lack of chemistry, I’d probably be able to do no better than, “Some things about you, especially your para-language but other aspects of your behavior as well, though I can’t put my finger on them, rub me the wrong way, or at least inspire no romantic response in me.” Would anyone really find that helpful?

smk Aug 29, 2011, 8:24 AM
2 points
in reply to: TheOtherDave’s comment on: Polyhacking
Being absorbed by a new interest or being busy or away aren’t quite the same thing as not being into your partner anymore.

smk Aug 28, 2011, 8:15 PM
6 points
on: Polyhacking
What if you’re wired in such a way that, when you strike up a romance with someone, the New Relationship Energy wipes out your romantic feelings for everyone else, and only when the NRE has run its course do romantic feelings for other people return? Is that something you can self-modify out of, or otherwise deal with in a polyamorous context?

smk Aug 28, 2011, 7:26 PM
4 points
in reply to: Iabalka’s comment on: Polyhacking

how to behave more masculine

If my husband had done that I likely wouldn’t have been as interested in him.

smk Aug 13, 2011, 4:22 PM
3 points
in reply to: randallsquared’s comment on: Strategic ignorance and plausible deniability
I kind of thought it went without saying that atucker was talking about a limited set of goals being aligned?

As a shorthand I have always tended to look at trust on two levels, which seem similar to atucker’s but perhaps not the same? That is: I trust your intentions (in the relevant area), and I trust your competence (in that area). There’s also the issue of diligence, which is a kind of competence and also a kind of intention, so that can complicate things perhaps, but for simplicity I just look at it as two levels.

smk Aug 11, 2011, 10:14 PM
0 points
in reply to: sdenheyer’s comment on: Rationality and Relationships
Oh, definitely, partner selection is not about finding “the one”. I do have to say, though, that Dan Savage’s outlook is much more “settley” than mine. I also think the .67 is way low, and I can’t relate to what he says about “relationships built on lies” in that video.

Since you bring it up, my parents have a terrible marriage (though they are still together) and my husband’s parents are divorced. His brother also divorced shortly after marrying. My brother had a shotgun wedding and then came close to divorce, but his marriage seems to be ok for now.

smk Aug 11, 2011, 9:48 PM
4 points
in reply to: [deleted]’s comment on: Rationality and Relationships
As I was starting to hint at with the “luminosity” reference, I think a long habit of introspection helped me to figure out that, yes, marriage is for me. And what particular kinds of marriage are for me. And what sort of spouse would be suited to having that kind of marriage with me. And how I needed to change in order to be a good spouse in return. And which criteria are more crucial than others.

As a teen I was glad to be able to learn from the mistakes of my peers, instead of going through that heartache myself. It seems like not everyone can do this, though? At least, I can think of a few people who always seem to have to touch the hot stove before they learn that it burns.

smk Aug 10, 2011, 2:29 PM
4 points
in reply to: [deleted]’s comment on: Rationality and Relationships
Yeah, that’s pretty much what I hear from most people. I’m so lucky! It can’t be that I put careful thought into it at that young age. Even when people don’t chalk it all up to chance, their first thought is that I have learned to apply good relationship maintenance (they’re less likely to think that the relationship maintenance is my husband’s doing).

Not that relationship maintenance isn’t important, but I really believe that I have a happy marriage because I had a clear idea of what someone well-suited to be my husband would be like. I’m not sure I’d call it luminosity, but it’s along those lines.

smk Aug 9, 2011, 4:57 PM
6 points
on: Rationality and Relationships
If someone wanted lifetime monogamy, and they got married at a somewhat young age to their first serious romantic partner, and they and their partner were very happy with the relationship for several years, up to and including the present day, what would you expect about this person regarding their relationship skills? Would you guess that they just lucked out, or that they are good at partner selection, or that they are good at relationship maintenance, or all/some/none of those?

If the person attributes their relationship success to very good partner selection skills, would you find that believable?