Rational approach to finding life partners

[-][anonymous]10y90

It's straightforward to make a list of how to be poor and then by not doing those things to possibly not be poor. But it's hard to make a list of how to be rich and do those things and be rich. Similarly, it's easy to make a list of how to be alone and then by not doing those things possibly not be alone. But it's hard to make a list of how to be with someone and then do those things and be with someone. So - eliminate all the negatives first. If wearing clothes that don't fit, ignoring cleanliness and avoiding people makes for being alone, don't do thos... (read more)

0OrphanWilde10y

Negative things are (mostly) universal, positive things are (mostly) extremely specific to the individual.

0c_edwards10y

There's really two independent things, though. a) How to not be single/how to get someone to date you. b) How to find the person(s) and build/maintain the kind of relationship(s) that you want for the rest of your life (/the forseeable future). In my experience, (a) is much easier than (b). The articles address (b), not (a).

[-]OrphanWilde10y60

The Correct Rational Approach to Finding Life Partners:

Start with two facts: First, the vast majority of women are not, in fact, suitable life partners for you. Second, you are not a suitable life partner for the vast majority of women.

These imply a course of action which starts with elimination. If building an online dating profile? Your goal is not to attract as many suitable people as possible. Your goal is to -reject- as many unsuitable people as possible; this is the entry point for people looking for you, and there are far, far more unsuitable pe... (read more)

2Vaniver10y

So, I agree with the premises behind this prediction, but: I know someone who scraped okCupid for information which he used to eliminate women he wouldn't want to date from the pool. I read an article about someone else who scraped okCupid for information which he used to appear as acceptable as possible to women, and then would go on dates to find out if they were acceptable to him. The second person was considerably more effective, both at figuring out what actually led to a good date and getting good dates. Consider this like prices. If you are having too many dates, your prices are too low, and you should raise them (i.e. exclude more people / look less presentable and more authentic). If you are having too few dates, your prices are too high, and you should lower them (i.e. appear more presentable so you don't get excluded as much).

1OrphanWilde10y

I think of it more as a Type 1 versus Type 2 error tradeoff; there's a point at which you are excluding too many people, true, but I'd treat it less a function of raw dates, and more a function of the number of obviously unacceptable dates you have. You can relax exclusion criteria if you're not getting enough dates, but if in relaxing it, the number of unacceptable people rises without a commensurate rise in acceptable people, you went too far. (The criteria will differ wildly according to the population you're searching. The style of profile I had living in the Northeast was -much- more exclusionary than the style of profile I used in the Midwest or South, both because the pool of potential people was much larger, and the percentage of them I would consider dating was much smaller.)

2Vaniver10y

I agree that this is a big issue. My point there is more that you need to look at that curve, figure out your tangent line, figure out your value tangent line, and then move so that the two are identical, and this requires both advice on what to do if you are going on too many dates and advice on what to do if you are going on too few dates. The secondary issue is that presenting as exclusionary typically is discussed in terms of relative turn-offs; if it turns off 5% of the people you would want to date and 50% of the people you wouldn't want to date, your pool's average has increased. (Ideally, someone decreases the turn-off chance in people you'd like to date and increases it in people you wouldn't like to date, but I think people are overly sanguine about what strategies have that effect.)

1Lumifer10y

...dating advice on LW ... even mentions looking at curves ... :-D

0Vaniver10y

I realized earlier this morning that I had forgotten my main point, and so the sibling comment only hints at it instead of making it explicit: many people talk about plans with the assumption that all of them are on the possibilities frontier, and so the relevant thing is moving along the possibilities frontier until they're at the right tradeoff. But being optimal is surprising--one should assume that there is lots of room for growth, and should try to get more of everything (i.e. move perpendicular to the perceived frontier) until it's clear that they are actually on the frontier. (In the stats case, getting more data means both less Type 1 and Type 2 error.)

2Lumifer10y

The same principle ("reject the middle, explicitly look at the tail of the distribution") as The Verjus Manifesto: (talking about how to make good-for-you metaphorical vegetables palatable) :-)

0roland10y

I didn't quite understand this, could you please elaborate?

2OrphanWilde10y

Your ability to judge both yourself, and another person, and how your personalities will interact, is limited. It's sufficient to identify people with whom you absolutely will not get along, with reasonable accuracy; this is low-hanging fruit. So let's say you've eliminated 95% of the candidate pool by this point. The remaining 5%? You're now considering a pool of candidate partners who you can't immediately eliminate (assuming you have more than one person remaining, after all probably-unsuitable people are eliminated). At this point your list of candidates are people about whom you are uncertain. -Remember- that you're uncertain. Or, from a different angle: If you are absolutely certain that a relationship with somebody will work out, that sense of certainty should, due to the Dunning-Kruger effect, be taken as evidence that you should be less certain.

0roland10y

Ok, so why not pick the "best"? This sounds like defeatist to me. You are assuming that the best is probably to good for me, over my league and instead of wasting time and energy on that I should rather focus on more realistic options. Is that it?

3OrphanWilde10y

No. It's that you're probably overestimating your ability to judge which relationship will be the "best" for you. The Halo Effect means, for example, you'll probably overestimate all the positive qualities of a person, based on one quality that is exceptional (say, physical attractiveness).

[-]iarwain110y60

I find that the Orthodox Jewish system seems to work quite well, at least for religious most people I know. I grew up and married in that system, and I've never "dated" in the normal Western sense, so I have no idea how the system compares or might be applicable in the "normal" world.

[Note: There isn't really one Orthodox Judaism system. Different communities have very different systems, ranging from basically arranged marriages in many Hassidic communities, to almost-normal Western dating in Modern Orthodox communities. I grew up in wh... (read more)

[-]Gunslinger10y50

I don't see the point of getting married at all, especially when you're royally screwed once you're divorced.

5Lumifer10y

What is your estimate of the probability that you'll change your mind about that at some point during your lifetime? :-D

5VoiceOfRa10y

That presumably depends on how the relevant laws change (or not).

3Lumifer10y

I don't think this probability is driven by laws.

7VoiceOfRa10y

The grand-parent's complaint was about being screwed by divorce, which is driven by divorce laws.

3Lumifer10y

Being unhappy about divorce laws post- or during divorce is a very different thing from having one's decision to marry being strongly influenced by divorce laws. In fact, if you are researching divorce laws before your wedding, you probably should call that wedding off -- regardless of whether you'll find these laws reasonable or not.

0Gunslinger10y

Isn't what you're saying completely contradictory to basic decision theory? A possibility of a personal catastrophe in the future should not be ignored. Marriage introduces that possibility and non-marriage doesn't have it.

3Lumifer10y

You are privileging a particular viewpoint. Both paths have risks, costs and benefits. Note that researching divorce laws before the wedding has a strong self-fulfilling prophecy flavour.

0Gunslinger10y

Explain this.

1Lumifer10y

You are assuming that being not married is the default state of being and any deviations from it must be justified.

0Gunslinger10y

What? How?

2Lumifer10y

You are assuming that marriage just adds risks ("possibility of a personal catastrophe") without eliminating other risks.

-1Gunslinger10y

I think the risk is indeed not worth it. And as far as practical things go, marriage is just a simple contract; I'd guess that you can live happily without it, too

2[anonymous]10y

Define practical things.

2Lumifer10y

Sure, but is that anything more than your personal opinion? That is very clearly false.

-3VoiceOfRa10y

Don't tell me you're one of those hopeless "love conquers all and isn't subject to rational laws" romantics.

1Lumifer10y

Do I detect a subtle hint of disapproval in that sneering? I expect much more from a spouse than just being a business partner bound by a long contract. As to divorce laws, my suggestion would be to marry good people. That makes divorce laws irrelevant.

2VoiceOfRa10y

Ok, taboo "good person". What kind of evidence do you expect to see to be sure that the person you're planning to marry is "good"? With what probability? What if you're wrong?

1Lumifer10y

I mean entirely traditional old-fashioned virtues like honesty, fairness, and kindness. LOL. I wonder how you cross streets. Are you quite sure no one will run you down? With what probability? What if you're wrong?

-1VoiceOfRa10y

There's a rather acute shortage of people with old-fashioned virtues these days. A lot less then winding up in a divorce.

3Lumifer10y

Thankfully, I don't need many :-)

1gjm10y

I do not believe that marrying good people is sufficient to make divorce laws irrelevant, unless you define "good" so strongly that it's basically impossible to be justifiably confident that one is marrying a good person.

2Lumifer10y

I'm talking on a personal level, not social. In the same way I would suggest that you not rob anyone and if you follow that suggestion, laws about robbery will be irrelevant to you (insert the usual disclaimers).

0gjm10y

Yes, I understood that you meant individuals rather than society as a whole. And I am suggesting that a policy of only marrying good people is not sufficient to keep a person from having to care about divorce laws. Unless e.g. you define "good" in such a way as to imply "would never get divorced" or "would, if getting divorced, never have interests that sharply diverge from their ex-spouse's" or something, which I would think highly unreasonable and which would make it even more impossible to be sure of not marrying someone not-good. ... Oh, wait. Is what you're really suggesting a policy of never marrying at all? Because that (1) is probably the only way to be sure of not marrying anyone who isn't "good" and (2) would indeed make it very unlikely that one would need to care about divorce laws.

2Lumifer10y

In such a way as to imply that two civilized people -- even with different interests -- can negotiate and come to an agreement without engaging in lawyer warfare and without getting the justice system involved (other than putting an official stamp on the agreement). Besides, what both you and VoiceOfRa (heh) care about is probably not so much divorce laws, but rather prevalent practices in the Family Courts which typically have very wide latitude in deciding on the post-(antagonistic)divorce arrangements.

1gjm10y

If A and B get married -- even if they are both good people and know one another to be good people -- then there is a non-negligible chance that at some point their marriage will break down. In that case -- even if they are both good people -- there is a non-negligible chance that it will do so acrimoniously and some variety of hostilities will ensue. There is a further non-negligible chance that their marriage will end on reasonably friendly terms but then, in the course of tidying up the legal loose ends, one of them will engage a lawyer who notices that they could do "better" and who strongly encourages them to do so. There is a further non-negligible chance (I think) that when they divorce there will be children involved and it will be necessary to involve the legal system. In any of those cases, what happens will be influenced by the divorce laws. Or, at the very least, I don't see how A and B can know that it won't without being familiar with the divorce laws. Furthermore, A may be sure when A and B get married that B is a good person, but s/he may turn out not to be so good after all. Or one or both may become less good over time, which is a thing that sometimes happens to people who are unhappily married and even to people who aren't. Now, for the sake of good relations at the start of A and B's marriage, it may be best if A doesn't think B is looking up divorce laws just in case and vice versa. The best way to avoid that may be for A and B genuinely not to look up divorce laws before they are married. And the best way to avoid that may be for A and B genuinely not to care about divorce laws, even though aside from the effect on each of thinking that the other anticipates possible divorce they'd be better off knowing. But that isn't the same as saying that if you take care to marry a good person then you will never be affected by divorce laws.

1Gunslinger10y

I don't know. I don't think I'll ever get married or that there is even hope for me to get married.

3jefftk10y

I'm very happy about being married. It allows us to plan knowing we can count on the other one to be there, and embark on large joint projects like childraising. Divorce would suck, but we both know that and would try very hard to avoid it. Talking a lot seems important here, prioritizing the relationship, and valuing the other person's happiness as your own. I only have six years of practice though, so I could be wrong.

0Gunslinger10y

It doesn't seem to be worth the effort.

[-]chaosmage10y50

Many articles at that blog are worth reading, not just this one.

3Error10y

This. Wait but Why is excellent. I'd also recommend his three-part series on procrastination that starts here. There are links to the next post in the series at the bottom.

2c_edwards10y

Just pulled myself away from some of his other stuff. So much good stuff. At some point I need to compare his take on AI with the lw articles. So much to read, so little time.

[-]OrphanWilde10y40

This actually isn't a gendered issue. "Fat acceptance" and "Nerd acceptance" are two sides of the same coin, but both sides insist it is gendered.

Sexual deprivation has real psychological effects. Shit, we should -expect- it to have real psychological effects; you're failing to function as the wind-up toy evolution designed you as. Why do people deny the psychological effects? Why do -you- deny the psychological effects, and insist they can just be overcome?

Because, by the standard morality of our society, problems must be solved. ... (read more)

[-]Elo10y20

The best advice I have in the area is to consider what you want before you go out and get it. Where many people do not; you have the opportunity to chose something more specific before hitting the marketplace. (I can say more on this topic if there is interest)

2zedzed10y

Please do.

[-]VoiceOfRa10y00

No woman owes sex to no man. If you think that women have any kind of duty to sexually satisfy men, you are deluded and have very unhealthy and dangerous attitudes.

Contrast this with:

No boss owes a job to no potential employee. If you think that bosses have any kind of duty to employ you, you are deluded and have very unhealthy and dangerous attitudes.

Compare your reaction to the first and second sentiment. What accounts for the difference?

4Good_Burning_Plastic10y

In principle "no woman owes sex to no man" and "no boss owes a job to no potential employee" are indeed closely analogous (I myself lean libertarian-ish so I agree with both), but empirically the kind of people who "think that women have any kind of duty to sexually satisfy men" and the kind of people who "think that bosses have any kind of duty to employ you" seem demographically and culturally different to me -- if anything, I'd expect those two sentiments to anti-correlate for hysterical raisins (e.g. the former is more common among Red Tribers, the latter is more common among Blue Tribers, etc.). People are often bad at or uninterested in thinking about those kind of things at the meta level. Also, empirically the former people do seem more dangerous to me (at least nowadays; probably not in e.g. 1917 Russia), e.g. applicants/former employees becoming violent toward bosses after being turned down/fired (or vice versa) don't seem particularly common to me.

4Jiro10y

Note that "duty to do X" isn't necessarily the same as "if they don't do X, someone has a right to force them to".

3Good_Burning_Plastic10y

How would "I have a duty to hire you, but even if I don't, nobody has a right to force me to (or, at least, to punish me)" be worth the paper it's written on? How would a world where that's the case differ from one where "I have no duty to hire you, and therefore if I don't, nobody has a right to force me to", how can I tell the difference, and why should I care?

3Richard_Kennaway10y

The question you are asking is, "what is morality?"

1gjm10y

I'm not Mirzhan_Irkegulov, but my reaction to the two is very similar: both are correct, and in general no one has an obligation to have sex with anyone else and no one has an obligation to employ anyone else. I'll guess that you're thinking about anti-discrimination laws, according to which in some circumstances an employer can get into trouble for not employing someone. But those are quite special circumstances that very rarely apply to sex (it might apply to prostitution, and I can kinda see a case for forbidding prostitutes to refuse clients on the basis of race etc., but also prostitution can be really dangerous and it's therefore probably better to say that prostitutes should have absolute discretion to refuse clients). (The other obvious kind of case in which such obligations might exist is where a relationship is already in existence. You might reasonably be aggrieved if your spouse suddenly starts refusing to have sex, or if your employer fires you. But I don't think either side of this comparison is what anyone in the thread had in mind.) Anyway. Apparently you consider that there should be harmony between one's answers to those questions. I'm pretty sure you don't think that employers should ever be obliged to employ particular employees. Do you think that women commonly have a duty to provide sex to men? In contexts other than existing long-term sexual relationships?

4VoiceOfRa10y

No, I'm thinking about the fact that politicians and pundits routinely talk about lowering unemployment, and this is universally agreed to be a desirable goal and not something creepy for implying that every worker 'deserves' a job, heck the "right to a job" is frequently listed in lists of "second generation human rights". Contrast this with the reaction advancedatheist got for suggesting men deserve a sexual relationship with women.

2gjm10y

Oh, OK. So in that case, again, I think I think more or less the same in the two cases. * For any given potential worker, it is good if they are able to have a job if they want one. * But no one in particular is obliged to give them a job. * (And I think at some point we will need a transition to a different way of organizing production that drops the idea that everyone should be working. But that's another matter.) * For any given potential sexually active person, it is good if they are able to have plenty of satisfying sex if they want to. * But no one in particular is obliged to have sex with them. I don't know to what extent this resembles the opinions of the politicians and pundits you have in mind. I would expect that most agree about jobs but many disagree about sex (on account of not thinking as I do that in general more sex is a good thing). One way in which I would expect politicians and pundits to treat those two cases differently: if we think it good for more people to have jobs, it's socially and politically acceptable to suggest that incentives be put in place to encourage people to employ them; but if we think it good for more people to have sex, it's not so acceptable to suggest incentives for that. I think that shows that sex is a sensitive topic; I'm not sure it indicates anything worse. The reaction advancedatheist got, so far as I can tell, was founded on the idea that he thinks women have an obligation to have sex with men. I don't know whether he actually does think that, but it's explicitly what Mirzhan_Irkegulov says he thinks advancedatheist thinks: "your belief that women as a group should be encouraged to have sex with men against their will".

2VoiceOfRa10y

However, it is generally understood that society as a whole is obliged to arrange things so that everyone who wants a job can find one. Furthermore, a lot of people don't seem to agree with your claim that "no one in particular is obliged to give them a job", at the every least they seem to think this is someone's duty even if they're not clear on whose. Except sex used to be an even more sensitive topic in the past, and it was taken for granted the society had a duty to arrange for people to have the opportunity to get married. The statement "women have an obligation to have sex with men" is ambiguous. However, Mirzhan_Irkegulov presumed that it was meant in a creepy way and is thus unacceptable. By contrast consider Part III, Article 6 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights: Notice that it is also vague on just who is obliged to provide the employment but carries no such presumption of creepiness.

1gjm10y

No society on earth that I know of has ever achieved this, and I'm pretty sure it's usually felt that one can't have an obligation to do something impossible. I think the actual sentiment is the one I already expressed: if someone wants to have a job, it is better if they can get one. (On the face of it, the International Covenant thing you linked to contradicts that, but I'm pretty sure it's (1) intended aspirationally, as if it were proclaiming a right to happiness or a right to good health rather than a right to work, and (2) primarily aimed at measures whereby people try to stop one another working -- e.g., discrimination where some racial or cultural group is systematically unable to find jobs.) Anyway, it's not clear to me what your actual argument is. Do you think that someone in this discussion (Mirzhan_Irkegulov, me, the United Nations General Assembly, I dunno) holds inconsistent opinions? If so, what inconsistent positions? Because all I'm seeing so far is that sex and jobs are kinda-sorta a bit similar but not the same, and my opinions on them are kinda-sorta a bit similar but not the same, and I don't see what the problem's meant to be.

0VoiceOfRa10y

Ok, now you're not even trying to argue in good faith. In fact I'm pretty sure that if the sexual analogy had never been brought up, you'd be arguing some variant of "just because things will never be perfect doesn't mean we shouldn't try to make them as good as possible". So how is this relevant to the argument at hand? I'm sure advencedatheist's comments were also aspirational in this sense. Sort of like how low status nerds are systematically unable to find sexual relationships?

0gjm10y

This is at least the second time you have thrown such an accusation at me [EDITED to clarify: the other time was in a different discussion; I'm not saying you've done it twice in this thread]. I promise it's wrong, at least as far as my conscious purposes go (who knows what might be going on underneath?). It would be good to debug what's going wrong here -- am I missing something that's so obvious to you that you can't imagine someone could honestly miss it? are you completely misinterpreting me? etc. so could you please explain in more detail how you get from what I wrote to "you're not even trying to argue in good faith"? Thanks. (My best guess is that we have divergent understandings of what we are arguing about. I think we are arguing about whether it's a bad thing to say that women have an obligation to provide men with sex. Perhaps you think we are arguing about whether Mirzhan_Irkegulov was correct to accuse advancedatheist of thinking that women should be coerced into providing men with sex, or something like that. Or perhaps you think I am offering some kind of justification of everything said by Mirzhan_Irkegulov, which I am not.) Yes, I endorse that principle. You obviously think I've been saying something inconsistent with it here, but I'm not sure what. (The greater the extent to which people who want satisfying sexual relationships have such relationships, the better. The greater the extent to which people who want jobs have jobs, the better. Neither of those implies that anyone should be forced to provide sexual relationships or jobs. Encouraging or, worse, forcing people to have sexual relationships is creepier than encouraging or, worse, forcing people to give other jobs, and not being in a sexual relationship is generally less devastating than not having a job; these are important disanalogies between the two cases. I do not know whether advancedatheist is, as Mirzhan_Irkegulov claims, actually arguing for women to be somehow required to have se

0Good_Burning_Plastic10y

Okay, it seems to me that people use the word "right" with at least different meanings, and misunderstand each other as a result. As a EU citizen, I have a right to travel to other EU countries in the sense that, if by mutual consent between me and an airline I buy a plane ticket and take a plane to Poland, I must not be stopped by the police or anybody else. (By comparison, I don't have a right to travel to Pakistan unless I get a visa first.) But it sounds like there are people using the word "right" with a narrower sense, according to whom I have no right to go to Poland because if I can't afford a plane ticket there's nobody who must take me there anyway. Do we all agree that people should have a right to have a job in the former sense but not in the latter sense, and that people should have a right to have sex in the former sense but not in the latter sense? (Well, maybe there is an intermediate sense whereby I have a right to fly to Poland iff there are no market failures preventing me from flying to Poland a non-negligible fraction of the times I would be able to do so in a perfectly efficient market. But I hope we all agree that 1. EU citizens probably don't all have a right to fly to Poland in this sense, but 2. it would be a good thing if they did, so long as the cost of correcting said market failures aren't excessive, though 3. requiring airlines to take EU citizens to Poland whenever the latter want whether the former want it or not wouldn't be anywhere remotely near a good way of achieving that; and 4. the same things applies to employment and to sex, except that the kinds of market failures that there exist are different in each case.)

0VoiceOfRa10y

So would you agree to the analogous thing for relationships, because advancedatheist's point is that there is a huge 'market failure' there right now?

0Good_Burning_Plastic10y

Yes, though I disagree that the availability of inferior substitutes (buses to Poland in my analogy? flights to Moldova?) would make the market failure worse, and possibly (I'm not sure what exactly advancedatheist is thinking) also about how much of a market failure there actually is vs how much certain men are just actually less sexually attractive to women than others (much like I guess you'd agree certain workers are just actually less productive than others) and would stay so even in a hypothetical perfect efficient market.

2VoiceOfRa10y

More like, the 'powers that be' doesn't actually want to fix the market failure, and thinks offering inferior substitutes will at least cause the poeple complaning about it to shut up. Well, the market failure was a lot less in the recent past. I wouldn't agree that this is an explanation for a rise in unemployment.

0Lumifer10y

Remind me, why are you calling the inability of some to find sex a "market failure"? It might well be that the "market" does not think the package they are offering in exchange is good enough. The fact that I can't acquire a superyacht is not a market failure. Instead, the basic complaint looks much more like the classic entitlement narrative of "I have a right, I couldn't exercise this right, so I'm a victim, somebody make sure I can exercise my rights!"

0VoiceOfRa10y

Let, me translate that into the unemployment analogy for you: Consider what the reaction would be to someone who made the above statement. Heck, I'm not even sure Donald Trump could survive making it. Except have you seen any other instance of the entitlement narrative get the same kind of reaction.

3Lumifer10y

Mild. There has been a mostly polite discussion of the so-called zero marginal product workers, that is, people who are of no use (and, actually, often bring negative utility) to an employer. More generally, the idea that some people can't hold (and eventually can't find) a job is not particularly controversial. I don't know what reaction are you talking about.

0VoiceOfRa10y

That's not what I said. I said, consider what the reaction would be if someone made the above statement (in those words). Also, most of the discussion of zero marginal product workers is along the lines of, "it is the fault of government regulation that these workers are zmp, hence said regulations should be repealed".

3Lumifer10y

Depending on the audience, of course. Among smart people, mild. Could it create a Twitter shitstorm? Probably could. So what?

-2Good_Burning_Plastic10y

Yeah, even statements with uncontroversial factual accuracy can be offensive when worded in a sufficiently disingenuous way. That's a quite general phenomenon, with hardly anything specific to your example. So what's your point?

2Jiro10y

But it isn't worded in a "sufficiently disingenuous way", it's worded in a way similar to Lumifer's sex statement. If it isn't acceptable because of the offensive wording, why is the sex statement acceptable?

0OrphanWilde10y

I think the implication is that the sexual marketplace is inefficient (with an implied dig at the idea that employment is a right in the sense that you describe). Given roughly equal numbers of men and women who want sex and/or relationships, and treating men and women as fungible, there is an inefficiency if everybody isn't satisfied, as partners can be rearranged to produce a greater number of satisfied people. On the down side for this view, people aren't in fact fungible. On the up side for this view, there are some obvious inefficiencies in the sexual marketplace, such as the distribution of genders across cities. On the "whatever" side for this view, I'm inclined to say that the root of the problem is that value on the sexual marketplace has greater variance for men than women, so the tails on both ends are dominated by men whose preferences cannot be satisfied, and the middle of the distribution has more women than there are men available to satisfy their preferences.

0Lumifer10y

There are, of course, complications :-) First, people are not fungible at all (outside of the fairly rare "any hole will do" approach and no, I don't mean bisexuals). Second, there is a lot of fuzziness about what's actually being traded because under consideration is the whole spectrum from casual one-night stands to till death do us part. Notably when talking about the sex marketplace, what many people want is actually a relationship and that's a bit different. Third, there are difficulties because what you offer to exchange is not well-defined, partially hidden, and, to top it off, the participants have an incentive to lie about it. Fourth, as you note, the market isn't quite symmetric in that men and women have different needs, expectations, approaches, and techniques. All in all, the market certainly isn't perfect, but I don't know if I would characterize the situation as a "market failure". It's just the usual human mess that most manage to muddle through.

-3Good_Burning_Plastic10y

How do you know it's not the past which had a market failure making women have more sex with unattractive men than they would have had ideally?

2OrphanWilde10y

Plus one point for treating women as consumers, rather than products, in the sexual marketplace. Minus one point for treating men as inferior products, rather than unsatisfied consumers, in the sexual marketplace.

0[anonymous]10y

That's not what "right" means. As a EU citizen, I have the right to travel to other EU countries, but this doesn't mean that if I want to go to Poland there's someone who must take me there.

0Lumifer10y

I'm not VoiceOfRa, but I'd like to throw a little twist into this comparison. Let's change from "no woman owes sex" : "no boss owes a job" to "a women has the right to withdraw consent to sex at any time" : "a boss has the right to fire anyone at any time". Still very similar?

1gjm10y

As I said in my third paragraph, I think that particular question is some way removed from the points originally at issue in this discussion. But to both of those my reaction is "well, kinda". In more detail (reluctantly because I think it's a big digression): * If two people are in a longstanding sexual relationship and one suddenly withdraws consent, clearly something has gone badly wrong. The same is true if one has been working for the other for some time and suddenly gets fired. * Having sex when you really, really don't want to is much worse than missing out on sex when you want it. Having no job is much worse than having one employee who isn't performing well. This is an important respect in which the analogy breaks down. * People should be able to fire employees and to refuse consent to sex. * They have a moral obligation to do so in as reasonable a fashion as they can. * In some cases that may still mean doing it suddenly (e.g., you find that your partner is violent and dangerous; you find that your employee has been embezzling; you contract a medical condition that makes sex agonizingly painful; your company loses a contract and suddenly has no money). * Because losing all of your income is generally a big disaster, much worse than having to pay one employee's salary, it is reasonable to require employers not to leave their employees completely screwed if they get fired unless it's because of the employee's serious misconduct. * Because being forced to have sex on one occasion is so much worse than being denied sex on one occasion, it is reasonable to say that if one partner says no then the other is obliged not to force sex on them. (But because being denied sex on all occasions is bad, it is also reasonable to say that if one partner is consistently refusing consent then the other is entitled to look elsewhere, even if their relationship is notionally monogamous.) I don't see any inconsistency in the above; my positions on the two questions aren

0Lumifer10y

I'm not attacking your position :-) It's just that I expect that my reformulation will bring a different set of responses from some people than the original one.

0Good_Burning_Plastic10y

In the US that's already the case and even the people who don't think that wives should be allowed to refuse sex from husbands seem to see nothing wrong with that. Well, except when someone is fired is for saying something factually correct but offensive.

2OrphanWilde10y

No it isn't. You can fire unprotected classes of people, for unprotected reasons.

0Lumifer10y

As OrphanWilde already pointed out, no, it's not. Even other than protected classes of people and protected reasons, trade union jobs and many public sector jobs are not employment at-will.

0Good_Burning_Plastic10y

Interestingly, the likes of James A. Donald lament that wives are now allowed to deny consent to sex or to divorce while apparently seeing nothing wrong with at-will employment.

4gjm10y

Fortunately, the likes of James A Donald are not participating in this thread.

[-]OrphanWilde10y00

The problem is, I felt this way when I was, like, 16, and I don't feel that way anymore. It frightens me that there are men, who are no longer teenagers, who still live in a constant state of anxiety, that women are there to “get you” by refusing to have sex with you.

Should others have been frightened of you at 16?

[-]VoiceOfRa10y-20

Not having sex and feeling unhappy about it is strictly worse than not having sex and being ok with it.

Except that feeling unhappy about it makes one more likely to fix the situation. Seriously, this is the exact same argument made by deathists, and generally a universal argument against caring about anything.

[-]LizzardWizzard10y-40

I think it is a very bad idea. Can't imagine how rational sex would looks like. After all looking back at your life you will be asking a question I lived a life or I had existed

2Lumifer10y

That's because you're thinking of Straw Vulcans.

[+]VoiceOfRa10y-60

[+][anonymous]10y-70

[+]VoiceOfRa10y-80

[+]advancedatheist10y-110

LESSWRONG
LW

LESSWRONG
LW

2

Rational approach to finding life partners

2

2