I feel sad/judged/ frustrated reading this, though that’s not to say it’s wrong.
Some thoughts
I flirt much less within EA than I once did, largely for these reasons
Yeah, on priors this seems like a normal wise thing to do
I guess there are some possible mid way norms like “women should initiate”
I sense that that women’s views on this are more complex than this suggests, after all many women choose to sleep with people like this. To deny them this option is probably a cost
It feels like we might be able to do better than this
I sense, like many things that the people who most need to hear this might ignore it and those that need to hear it least will enact it
I note that this prescription will affect neurodivergent people more (social clumsiness is much more common among such people). I’m okay with this, but are you?
Feels like we should, as everywhere else, try to quantify the harms and make a decision based on that
Businesses often try to improve only one thing, not everything at once. While I think EA can build better relationships paradigms it feels important that we are trying to make the world better not design a way to have more sex in communities.
Even without precisely quantifying the harms each way, I think we can be pretty confident that the harms on one side are greater than on the other. It seems pretty clear that the harms of letting a non-trivial number of people experience sexual harassment and assault (or even the portion of those harms prevented by implementing a strong norm about this) are greater than the harms of preventing (even 100x as many) people from sleeping around within the community. The latter is just a far, far smaller harm per person—far less than 1⁄100 as great. And I think the same verdict holds even if the latter harm is concentrated mainly on neurodivergent people. And it holds even more clearly if we add on (to the first type of harm) the further harms of making the community less welcoming or uncomfortable for many more people than just those who directly experience harassment or assault.
(But, if there are at-least-as-effective ways to prevent the former harms, without imposing the latter harms, then this isn’t very relevant.)
I strongly disagree with this. I’ve dated ~ 10 people in my life. I have also been sexually assaulted (not by someone in the community). I would quickly and without hesitation take a trade to experience 1 rape like the one I experienced (non-violent) in return to keep any of my happy relationships I’ve had in my life (about half of which I think wouldn’t have formed absent what the author is calling “sleeping around”). For my best relationship (which initially formed via “sleeping around” and I don’t think could easily have done so otherwise, and is now the love of my life), I would trade dozens of rape, easily, for the joy and love my partner brings me.
For sexual harassment, the ratio is even more skewed (obviously). Maybe I’m unusual, but this doesn’t feel personally like a hard trade at all on the current margin.
tbh I suspect that “stuck in a long term abusive relationship” is a more important tail risk than sexual assault and “sleeping around” helps people defend against it (by developing reasonable expectations of what relationships should be like)
Great point about tail risks. I’m unsure if “sleeping around” is a good antidote. Maybe?
Against: According to the point you’re making, people’s first (or earliest) relationships are the most risky because of not yet having developed reasonable expectations of what relationships should be like. Casual norms (and greater tolerance of dating across asymmetric power dynamics) encourage less careful selection, which makes it more likely the partner is a bad match?(As many commenters point out, casual can turn into serious/long-term unexpectedly, so it’s not like casual means you don’t run the risk of ending up in a bad long-term bond.)
In favor: I find it hard to articulate why, but I think you still have a point. Maybe there’s something about how casual norms lead to more discussions about sex and relationships? If so, maybe it’s less about what you end up doing (actually “sleeping around”) and more about seeking out advice from others around you, discussing difficult topics openly, etc.? (Sure, firsthand relationship experience is invaluable, but if the first one is bad for you and you have the sort of personality to “get stuck” – seems like you’re in danger in environments with both types of norms?)
Either way, I don’t think this is the sort of thing that one can (or should) easily engineer from the top down. Feels kind of dystopian if the rules are too restricting. (I do think it’s good to have rules for things that can often go really badly and are somewhat easy to work around if some people really want to date each other – e.g., about power dynamics.)
i meant mostly about how you can get a larger sample size of what possible relationships can look like before (say) committing to monogamy. (I suspect polyamory is even better in this respect). and especially when you’re young you might not have a good sense of how to select people in the first place and love can be pretty dumb about these things.
although more relaxed social norms about talking about such things also helps and has positive externalities for the people more inclined to be ~prudish
but anecdotally given there’s a tail of people who keep getting into these relationships again and again, i think the relationship-expectation thing is really important
The latter is just a far, far smaller harm per person—far less than 1⁄100 as great.
Surely it makes more sense to compare the upside—someone forming a long lasting and loving relationship.
Maybe that’s extreme, but taking a balance of outcomes I doubt it would be 1⁄100.
Also strange that you chose to say 1⁄100 and also 100x as many people—surely if you have high confidence in those numbers then that would balance out by definition? Or is the somewhere where you think this sort of scale insensitivity is valid?
Firstly, for trying to be a good feminist—I honestly think you should get points for trying.
Secondly, for making it plain how ridiculous these arguments are. I’ve seen a lot of reasoning on this forum recently that goes:
more sex = more harassment & assault
therefore
polyamory and “sleeping around” and friends with benefits and any other form of sexual relationship I think I can get away with policing in 2023 = bad
(...but obviously sex before marriage and serial monogamy and any other form of serious, “proper” sexual relationship especially marriage—you know, the ones that actually count because they don’t just make people happy they’re just good you know? = good)
Convenient how the numbers keep working out only in favour of socially sanctioned forms of relationship.
“Sex is between one person and one other person when both people are working towards marriage and not having sex with other people in between” is a lot better than “Sex can only happen within marriage which is between one man and one woman for life,” but there’s still some way to go.
What is EA coming to when I feel even more slut-shamed here than I do with my family lol.
The irony is that it seems to mostly be coming from the political left.
I’m sorry you feel those things. In particular, I’m sorry you feel judged. My intention here was not to judge anyone as being a bad person or anything like that, but to point towards behaviours that I think are harmful largely in a diffuse way given their prevalence in the community and aspects of tight-knit groups.
Thank you, though I guess I think me talking about how I feel shouldn’t mean you have to do anything. I guess given the strength of some of the responses you might feel bad and again, I’d like to move to a place where we can have feelings without a need for reactions.
I feel sad/judged/ frustrated reading this, though that’s not to say it’s wrong.
Some thoughts
I flirt much less within EA than I once did, largely for these reasons
Yeah, on priors this seems like a normal wise thing to do
I guess there are some possible mid way norms like “women should initiate”
I sense that that women’s views on this are more complex than this suggests, after all many women choose to sleep with people like this. To deny them this option is probably a cost
It feels like we might be able to do better than this
I sense, like many things that the people who most need to hear this might ignore it and those that need to hear it least will enact it
I note that this prescription will affect neurodivergent people more (social clumsiness is much more common among such people). I’m okay with this, but are you?
Feels like we should, as everywhere else, try to quantify the harms and make a decision based on that
Businesses often try to improve only one thing, not everything at once. While I think EA can build better relationships paradigms it feels important that we are trying to make the world better not design a way to have more sex in communities.
adding things if I think of them
Even without precisely quantifying the harms each way, I think we can be pretty confident that the harms on one side are greater than on the other. It seems pretty clear that the harms of letting a non-trivial number of people experience sexual harassment and assault (or even the portion of those harms prevented by implementing a strong norm about this) are greater than the harms of preventing (even 100x as many) people from sleeping around within the community. The latter is just a far, far smaller harm per person—far less than 1⁄100 as great. And I think the same verdict holds even if the latter harm is concentrated mainly on neurodivergent people. And it holds even more clearly if we add on (to the first type of harm) the further harms of making the community less welcoming or uncomfortable for many more people than just those who directly experience harassment or assault.
(But, if there are at-least-as-effective ways to prevent the former harms, without imposing the latter harms, then this isn’t very relevant.)
I strongly disagree with this. I’ve dated ~ 10 people in my life. I have also been sexually assaulted (not by someone in the community). I would quickly and without hesitation take a trade to experience 1 rape like the one I experienced (non-violent) in return to keep any of my happy relationships I’ve had in my life (about half of which I think wouldn’t have formed absent what the author is calling “sleeping around”). For my best relationship (which initially formed via “sleeping around” and I don’t think could easily have done so otherwise, and is now the love of my life), I would trade dozens of rape, easily, for the joy and love my partner brings me.
For sexual harassment, the ratio is even more skewed (obviously). Maybe I’m unusual, but this doesn’t feel personally like a hard trade at all on the current margin.
tbh I suspect that “stuck in a long term abusive relationship” is a more important tail risk than sexual assault and “sleeping around” helps people defend against it (by developing reasonable expectations of what relationships should be like)
Great point about tail risks. I’m unsure if “sleeping around” is a good antidote. Maybe?
Against: According to the point you’re making, people’s first (or earliest) relationships are the most risky because of not yet having developed reasonable expectations of what relationships should be like. Casual norms (and greater tolerance of dating across asymmetric power dynamics) encourage less careful selection, which makes it more likely the partner is a bad match?(As many commenters point out, casual can turn into serious/long-term unexpectedly, so it’s not like casual means you don’t run the risk of ending up in a bad long-term bond.)
In favor: I find it hard to articulate why, but I think you still have a point. Maybe there’s something about how casual norms lead to more discussions about sex and relationships? If so, maybe it’s less about what you end up doing (actually “sleeping around”) and more about seeking out advice from others around you, discussing difficult topics openly, etc.? (Sure, firsthand relationship experience is invaluable, but if the first one is bad for you and you have the sort of personality to “get stuck” – seems like you’re in danger in environments with both types of norms?)
Either way, I don’t think this is the sort of thing that one can (or should) easily engineer from the top down. Feels kind of dystopian if the rules are too restricting. (I do think it’s good to have rules for things that can often go really badly and are somewhat easy to work around if some people really want to date each other – e.g., about power dynamics.)
i meant mostly about how you can get a larger sample size of what possible relationships can look like before (say) committing to monogamy. (I suspect polyamory is even better in this respect).
and especially when you’re young you might not have a good sense of how to select people in the first place and love can be pretty dumb about these things.
although more relaxed social norms about talking about such things also helps and has positive externalities for the people more inclined to be ~prudish
but anecdotally given there’s a tail of people who keep getting into these relationships again and again, i think the relationship-expectation thing is really important
I feel by those numbers EAs shouldn’t be dating each other at all?
And possibly with those numbers humans shouldn’t be dating in general, ignoring EA?
yeah
I mean, empirically women do choose to go on dates, so I’m going to trust the revealed preferences here...
Not everyone. Some no longer date after particularly bad experiences. (Can also apply to men.)
stares in negative utilitarian
Surely it makes more sense to compare the upside—someone forming a long lasting and loving relationship.
Maybe that’s extreme, but taking a balance of outcomes I doubt it would be 1⁄100.
Also strange that you chose to say 1⁄100 and also 100x as many people—surely if you have high confidence in those numbers then that would balance out by definition? Or is the somewhere where you think this sort of scale insensitivity is valid?
HaydenW, thank you.
Firstly, for trying to be a good feminist—I honestly think you should get points for trying.
Secondly, for making it plain how ridiculous these arguments are. I’ve seen a lot of reasoning on this forum recently that goes:
more sex = more harassment & assault therefore polyamory and “sleeping around” and friends with benefits and any other form of sexual relationship I think I can get away with policing in 2023 = bad (...but obviously sex before marriage and serial monogamy and any other form of serious, “proper” sexual relationship especially marriage—you know, the ones that actually count because they don’t just make people happy they’re just good you know? = good)
Convenient how the numbers keep working out only in favour of socially sanctioned forms of relationship.
“Sex is between one person and one other person when both people are working towards marriage and not having sex with other people in between” is a lot better than “Sex can only happen within marriage which is between one man and one woman for life,” but there’s still some way to go.
What is EA coming to when I feel even more slut-shamed here than I do with my family lol.
The irony is that it seems to mostly be coming from the political left.
I’m sorry you feel those things. In particular, I’m sorry you feel judged. My intention here was not to judge anyone as being a bad person or anything like that, but to point towards behaviours that I think are harmful largely in a diffuse way given their prevalence in the community and aspects of tight-knit groups.
Thank you, though I guess I think me talking about how I feel shouldn’t mean you have to do anything. I guess given the strength of some of the responses you might feel bad and again, I’d like to move to a place where we can have feelings without a need for reactions.
I would prefer to split this into seperate comments.