I think people might be imagining some pretty different situations? Compare:
Employee A approaches new hire B at lunch and says “I’m putting together a BDSM party this weekend, let me know if that’s the sort of thing you might be into.”
Employees A and B have become close over a long time working together. They talk about a lot of things, and have gradually become more comfortable sharing details about their personal lives. At this point they both know that the other is into BDSM, and A invites B to a BDSM party they’re organizing.
[EDIT: in both cases imagine the employees are at the same level, and not in each other’s management chains]
There’s a continuum from 1 to 2, and while I do expect some of the disagreement here is about whether to treat BDSM parties as different from other social activities (if #1 was about a board game party then it would probably be widely viewed as welcoming) my guess is most of it is how much information people are imagining A has about whether B would like to receive an invitation?
A board game party is very different. There have been reams and reams written about power dynamics in corporations and the issues that sex brings into it. I find it concerning that so many EA’s are so blase about this topic.
Especially when it comes to something like BDSM, that explicitly has dominance and submission in most circumstances. That seems like a ridiculously unhealthy dynamic if, for instance, someone invited a direct report or an employee to a BDSM party. I don’t think the amount of time spent getting to know the employee matters too much.
Imagine being an employee, your boss invites you to one of these parties, and then asks you to perform submissive acts. I find that incredibly problematic, and it sounds like this exact scenario happens frequently at big EA orgs.
I wouldn’t go so far as to say all sexual relations between coworkers should be banned, but I do think the current norms are unhealthy. Not sure exactly how to fix it without being unnecessarily draconian though.
Edit: I’ll also add that, as Tim admits (and I truly appreciate the candor here), when it comes to things like sex it’s very difficult to disentangle emotions. Tim would feel personally attacked if someone doesn’t like his and his wife’s sexual practices.
In reality I see this very easily extending to people who accept sexual advances. I think it would be extremely difficult for a boss to be neutral when it comes to decided to promote an employee if they have slept with one of them.
BDSM is not primarily about sex, and sex mostly does not happen at BDSM parties, at least not the ones that I’ve been at. A sex party is a different thing. The impression I get from your comment is that you are not very familiar with the BDSM scene—though I might be wrong. There isn’t any tell in it that shows that you definitely are ignorant about a basic fact, it is just a vibe I’m feeling.
In either case, as far as I know, neither of us work at an EA org, and from your comment it seems like you imagine that what happens at these parties is very different from what I imagine happens at them (which is not to say I’m correct, they probably occur in the Bay Area or London, where the scene is very different, and vastly bigger than where I live).
Also, I think we have a different set of priors here about sex, relationships and careers.
And again, I am self employed, and have been for the entire time I’ve earned meaningful money, and I’m male, so my intuitive pov is likely missing important things. And also, my resistance to changing norms in EA around sex is not about thinking that there shouldn’t be a norm where managers don’t sleep with subordinates in EA orgs -- there probably should be a norm against that, though I think even here the other side of the cost benefit ledger is systematically ignored because it sounds bad to talk about benefits of something that has been decided to be socially condemned.
My view here is mostly about creating norms against people who are not in employment relationships with each other dating within the community, and my anger is about trying to define community boundaries to make openly poly, bdsm, or generally weird people feel less welcome and allowed to be who they are.
Tim—excellent comment. I agree that a lot of the EA people who seem to be freaking out about the very idea of being invited to BSDM events seem to know less than nothing about BDSM, and are relying on third-hand media stereotypes about the subculture.
A good rule of thumb about highly stigmatized sexual subcultures is, if one hasn’t read anything about them, hasn’t watched any inteviews with people in the subculture, hasn’t gone to any events in the subculture, and doesn’t have any close friends involved in the subculture, then one’s takes about the subculture are likely to have very low epistemic quality.
a lot of the EA people who seem to be freaking out about the very idea of being invited to BSDM events seem to know less than nothing about BDSM, and are relying on third-hand media stereotypes about the subculture
On the other hand we’re talking about situations where someone is inviting their coworkers to BDSM parties. While (as I said above) I think this can be ok if the asker already knows the askee is into this kind of thing, consider the more dubious cases where the asker doesn’t:
A: I’m putting together a BDSM party this weekend, let me know if that’s the sort of thing you might be into.
B: Um, no thanks.
How B feels here depends mostly on their likely-uninformed understanding of what happens at these parties.
I guess the key issue is, who’s responsible for having misunderstandings and stereotypes about a popular sexual subculture, if those misunderstandings and stereotypes lead to negative reactions or to offense being taken.
I don’t think it’s necessarily about having misunderstandings or stereotypes. I was the original person who commented this. I think people have different levels of comfort when it comes to mixing their sex and work lives. I personally have strong boundaries in professional settings. Ultimately I think everyone has different preferences here, and I get the sense that EA groups maybe have a slightly different culture than what I’m used to when it comes to personal/professional boundaries. Should that be changed? I’m not so sure, I was mostly posting it as a question, and to show my own perspective.
Thanks for the thoughtful reply! I am indeed not aware of how BDSM culture operates and definitely made a lot of assumptions. My apologies for that!
I guess I agree we should welcome people, and my general sense is that optimal sexual/relationship norms should be far more open and less prudish than they are today. As I’ve said elsewhere though, when work and large decisions regarding money/power get involved l become wary of sexual relationships.
A board game party is very different. There have been reams and reams written about power dynamics in corporations and the issues that sex brings into it. I find it concerning that so many EA’s are so blase about this topic.
I agree that a board game party is very different and was trying to say so; I’m sorry my comment was confusing here. Rephrasing:
I see two main explanations for why people might disagree about the scenario: (i) disagreement about how much information A has about whether B would like to receive an invitation and (ii) disagreement about how we should socially treat BDSM parties vs other parties.
Even though there isn’t consensus on (ii), I think most of the disagreement on “can it be ok to invite coworkes to BDSM parties” is around (i).
if, for instance, someone invited a direct report or an employee to a BDSM party
Edited my comment to specify that both people are at the same level.
Imagine being an employee, your boss invites you to one of these parties, and then asks you to perform submissive acts. I find that incredibly problematic, and it sounds like this exact scenario happens frequently at big EA orgs.
Wait, what? This isn’t something I’d heard of—what makes you think it happens at all, let alone is frequent?
A mix of anecdotal stories from friends, and the common posts up here, like Tim, clearly claiming that this happens and he and his wife are part of it.
Perhaps the ‘frequently’ is uncharitable, I’m admittedly a bit frustrated on this topic. Still it seems like you aren’t really answering the core of my criticism—that this creates extremely unhealthy and abusive power dynamics...
You might be underrating the role of theatricality in the culture, the role silliness plays in the appeal for a lot of people, not to mention the high bar for communication and introspection. Heck, people of the culture are known to say things like “can I hug you?” which is more interpersonally scrupulous than the base rate “normal” person who, I’ve observed, seem use this “hugs for women; handshakes for men” heuristic that it’s super autistic to second guess.
I think if the community theater was putting on King Lear, and my boss got the part of the king, and I got the part of a servant, no one would think there’s a CoI or unscrupulosity, right? or if I got the part of Lear and my boss got the part of a servant, whatever.
(flagging that I’m hesitating to participate in subthread because topicalness, but didn’t think leading a pivot to DMs made sense since the cat was already out of the bag)
I’m admittedly not in the polyamory/SF/Rationalist part of the EA movement, and going based off second or third-hand stories and things posted on the EA forum.
I didn’t claim anything of that sort. Neither of us work for an EA org. My wife strongly does not identify as EA. I’m not even BDSM. I just claim my wife would consider inviting an interested coworker to a munch or a party as a totally reasonable thing to do if it naturally came up.
A mix of anecdotal stories from friends, and the common posts up here, like Tim, clearly claiming that this happens and he and his wife are part of it.
Tim said his wife “views inviting coworkers to BDSM parties is a completely reasonable thing to do”. I agree that this is ambiguous, which is why I wrote my comment. But I don’t see how you can interpret it as a clear claim that she is a manager at an EA org who invites her direct reports to BDSM parties and asks them to perform submissive acts? (Unless your “this exact scenario” was intended to be hyperbole?)
that this creates extremely unhealthy and abusive power dynamics
Can you say more about what you mean by “this”? If you mean inviting subordinates then I agree, but not if you mean inviting equals you have strong reason to think would like to be invited.
I think inviting equals you have strong reason to think would be invited is also problematic. People don’t stay equals forever. They get promoted, move to other orgs, leave and receive grants, etc.
Like I said I don’t have a fully fleshed out way to fix the problem of sex influencing decisions that should be made impartially, but it’s clearly a problem in my view.
Without the addition of polyamory, I think it’s fine in a limited sense. However if every single person in a position of power in EA is also dating another person of power, even monogamously, I would see that as a problem.
Adding in polyamory on top of that complicates things to a far greater degree. As a disclaimer I have nothing against polyamory, I just think it can lead to unhealthy workplace dynamics if it becomes a norm.
If you have an office with a laid-back culture (ie the sort of place that you’d want to work at anyways), and it is a topic of conversation that came up naturally, and the coworker actually seems interested, why not invite them to a beginner friendly thing related to one of your main hobbies?
I suppose when you phrase it this way it’s less weird sounding, I may be convinced after a long discussion.
But my current prior is that lord of casual sex with coworkers is overall a large negative for an organization as it makes it far more difficult to make decisions based on the mission of the org instead of personal feelings.
Again, BDSM is not about sex. You are not inviting someone to have sex with you, or with anyone else. You are inviting them to be come to a party, where they can talk to people who they seem to share a general interest with, and have a chance to meet partners to explore a set of behaviors they want to learn about their own interest in.
Again: Inviting someone to a BDSM party is not inviting them to have sex with you. And it is not inviting the person to be part of a BDSM scene with you.
With regards to the idea that lots of casual sex in an organization is bad: I want to again note, we are not talking about norms around sex within an organization, we are talking about norms around sex within a social movement.
Could you explain why you and your wife think inviting coworkers to a BDSM party is not a problem? I am genuinely curious for your perspective.
I think people might be imagining some pretty different situations? Compare:
Employee A approaches new hire B at lunch and says “I’m putting together a BDSM party this weekend, let me know if that’s the sort of thing you might be into.”
Employees A and B have become close over a long time working together. They talk about a lot of things, and have gradually become more comfortable sharing details about their personal lives. At this point they both know that the other is into BDSM, and A invites B to a BDSM party they’re organizing.
[EDIT: in both cases imagine the employees are at the same level, and not in each other’s management chains]
There’s a continuum from 1 to 2, and while I do expect some of the disagreement here is about whether to treat BDSM parties as different from other social activities (if #1 was about a board game party then it would probably be widely viewed as welcoming) my guess is most of it is how much information people are imagining A has about whether B would like to receive an invitation?
A board game party is very different. There have been reams and reams written about power dynamics in corporations and the issues that sex brings into it. I find it concerning that so many EA’s are so blase about this topic.
Especially when it comes to something like BDSM, that explicitly has dominance and submission in most circumstances. That seems like a ridiculously unhealthy dynamic if, for instance, someone invited a direct report or an employee to a BDSM party. I don’t think the amount of time spent getting to know the employee matters too much.
Imagine being an employee, your boss invites you to one of these parties, and then asks you to perform submissive acts. I find that incredibly problematic, and it sounds like this exact scenario happens frequently at big EA orgs.
I wouldn’t go so far as to say all sexual relations between coworkers should be banned, but I do think the current norms are unhealthy. Not sure exactly how to fix it without being unnecessarily draconian though.
Edit: I’ll also add that, as Tim admits (and I truly appreciate the candor here), when it comes to things like sex it’s very difficult to disentangle emotions. Tim would feel personally attacked if someone doesn’t like his and his wife’s sexual practices.
In reality I see this very easily extending to people who accept sexual advances. I think it would be extremely difficult for a boss to be neutral when it comes to decided to promote an employee if they have slept with one of them.
BDSM is not primarily about sex, and sex mostly does not happen at BDSM parties, at least not the ones that I’ve been at. A sex party is a different thing. The impression I get from your comment is that you are not very familiar with the BDSM scene—though I might be wrong. There isn’t any tell in it that shows that you definitely are ignorant about a basic fact, it is just a vibe I’m feeling.
In either case, as far as I know, neither of us work at an EA org, and from your comment it seems like you imagine that what happens at these parties is very different from what I imagine happens at them (which is not to say I’m correct, they probably occur in the Bay Area or London, where the scene is very different, and vastly bigger than where I live).
Also, I think we have a different set of priors here about sex, relationships and careers.
And again, I am self employed, and have been for the entire time I’ve earned meaningful money, and I’m male, so my intuitive pov is likely missing important things. And also, my resistance to changing norms in EA around sex is not about thinking that there shouldn’t be a norm where managers don’t sleep with subordinates in EA orgs -- there probably should be a norm against that, though I think even here the other side of the cost benefit ledger is systematically ignored because it sounds bad to talk about benefits of something that has been decided to be socially condemned.
My view here is mostly about creating norms against people who are not in employment relationships with each other dating within the community, and my anger is about trying to define community boundaries to make openly poly, bdsm, or generally weird people feel less welcome and allowed to be who they are.
Tim—excellent comment. I agree that a lot of the EA people who seem to be freaking out about the very idea of being invited to BSDM events seem to know less than nothing about BDSM, and are relying on third-hand media stereotypes about the subculture.
A good rule of thumb about highly stigmatized sexual subcultures is, if one hasn’t read anything about them, hasn’t watched any inteviews with people in the subculture, hasn’t gone to any events in the subculture, and doesn’t have any close friends involved in the subculture, then one’s takes about the subculture are likely to have very low epistemic quality.
On the other hand we’re talking about situations where someone is inviting their coworkers to BDSM parties. While (as I said above) I think this can be ok if the asker already knows the askee is into this kind of thing, consider the more dubious cases where the asker doesn’t:
A: I’m putting together a BDSM party this weekend, let me know if that’s the sort of thing you might be into.
B: Um, no thanks.
How B feels here depends mostly on their likely-uninformed understanding of what happens at these parties.
Jeff—fair point.
I guess the key issue is, who’s responsible for having misunderstandings and stereotypes about a popular sexual subculture, if those misunderstandings and stereotypes lead to negative reactions or to offense being taken.
I don’t think it’s necessarily about having misunderstandings or stereotypes. I was the original person who commented this. I think people have different levels of comfort when it comes to mixing their sex and work lives. I personally have strong boundaries in professional settings. Ultimately I think everyone has different preferences here, and I get the sense that EA groups maybe have a slightly different culture than what I’m used to when it comes to personal/professional boundaries. Should that be changed? I’m not so sure, I was mostly posting it as a question, and to show my own perspective.
Thanks for the thoughtful reply! I am indeed not aware of how BDSM culture operates and definitely made a lot of assumptions. My apologies for that!
I guess I agree we should welcome people, and my general sense is that optimal sexual/relationship norms should be far more open and less prudish than they are today. As I’ve said elsewhere though, when work and large decisions regarding money/power get involved l become wary of sexual relationships.
I agree that a board game party is very different and was trying to say so; I’m sorry my comment was confusing here. Rephrasing:
I see two main explanations for why people might disagree about the scenario: (i) disagreement about how much information A has about whether B would like to receive an invitation and (ii) disagreement about how we should socially treat BDSM parties vs other parties.
Even though there isn’t consensus on (ii), I think most of the disagreement on “can it be ok to invite coworkes to BDSM parties” is around (i).
Edited my comment to specify that both people are at the same level.
Wait, what? This isn’t something I’d heard of—what makes you think it happens at all, let alone is frequent?
A mix of anecdotal stories from friends, and the common posts up here, like Tim, clearly claiming that this happens and he and his wife are part of it.
Perhaps the ‘frequently’ is uncharitable, I’m admittedly a bit frustrated on this topic. Still it seems like you aren’t really answering the core of my criticism—that this creates extremely unhealthy and abusive power dynamics...
You might be underrating the role of theatricality in the culture, the role silliness plays in the appeal for a lot of people, not to mention the high bar for communication and introspection. Heck, people of the culture are known to say things like “can I hug you?” which is more interpersonally scrupulous than the base rate “normal” person who, I’ve observed, seem use this “hugs for women; handshakes for men” heuristic that it’s super autistic to second guess.
I think if the community theater was putting on King Lear, and my boss got the part of the king, and I got the part of a servant, no one would think there’s a CoI or unscrupulosity, right? or if I got the part of Lear and my boss got the part of a servant, whatever.
(flagging that I’m hesitating to participate in subthread because topicalness, but didn’t think leading a pivot to DMs made sense since the cat was already out of the bag)
I’m admittedly not in the polyamory/SF/Rationalist part of the EA movement, and going based off second or third-hand stories and things posted on the EA forum.
I didn’t claim anything of that sort. Neither of us work for an EA org. My wife strongly does not identify as EA. I’m not even BDSM. I just claim my wife would consider inviting an interested coworker to a munch or a party as a totally reasonable thing to do if it naturally came up.
Tim said his wife “views inviting coworkers to BDSM parties is a completely reasonable thing to do”. I agree that this is ambiguous, which is why I wrote my comment. But I don’t see how you can interpret it as a clear claim that she is a manager at an EA org who invites her direct reports to BDSM parties and asks them to perform submissive acts? (Unless your “this exact scenario” was intended to be hyperbole?)
Can you say more about what you mean by “this”? If you mean inviting subordinates then I agree, but not if you mean inviting equals you have strong reason to think would like to be invited.
I think inviting equals you have strong reason to think would be invited is also problematic. People don’t stay equals forever. They get promoted, move to other orgs, leave and receive grants, etc.
Like I said I don’t have a fully fleshed out way to fix the problem of sex influencing decisions that should be made impartially, but it’s clearly a problem in my view.
Do you also think it’s a problem for equals to start dating?
Without the addition of polyamory, I think it’s fine in a limited sense. However if every single person in a position of power in EA is also dating another person of power, even monogamously, I would see that as a problem.
Adding in polyamory on top of that complicates things to a far greater degree. As a disclaimer I have nothing against polyamory, I just think it can lead to unhealthy workplace dynamics if it becomes a norm.
If you have an office with a laid-back culture (ie the sort of place that you’d want to work at anyways), and it is a topic of conversation that came up naturally, and the coworker actually seems interested, why not invite them to a beginner friendly thing related to one of your main hobbies?
I suppose when you phrase it this way it’s less weird sounding, I may be convinced after a long discussion.
But my current prior is that lord of casual sex with coworkers is overall a large negative for an organization as it makes it far more difficult to make decisions based on the mission of the org instead of personal feelings.
Again, BDSM is not about sex. You are not inviting someone to have sex with you, or with anyone else. You are inviting them to be come to a party, where they can talk to people who they seem to share a general interest with, and have a chance to meet partners to explore a set of behaviors they want to learn about their own interest in.
Again: Inviting someone to a BDSM party is not inviting them to have sex with you. And it is not inviting the person to be part of a BDSM scene with you.
With regards to the idea that lots of casual sex in an organization is bad: I want to again note, we are not talking about norms around sex within an organization, we are talking about norms around sex within a social movement.