I strongly disagree with both these points. Look at some of the famous recent cases of high profile sexual predators, and many if not most were married—Harvey Weinstein, Bill Cosby, Bill Clinton, Donald Trump, Andrew Windsor, etc. are all married. Some of these people divorced and remarried later and I don’t know if all of their accusations were all during marriages (though many clearly were), but if not, then that just undermines your second point, which also strikes me as not an especially strong correlation. Also, look at the very high rates of sexual harassment in communities (economics, philosophy academia, Hollywood, many religious communities) where most people are married.
Suppose your second point about high-status men being disproportionately married was true though. Suppose further that for whatever reason, it seemed slightly less true in EA, with lower overall marriage rates than the general population. What would you think about a post that ended with “Standard disclaimers apply about ‘not all ’ - there are plenty of perfectly healthy single men out there—but its implementation in EA seems to play a significant role in many of the examples cited.”?
(plus the level of scrupulosity EAs would bring to opposing cheating)
I’m confused by this—do you mean that you would expect people involved in EA to be more opposed to cheating than others or that this is what you would hope for in your idealized alternate version of EA? If it is the former, why would you not expect them to be more opposed to sexual harassment in any context?
I strongly disagree with both these points. Look at some of the famous recent cases of high profile sexual predators, and many if not most were married—Harvey Weinstein, Bill Cosby, Bill Clinton, Donald Trump, Andrew Windsor, etc. are all married.
I think this is only disagreement with my first point? My second point was that in the broader world it’s rare for high-status men to be single, and giving several examples of married high-status men seems to go in that direction?
On the first point, my claim isn’t “monogamously married men don’t hit on people they shouldn’t or otherwise harass people because of the risk of it getting back to their partner”—that is clearly not true. Instead, I’m saying I’d predict that they’re less likely to, and they’re likely to try to be more attentive to whether their interaction seems to be wanted because of the higher risk to their reputation.
do you mean that you would expect people involved in EA to be more opposed to cheating than others
I think this is currently true: EA has a lot of people who care a lot about strictly following rules and sticking with commitments, and I think EAs would on average judge someone harshly for cheating than non-EAs.
why would you not expect them to be more opposed to sexual harassment in any context?
But I do think EAs are generally more opposed to sexual harassment than non-EAs?
Which again isn’t to say it doesn’t happen or even that it necessarily happens less here than elsewhere—as described in the article and in various metoo posts it does happen, and it happens more than we should accept.
So it seems you think being single is just as likely to result in a high propensity to commit sexual assault as being polyamorous, but it just happens to be the case that most high status men are not single? Is that a fair description of your views?
If so, would you equally supportive of posts about how marriage rates in EA are too low relative (assuming this was true) to the general population and how this is somehow a problem and potentially dangerous for women?
it seems you think being single is just as likely to result in a high propensity to commit sexual assault as being polyamorous, but it just happens to be the case that most high status men are not single? Is that a fair description of your views?
Not exactly, but close enough.
would you equally supportive of posts about how marriage rates in EA are too low relative (assuming this was true) to the general population and how this is somehow a problem and potentially dangerous for women?
As I wrote in my response to Kelsey I don’t think we should be discouraging polyamory. I was trying to answer your “What is the relevance of polyamory?” question, and talk about how this effect on interpersonal harm is one of the considerations in trying to figure out whether discouraging polyamory is a good idea.
Your question also conflates “single” as in “non-married” and as in “non-partnered” in a confusing way.
Your question also conflates “single” as in “non-married” and as in “non-partnered” in a confusing way.
Agreed, my bad, I meant non-partnered.
I was trying to answer your “What is the relevance of polyamory?” question, and talk about how this effect on interpersonal harm is one of the considerations in trying to figure out whether discouraging polyamory is a good idea.
I guess my point was that if the community had lower rates of romantic relationships than the rest of society, it would be a very non-remarkable thing and it would be very odd to bring up people who chose to be single or norms that are very accepting of choosing to be single on rates of sexual assault or harassment. It would also feel very offensive to me if I were a single person and there was open discussion of whether my choice to be single was somehow increasing sexual assaults either directly because I was more likely to commit assault or indirectly by promoting it as a norm. I’m all for saying offensive things that need to be said, but in this case there seems to be almost no evidence to back it up.
I get the sense that even though the arguments around polyamory and sexual assault are almost identical to the arguments around singleness by choice and sexual assault, one is treated very differently because it is perceived as weird and deviant.
If our community had elevated levels of people being single by choice, where this was of the “lots of romantic interactions, but no commitment” and not the “few romantic interactions” variety, I absolutely expect people would be pointing to it as a potential contributor to higher rates of unwanted romantic or sexual interactions.
This does not mean I would be trying to discourage people from being single by choice, but I could see us having the same conversation we are now where I talk about how I think it probably leads to a higher level of issues and that is one thing to consider in deciding whether one should discourage it.
I strongly disagree with both these points. Look at some of the famous recent cases of high profile sexual predators, and many if not most were married—Harvey Weinstein, Bill Cosby, Bill Clinton, Donald Trump, Andrew Windsor, etc. are all married. Some of these people divorced and remarried later and I don’t know if all of their accusations were all during marriages (though many clearly were), but if not, then that just undermines your second point, which also strikes me as not an especially strong correlation. Also, look at the very high rates of sexual harassment in communities (economics, philosophy academia, Hollywood, many religious communities) where most people are married.
Suppose your second point about high-status men being disproportionately married was true though. Suppose further that for whatever reason, it seemed slightly less true in EA, with lower overall marriage rates than the general population. What would you think about a post that ended with “Standard disclaimers apply about ‘not all ’ - there are plenty of perfectly healthy single men out there—but its implementation in EA seems to play a significant role in many of the examples cited.”?
I’m confused by this—do you mean that you would expect people involved in EA to be more opposed to cheating than others or that this is what you would hope for in your idealized alternate version of EA? If it is the former, why would you not expect them to be more opposed to sexual harassment in any context?
I think this is only disagreement with my first point? My second point was that in the broader world it’s rare for high-status men to be single, and giving several examples of married high-status men seems to go in that direction?
On the first point, my claim isn’t “monogamously married men don’t hit on people they shouldn’t or otherwise harass people because of the risk of it getting back to their partner”—that is clearly not true. Instead, I’m saying I’d predict that they’re less likely to, and they’re likely to try to be more attentive to whether their interaction seems to be wanted because of the higher risk to their reputation.
I think this is currently true: EA has a lot of people who care a lot about strictly following rules and sticking with commitments, and I think EAs would on average judge someone harshly for cheating than non-EAs.
But I do think EAs are generally more opposed to sexual harassment than non-EAs?
Which again isn’t to say it doesn’t happen or even that it necessarily happens less here than elsewhere—as described in the article and in various metoo posts it does happen, and it happens more than we should accept.
So it seems you think being single is just as likely to result in a high propensity to commit sexual assault as being polyamorous, but it just happens to be the case that most high status men are not single? Is that a fair description of your views?
If so, would you equally supportive of posts about how marriage rates in EA are too low relative (assuming this was true) to the general population and how this is somehow a problem and potentially dangerous for women?
Not exactly, but close enough.
As I wrote in my response to Kelsey I don’t think we should be discouraging polyamory. I was trying to answer your “What is the relevance of polyamory?” question, and talk about how this effect on interpersonal harm is one of the considerations in trying to figure out whether discouraging polyamory is a good idea.
Your question also conflates “single” as in “non-married” and as in “non-partnered” in a confusing way.
Agreed, my bad, I meant non-partnered.
I guess my point was that if the community had lower rates of romantic relationships than the rest of society, it would be a very non-remarkable thing and it would be very odd to bring up people who chose to be single or norms that are very accepting of choosing to be single on rates of sexual assault or harassment. It would also feel very offensive to me if I were a single person and there was open discussion of whether my choice to be single was somehow increasing sexual assaults either directly because I was more likely to commit assault or indirectly by promoting it as a norm. I’m all for saying offensive things that need to be said, but in this case there seems to be almost no evidence to back it up.
I get the sense that even though the arguments around polyamory and sexual assault are almost identical to the arguments around singleness by choice and sexual assault, one is treated very differently because it is perceived as weird and deviant.
If our community had elevated levels of people being single by choice, where this was of the “lots of romantic interactions, but no commitment” and not the “few romantic interactions” variety, I absolutely expect people would be pointing to it as a potential contributor to higher rates of unwanted romantic or sexual interactions.
This does not mean I would be trying to discourage people from being single by choice, but I could see us having the same conversation we are now where I talk about how I think it probably leads to a higher level of issues and that is one thing to consider in deciding whether one should discourage it.