What I desire from relationships is ...
24 views
Skip to first unread message
anonymous FI
Feb 25, 2017, 12:16:29 PM2/25/17
to FI, 'Alan Forrester' via Fallible Ideas
What I desire from relationships is the opportunity to feel admiration for values and achievements in another person. If I have a relationship with that person, then I’ll have greater access to their greatness and I’ll benefit from the pleasure of admiring them.
What I desire from relationships is people doing stuff for me. If they like me a lot and I like them a lot (i.e. if our feelings are reciprocal), then we’ll do things for each other.
What I desire from relationships is interacting for mutual benefit, including learning from others. This works well if they don’t like despise me, but I don’t overly concern myself with their thoughts about me.
What I desire from relationships is vague feelings of mutual liking.
What I desire from relationships is sex.
What I desire from relationships is a boost to my pseudo self-esteem and affirmation that I’m good and capable.
What I desire from relationships is to be accepted for who I am and to feel comfortable.
What I desire from relationships is …. (what are some other good, bad, common ways to complete the sentence?)
————
What do you think about these? Which ones are common? Which ones are good and why? Which ones are bad and why? Criticize them.
What I desire from relationships is people doing stuff for me. If they like me a lot and I like them a lot (i.e. if our feelings are reciprocal), then we’ll do things for each other.
What I desire from relationships is interacting for mutual benefit, including learning from others. This works well if they don’t like despise me, but I don’t overly concern myself with their thoughts about me.
What I desire from relationships is vague feelings of mutual liking.
What I desire from relationships is sex.
What I desire from relationships is a boost to my pseudo self-esteem and affirmation that I’m good and capable.
What I desire from relationships is to be accepted for who I am and to feel comfortable.
What I desire from relationships is …. (what are some other good, bad, common ways to complete the sentence?)
————
What do you think about these? Which ones are common? Which ones are good and why? Which ones are bad and why? Criticize them.
Elliot Temple
Feb 25, 2017, 3:50:14 PM2/25/17
to FIGG, FI
On Feb 25, 2017, at 9:16 AM, anonymous FI <anonymousfa...@gmail.com> wrote:
> What I desire from relationships is the opportunity to feel admiration for values and achievements in another person. If I have a relationship with that person, then I’ll have greater access to their greatness and I’ll benefit from the pleasure of admiring them.
this is super vague. it seems to be using a double meaning. it's using the advantages of *interacting at all -- e..g conversations* to defend romance relationships.
> What I desire from relationships is the opportunity to feel admiration for values and achievements in another person. If I have a relationship with that person, then I’ll have greater access to their greatness and I’ll benefit from the pleasure of admiring them.
also looks like this is dishonestly clinging to a few scraps of Objectivism to try to rationalize romance.
> What I desire from relationships is people doing stuff for me. If they like me a lot and I like them a lot (i.e. if our feelings are reciprocal), then we’ll do things for each other.
> What I desire from relationships is interacting for mutual benefit, including learning from others. This works well if they don’t like despise me, but I don’t overly concern myself with their thoughts about me.
> What I desire from relationships is vague feelings of mutual liking.
>
> What I desire from relationships is sex.
you keep changing the meaning of "relationship" you're talking about. your list isn't all talking about the same thing.
Elliot Temple
www.fallibleideas.com
anonymous FI
Feb 26, 2017, 9:13:01 AM2/26/17
to FI, 'Alan Forrester' via Fallible Ideas
On Feb 25, 2017, at 6:24 PM, Alan Forrester alanmichae...@googlemail.com [fallible-ideas] <fallibl...@yahoogroups.com> wrote:
> On 25 Feb 2017, at 17:16, anonymous FI anonymousfa...@gmail.com [fallible-ideas] <fallibl...@yahoogroups.com> wrote:
>
> I have numbered these for ease of reference.
>
>> [1] What I desire from relationships is the opportunity to feel admiration for values and achievements in another person. If I have a relationship with that person, then I’ll have greater access to their greatness and I’ll benefit from the pleasure of admiring them.
>>
>> [2] What I desire from relationships is people doing stuff for me. If they like me a lot and I like them a lot (i.e. if our feelings are reciprocal), then we’ll do things for each other.
>>
>> [3] What I desire from relationships is interacting for mutual benefit, including learning from others. This works well if they don’t like despise me, but I don’t overly concern myself with their thoughts about me.
>>
>> [4] What I desire from relationships is vague feelings of mutual liking.
>
> [3] and [4] contradict [1] and [2].
First, let’s just look at these four. I deleted the rest for now.
Second, rather than the word “relationships” change to the word “others”. To clarify, this isn’t specifically about romantic ways to relate to others.
Third, take each of these individually. The context here isn't one mind / my mind. Imagine someone said one of them to you and asked for criticism. What would you say for each separate one?
Are any of these good things to desire from others? Definitely good? Potentially good (but you have to watch out for X and Y)? No, definitely not good the way I have it stated?
Also, in what way ways do people commonly get this issue wrong?
What are some implications of any of them? Like some require concern given to how others view you. Is this always a mistake? Should you care what your friends think about you?
Criticize this thought: “I care (which involves wondering) what my friend thinks about me. If she starts to think less of me, then I might lose this beneficial relationship as she might not do stuff for me anymore.”
Compare to: “I don’t care or wonder what anyone thinks of me. I’m going to do what I think is right and if others judge that they want to interact with me (and I judge them accordingly), then ok.”
> On 25 Feb 2017, at 17:16, anonymous FI anonymousfa...@gmail.com [fallible-ideas] <fallibl...@yahoogroups.com> wrote:
>
> I have numbered these for ease of reference.
>
>> [1] What I desire from relationships is the opportunity to feel admiration for values and achievements in another person. If I have a relationship with that person, then I’ll have greater access to their greatness and I’ll benefit from the pleasure of admiring them.
>>
>> [2] What I desire from relationships is people doing stuff for me. If they like me a lot and I like them a lot (i.e. if our feelings are reciprocal), then we’ll do things for each other.
>>
>> [3] What I desire from relationships is interacting for mutual benefit, including learning from others. This works well if they don’t like despise me, but I don’t overly concern myself with their thoughts about me.
>>
>> [4] What I desire from relationships is vague feelings of mutual liking.
>
> [3] and [4] contradict [1] and [2].
First, let’s just look at these four. I deleted the rest for now.
Second, rather than the word “relationships” change to the word “others”. To clarify, this isn’t specifically about romantic ways to relate to others.
Third, take each of these individually. The context here isn't one mind / my mind. Imagine someone said one of them to you and asked for criticism. What would you say for each separate one?
Are any of these good things to desire from others? Definitely good? Potentially good (but you have to watch out for X and Y)? No, definitely not good the way I have it stated?
Also, in what way ways do people commonly get this issue wrong?
What are some implications of any of them? Like some require concern given to how others view you. Is this always a mistake? Should you care what your friends think about you?
Criticize this thought: “I care (which involves wondering) what my friend thinks about me. If she starts to think less of me, then I might lose this beneficial relationship as she might not do stuff for me anymore.”
Compare to: “I don’t care or wonder what anyone thinks of me. I’m going to do what I think is right and if others judge that they want to interact with me (and I judge them accordingly), then ok.”
Elliot Temple
Feb 26, 2017, 3:52:04 PM2/26/17
to FI, FIGG
On Feb 26, 2017, at 5:54 AM, Calvin Punch coep...@gmail.com [fallible-ideas] <fallibl...@yahoogroups.com> wrote:
> On 25 Feb 2017, at 23:24, Alan Forrester alanmichae...@googlemail.com wrote:
>
>> On 25 Feb 2017, at 17:16, anonymous FI anonymousfa...@gmail.com wrote:
> Sex is a creative activity (even if it's common to do it with very low levels of creativity).
This is a rationalization.
Sex is ritual.
Can you put creativity into how to perform a ritual better? How to be more obedient, more exactly what's you're supposed to? Yes of course. But that's different than open-ended problem solving. It's different than what's normally called a creative activity. The ideal of a creative activity is a *beginning of infinity* where change is expected and appreciated. Sex is about as bad as it gets for that, about as opposite as it gets. While no starting points have unlimited power to entirely halt all progress, creativity, etc, it's hard to name much that's worse than sex from a creative point of view, besides violence, fighting, crying, and other overtly negative things. Even something very boring and tedious would lend itself to automation, but no one wants to build some robots to automate the physical act of sex (both sides of it) so humans can go do something else.
Even PUA, the one notable group that's learned much from their sex lives in some sense, has learned primarily regarding social interaction and courtship and has very little to say about sex itself.
> Sex also has special meaning in culture which masturbation does not have.
Yes, though the meaning is largely gross.
Sex means things like possession of another person, binding lives together, and adult status (virgins aren't proper adults in our culture).
>> Also, sex is kinda dull. Devoting a lot of time to getting it is a bad mistake.
>
> Fundamentally dull? Or just the way people practice it today?
>
> Why is it different from any other game or art?
Physically, sex is more parochial than eating. Sex has less variety and options.
In terms of fantasy and mental meaning, it's all variations on a few main themes with varying decorations to add false variety. To the extent sex doesn't get old is just because people aren't making progress. The themes involved with sex are all old and traditional, and no one is doing anything remotely serious to create new themes (don't fool yourself).
>> You’re a second hander.
>
> Might romance then be good for second-handers?
no. the success rate is shit. tons of breakups and divorces, heartbreaks and pain.
tons of people who stay together because of the kids.
tons of unhappy people hiding it.
>>> What I desire from relationships is …. (what are some other good, bad, common ways to complete the sentence?)
>>
>> If these endings accurately reflect what you want, your desires are contradictory and second handed.
>
> Suppose they are -- how does one begin to tackle the massive undertaking of reconstructing a relationship theory? What is a better relationship theory to switch to?
You start by considering what problem(s) you're looking to solve.
Standard romance causes disasters. If your goal is not to have those disasters in your life, you don't need a new, complete replacement relationship theory.
If you want something else -- e.g. companionship -- that you should figure out clearly what is is and why you think modified friendships aren't up to the task. At that point you could talk about how to approach that problem (getting that something else you name). A massive reconstruction task may not be necessary and shouldn't be assumed necessary.
Much of romance is bad and does not need replacing.
There's a lot of important stuff about how people should treat each other -- and it's already covered outside romantic relationships in friendships, in liberalism, in society. You can get along with a lot of people in a lot of contexts -- coworkers, store clerks, strangers on the street, dinner party guests, friends, relatives -- without any romance.
>> Also, emotions are a result of your values and choices.
>
> Then why are they things that need to be "dealt" with?
many emotional reactions are a bad result of *bad* values and choices, sometimes relating to static memes.
also if you make a bad choice and the result is a broken leg, the broken leg needs to be dealt with (e.g. with a doctor and a cast). you don't only need to deal with the bad decision making policy behind the broken leg.
Elliot Temple
Get my philosophy newsletter:
www.fallibleideas.com/newsletter
> On 25 Feb 2017, at 23:24, Alan Forrester alanmichae...@googlemail.com wrote:
>
>> On 25 Feb 2017, at 17:16, anonymous FI anonymousfa...@gmail.com wrote:
> Sex is a creative activity (even if it's common to do it with very low levels of creativity).
This is a rationalization.
Sex is ritual.
Can you put creativity into how to perform a ritual better? How to be more obedient, more exactly what's you're supposed to? Yes of course. But that's different than open-ended problem solving. It's different than what's normally called a creative activity. The ideal of a creative activity is a *beginning of infinity* where change is expected and appreciated. Sex is about as bad as it gets for that, about as opposite as it gets. While no starting points have unlimited power to entirely halt all progress, creativity, etc, it's hard to name much that's worse than sex from a creative point of view, besides violence, fighting, crying, and other overtly negative things. Even something very boring and tedious would lend itself to automation, but no one wants to build some robots to automate the physical act of sex (both sides of it) so humans can go do something else.
Even PUA, the one notable group that's learned much from their sex lives in some sense, has learned primarily regarding social interaction and courtship and has very little to say about sex itself.
> Sex also has special meaning in culture which masturbation does not have.
Yes, though the meaning is largely gross.
Sex means things like possession of another person, binding lives together, and adult status (virgins aren't proper adults in our culture).
>> Also, sex is kinda dull. Devoting a lot of time to getting it is a bad mistake.
>
> Fundamentally dull? Or just the way people practice it today?
>
> Why is it different from any other game or art?
Physically, sex is more parochial than eating. Sex has less variety and options.
In terms of fantasy and mental meaning, it's all variations on a few main themes with varying decorations to add false variety. To the extent sex doesn't get old is just because people aren't making progress. The themes involved with sex are all old and traditional, and no one is doing anything remotely serious to create new themes (don't fool yourself).
>> You’re a second hander.
>
> Might romance then be good for second-handers?
no. the success rate is shit. tons of breakups and divorces, heartbreaks and pain.
tons of people who stay together because of the kids.
tons of unhappy people hiding it.
>>> What I desire from relationships is …. (what are some other good, bad, common ways to complete the sentence?)
>>
>
> Suppose they are -- how does one begin to tackle the massive undertaking of reconstructing a relationship theory? What is a better relationship theory to switch to?
You start by considering what problem(s) you're looking to solve.
Standard romance causes disasters. If your goal is not to have those disasters in your life, you don't need a new, complete replacement relationship theory.
If you want something else -- e.g. companionship -- that you should figure out clearly what is is and why you think modified friendships aren't up to the task. At that point you could talk about how to approach that problem (getting that something else you name). A massive reconstruction task may not be necessary and shouldn't be assumed necessary.
Much of romance is bad and does not need replacing.
There's a lot of important stuff about how people should treat each other -- and it's already covered outside romantic relationships in friendships, in liberalism, in society. You can get along with a lot of people in a lot of contexts -- coworkers, store clerks, strangers on the street, dinner party guests, friends, relatives -- without any romance.
>> Also, emotions are a result of your values and choices.
>
> Then why are they things that need to be "dealt" with?
many emotional reactions are a bad result of *bad* values and choices, sometimes relating to static memes.
also if you make a bad choice and the result is a broken leg, the broken leg needs to be dealt with (e.g. with a doctor and a cast). you don't only need to deal with the bad decision making policy behind the broken leg.
Elliot Temple
Get my philosophy newsletter:
www.fallibleideas.com/newsletter
Elliot Temple
Feb 26, 2017, 3:56:46 PM2/26/17
to FIGG, FI
On Feb 26, 2017, at 6:12 AM, anonymous FI <anonymousfa...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Feb 25, 2017, at 6:24 PM, Alan Forrester alanmichae...@googlemail.com [fallible-ideas] <fallibl...@yahoogroups.com> wrote:
>
>> On 25 Feb 2017, at 17:16, anonymous FI anonymousfa...@gmail.com [fallible-ideas] <fallibl...@yahoogroups.com> wrote:
>>
>> I have numbered these for ease of reference.
>>
>>> [1] What I desire from relationships is the opportunity to feel admiration for values and achievements in another person. If I have a relationship with that person, then I’ll have greater access to their greatness and I’ll benefit from the pleasure of admiring them.
>>>
>>> [2] What I desire from relationships is people doing stuff for me. If they like me a lot and I like them a lot (i.e. if our feelings are reciprocal), then we’ll do things for each other.
>>>
>>> [3] What I desire from relationships is interacting for mutual benefit, including learning from others. This works well if they don’t like despise me, but I don’t overly concern myself with their thoughts about me.
>>>
>>> [4] What I desire from relationships is vague feelings of mutual liking.
>>
>> [3] and [4] contradict [1] and [2].
>
> First, let’s just look at these four. I deleted the rest for now.
>
> Second, rather than the word “relationships” change to the word “others”. To clarify, this isn’t specifically about romantic ways to relate to others.
>
> Third, take each of these individually. The context here isn't one mind / my mind. Imagine someone said one of them to you and asked for criticism. What would you say for each separate one?
>
> Are any of these good things to desire from others? Definitely good? Potentially good (but you have to watch out for X and Y)? No, definitely not good the way I have it stated?
>
> Also, in what way ways do people commonly get this issue wrong?
>
> What are some implications of any of them? Like some require concern given to how others view you. Is this always a mistake? Should you care what your friends think about you?
Answer your own questions.
> On Feb 25, 2017, at 6:24 PM, Alan Forrester alanmichae...@googlemail.com [fallible-ideas] <fallibl...@yahoogroups.com> wrote:
>
>> On 25 Feb 2017, at 17:16, anonymous FI anonymousfa...@gmail.com [fallible-ideas] <fallibl...@yahoogroups.com> wrote:
>>
>> I have numbered these for ease of reference.
>>
>>> [1] What I desire from relationships is the opportunity to feel admiration for values and achievements in another person. If I have a relationship with that person, then I’ll have greater access to their greatness and I’ll benefit from the pleasure of admiring them.
>>>
>>> [2] What I desire from relationships is people doing stuff for me. If they like me a lot and I like them a lot (i.e. if our feelings are reciprocal), then we’ll do things for each other.
>>>
>>> [3] What I desire from relationships is interacting for mutual benefit, including learning from others. This works well if they don’t like despise me, but I don’t overly concern myself with their thoughts about me.
>>>
>>> [4] What I desire from relationships is vague feelings of mutual liking.
>>
>> [3] and [4] contradict [1] and [2].
>
> First, let’s just look at these four. I deleted the rest for now.
>
> Second, rather than the word “relationships” change to the word “others”. To clarify, this isn’t specifically about romantic ways to relate to others.
>
> Third, take each of these individually. The context here isn't one mind / my mind. Imagine someone said one of them to you and asked for criticism. What would you say for each separate one?
>
> Are any of these good things to desire from others? Definitely good? Potentially good (but you have to watch out for X and Y)? No, definitely not good the way I have it stated?
>
> Also, in what way ways do people commonly get this issue wrong?
>
> What are some implications of any of them? Like some require concern given to how others view you. Is this always a mistake? Should you care what your friends think about you?
They're boring. You might potentially have interesting thoughts about them, but you haven't shared yet.
>>> What I desire from [others] is vague feelings of mutual liking.
You ask what's wrong with that? zzzzzzzz
If you really want criticism of that, explain why you think it's good and address stuff you already know about why i'd disagree.
> Criticize this thought: “I care (which involves wondering) what my friend thinks about me. If she starts to think less of me, then I might lose this beneficial relationship as she might not do stuff for me anymore.”
Justin Mallone
Feb 26, 2017, 7:54:56 PM2/26/17
to fallibl...@yahoogroups.com, FIGG
On Feb 26, 2017, at 3:52 PM, Elliot Temple cu...@curi.us [fallible-ideas] <fallibl...@yahoogroups.com> wrote:
> On Feb 26, 2017, at 5:54 AM, Calvin Punch coep...@gmail.com [fallible-ideas] <fallibl...@yahoogroups.com> wrote:
>
>> On 25 Feb 2017, at 23:24, Alan Forrester alanmichae...@googlemail.com wrote:
>>
>>> On 25 Feb 2017, at 17:16, anonymous FI anonymousfa...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>> What I desire from relationships is …. (what are some other good, bad, common ways to complete the sentence?)
>>>
>>> If these endings accurately reflect what you want, your desires are contradictory and second handed.
>>
>> Suppose they are -- how does one begin to tackle the massive undertaking of reconstructing a relationship theory? What is a better relationship theory to switch to?
>
> You start by considering what problem(s) you're looking to solve.
>
> Standard romance causes disasters. If your goal is not to have those disasters in your life, you don't need a new, complete replacement relationship theory.
>
> If you want something else -- e.g. companionship -- that you should figure out clearly what is is and why you think modified friendships aren't up to the task. At that point you could talk about how to approach that problem (getting that something else you name). A massive reconstruction task may not be necessary and shouldn't be assumed necessary.
>
> Much of romance is bad and does not need replacing.
Ya. It's a bit like the Obamacare debate. People say we need to repeal and replace it. But why does a dumpster fire need replacing? Try freedom!
> On Feb 26, 2017, at 5:54 AM, Calvin Punch coep...@gmail.com [fallible-ideas] <fallibl...@yahoogroups.com> wrote:
>
>> On 25 Feb 2017, at 23:24, Alan Forrester alanmichae...@googlemail.com wrote:
>>
>>> On 25 Feb 2017, at 17:16, anonymous FI anonymousfa...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>> What I desire from relationships is …. (what are some other good, bad, common ways to complete the sentence?)
>>>
>>> If these endings accurately reflect what you want, your desires are contradictory and second handed.
>>
>> Suppose they are -- how does one begin to tackle the massive undertaking of reconstructing a relationship theory? What is a better relationship theory to switch to?
>
> You start by considering what problem(s) you're looking to solve.
>
> Standard romance causes disasters. If your goal is not to have those disasters in your life, you don't need a new, complete replacement relationship theory.
>
> If you want something else -- e.g. companionship -- that you should figure out clearly what is is and why you think modified friendships aren't up to the task. At that point you could talk about how to approach that problem (getting that something else you name). A massive reconstruction task may not be necessary and shouldn't be assumed necessary.
>
> Much of romance is bad and does not need replacing.
Socialism causes disasters. If politicians want to avoid those disasters, they don't need a complete replacement for a socialist plan.
They can and should talk about what specific problems they want to solve and argue why they think freedom isn't up to the task.
The people who say we need to replace Obamacare have some mistaken socialist premises they are not interested in re-examining. I suspect a similar thing is the case with romance apologists.
-Justin Mallone
Twitter: @j_mallone
Justin Mallone
Feb 26, 2017, 10:44:57 PM2/26/17
to Alisa Zinov'yevna Rosenbaum petrogradphilosopher@gmail.com [fallible-ideas], FIGG
On Feb 26, 2017, at 3:52 PM, Elliot Temple cu...@curi.us [fallible-ideas] <fallibl...@yahoogroups.com> wrote:
> On Feb 26, 2017, at 5:54 AM, Calvin Punch coep...@gmail.com [fallible-ideas] <fallibl...@yahoogroups.com> wrote:
>
>> On 25 Feb 2017, at 23:24, Alan Forrester alanmichae...@googlemail.com wrote:
>>
>>> On 25 Feb 2017, at 17:16, anonymous FI anonymousfa...@gmail.com wrote:
>>> You’re a second hander.
>>
>> Might romance then be good for second-handers?
>
> no. the success rate is shit. tons of breakups and divorces, heartbreaks and pain.
>
> tons of people who stay together because of the kids.
>
> tons of unhappy people hiding it.
Came across this piece in New York Magazine.
>
>> On 25 Feb 2017, at 23:24, Alan Forrester alanmichae...@googlemail.com wrote:
>>
>>> On 25 Feb 2017, at 17:16, anonymous FI anonymousfa...@gmail.com wrote:
>>> You’re a second hander.
>>
>> Might romance then be good for second-handers?
>
> no. the success rate is shit. tons of breakups and divorces, heartbreaks and pain.
>
> tons of people who stay together because of the kids.
>
> tons of unhappy people hiding it.
http://nymag.com/thecut/2017/02/the-professional-whose-mom-paid-for-her-breast-augmentation.html
It's notable cuz the portrayal is of a young, attractive woman with lots of social status. So her situation is what people who want this kind of lifestyle would consider pretty good...
> New York’s Sex Diaries series asks anonymous city dwellers to record a week in their sex lives — with comic, tragic, often sexy, and always revealing results.
Revealing and tragic are true, at least
> This week, a fashion-industry professional whose mother paid for her recent plastic surgery: 23, straight, single, Downtown Brooklyn.
>
> Day One
>
> 6:45 a.m. Alarm blares. Adderall, coffee, Lululemon leggings. I walk to the gym in Dumbo and get in a half-ass workout. If we’re being honest, everyone else at the gym is so ugly I don’t care how lazy I look.
>
> 11 a.m. I re-read a text Peter — my most serious “not-relationship” — sent last night. Still ignoring it. He could treat me better, but because he’s from Greenwich, Ivy educated, and oozes “trust fund,” I think our concepts of “nice” are different. He’s very entitled. Still, I’m in love with him
in love with her not-relationship....OK that escalated quickly...
> and want to show off my new boob job,
she wanted to show off her boob job.
she had surgery so she could impress guys she isn't in a relationship with... second-handedness in action .... GOOD LIFESTYLE?
> which he hasn’t seen yet. Peter and I met in Vegas a year ago. He’s 25, two years older than me. I was on senior spring break with my sorority sisters (seriously) and he was at a rugby tournament. I kissed him at a pool party, then I made him Venmo me $350 to cancel my flight home and stay with him one more night. Now we both live in New York and the Vegas shine has dulled. Peter is hilarious and outgoing, with a perfect body and a stupidly nice apartment in Chelsea. Peter told me a month ago that he doesn’t want a serious relationship, which really hurt my feelings. I’m still keeping him in the mix, just in case, but looking for a serious relationship … specifically one that ends with us living together in a mansion in Connecticut.
>
> 11:15 a.m. Okay, mayyyybe I’’ll grace Peter’s phone with a slutty Snapchat. I’m not at work today and can devote my time to my real passion: men.
her description of her real passion is fairly honest!
> 2 p.m. Work on my memoir about all the men I’ve dated. That’s my end-goal, professionally. My job as a publicist and stylist at a fashion company in the Garment District is fun, but definitely not everything. It gives me great content, though! Writing my memoirs in mansions — that’s what I want in life.
she wants to date men and then write a memoir about them in a mansion provided by a man ...
> 8 p.m. Log onto Facebook. Creep on Cameron’s profile, another i-banker. He and I have a date with this week. We met on Bumble (apps aren’t my thing, but I’ll let a guy slide in once in a while).
she's got some negative association with girls on apps that she wants to deny applies to her....
> Cameron’s profile says that he’s from Texas, which means my bottle-blonde hair will do half the work for me.
interesting attitude towards Texas guy here...
> Day Two
>
> 7:15 am. Photo-shoot day at work. I wake up to a million texts from my super-glam but crazy fashion-designer boss, Jennifer: “The model is a size 8. We don’t have enough shoes.” I pack a bag of seven pairs of my own shoes and figure out how to lug them to the studio. With my boob job, I’m still not supposed to lift anything. Jennifer asks if I can also do the model’s hair … ?
>
> 9 a.m. Luckily my skills as a girl translate into professional hair expertise.
>
> 10:30 a.m. Lights, camera, hot model, let’s fucking go!
>
> 2:10 p.m. “And what will you have for lunch, Jennifer?” the photographer asks my boss. “I’m just going to go downstairs and have some fresh air,” she says.
>
> 5 p.m. I take a few Snapchats of the model on set and post them. The boys I’m dating love this fashion shit.
again we see the hierarchy of values ... her job is "this fashion shit", and is just a lure for her real passion, which is other people...
> 7 p.m. The texts start avalanching in. Peter asks how the shoot is going. Evan, another Ivy guy and family friend, says the model stole his look. Andres, a younger architecture student in California that I fuck, tells me the model has nothing on me. Compliments and attention after a long day — I’ll take ‘em.
pleasures of the second-hander...
> Day Three
>
> 10 a.m. Work, work, more work. Fashion is like being in love with a beautiful girl who will never fuck you, but lets you smell her hair every once in a while.
>
> 2 p.m. Sometimes I’m amazed at how frivolous this job can be. Is that white charmeuse silk too yellow? Does that Instagram picture fit our aesthetic?
she doesn't care about the details of her job much....
> 5 p.m. Cameron, the banker from Bumble, asks to do dinner and drinks tonight — Italian in Soho. Yum, yes! He works at the same bank as Peter. The overlap does something for me.
>
> 7:50 p.m. Cameron waits patiently at the table. He’s six-foot-three of Wall Street dreamboat in a blue linen button-down that shows off his Texas-size biceps. “Do you like red?” Yezzir! We split a bottle and gnocchi. Cameron has an older brother, conservative values, and parents who aren’t divorced. My southern mother would be so proud.
What's her own judgment of these things, though?
> I’m from a beach town in Florida; my parents are divorced middle-class Southerners who met in college in North Carolina. My mom believes I should be southern, sweet and hot. She was the one who encouraged (and paid the $10,000 bill for) my breast augmentation after graduating. I wasn’t really sold on it, but Mother knows best, right?
and feminists blame some patriarchy for everything....
> I had them done in Florida two months ago and went from a B to a D, nothing drastic, what my surgeon called a “sophisticated, low-key addition.” Floridians have no taste — I had to beg my surgeon to keep them relatively small.
>
> At first, my chest felt like I’d been nursing a pack of wolves! It was horrific for a month. I had to clean the bandages and wanted to throw up every time I saw the scars circling my nipples. But now I actually have cleavage.
even in the context of a value system which puts HUGE emphasis on being sexually impressive (and thus incentives LYING), there's some admission here of the reality of what was involved in surgery to look prettier
> 10 p.m. After dinner, Cameron and I have more drinks at a French bar he picked because it shares my name. This kid is good, he did his homework. I’m not even bothered by the bratty French cocktail waitress who judges Cameron when he orders two absinthe cocktails. Cameron asks lots of questions, is polite and handsome. I like him, but as with all bankers there’s an underlying sliminess I just can’t shake.
>
> 11 p.m. Cameron and I are making out on Houston! Sliminess aside, this is fucking amazing. Someone give my boobs and me a medal. I keep it classy and hail a cab for myself. Call me old-fashioned, but I don’t sleep with guys I actually like.
Sleeping casually with guys you don't care for much (as she does later in the story) wouldn't have met most people's definition of "classy" not that long ago...
> 11:15 p.m I start mentally comparing Cameron with Peter in the back of the taxi. Cameron is super hot, basic, and semi-predictable. Peter is an emotionally unavailable nerd, brilliant, and average looking. These feelings are too much to handle and besides, I’m not done partying. My friend Sugarman is out in Greenwich Village with his colleagues. This cab driver must think I’m such a slut.
>
> 11:30 p.m. Drinking for drinking’s sake with more bankers. I am a creature of habit! Sugarman and his big blue eyes are steady on me so I fall into them. We get beers, then get yummy cheese pizza and head to his place in Hell’s Kitchen.
>
> 1 a.m. Nothing happens with Sugarman. He just fondles my boobs for a bit.
that's a thing that happened! (I know what she means in cultural context, but its still kind of a funny way of putting it...)
> Day Four
>
> 5:45 a.m. Sugarman spoons me. He’s cuddly, basically just a friend. Whatever. I make him get up for work. “I’m so happy we finally got to do this,” he says to my breasts.
>
> 8 a.m. Another day, another morning Uber ride home.
>
> 10 a.m. My boss is being interviewed at Sirius XM today! Cool shit. I’m allowed to come with becausehumble brag, I made it happen. Howard Stern checks me out in the studio lobby. Life is complete! Hungover, but happy.
Life is complete cuz an old famous guy checked her out...
> 6 p.m. Sneak out of work, crawl home, die happily in bed.
>
> Day Five
>
> 5 p.m. My BFF Alexandra is here from Florida! She’s excited to be in a metropolis. I’m excited to have her in town; New York girlfriends get grating at times.
>
> 7 p.m. Beers! Alexandra and I meet at a small basement bar in Greenwich Village. Ugh, missed her. She’s so pretty and loving and actually has on lip gloss and her hair is blown dry, nothing like NYC girls. Note to self: lip gloss and trying more.
>
> 8 p.m. Tuna poke and wine at the Lucky Bee on the Lower East Side. Alexandra wants to meet “daddies” this weekend. Challenge accepted.
>
> 11 p.m. Head home early, we have a big day planned tomorrow.
>
> 12 a.m. I’m such a good friend … I text every Manhattan male in my phone asking about their plans for tomorrow. Any cute friends for my girl in town?
>
> 1 a.m. There are a few biters, including Cameron and Sugarman. Peter’s off skiing with friends. Why didn’t he invite me along?
she's hurt. this is a consequence of making the attention of others your life's work...
> Day Six
>
> 11:15 a.m. Alexandra and I get coffee and macarons, then explore Lincoln Center.
>
> 2 p.m. Walk her through Central Park. Snow!
>
> 2:30 p.m. This walk has become a boy hunt.
>
> 2:35 p.m. We saunter into Tavern on the Green. With the cream marble, glass windows, and snow falling … MY GOD! This place is so New York. A svelte older man in fitted khakis and Bean boots stops us in the lobby. I caught him off guard, I can smell it. He smiles big and goofy and says, “Hi!” The doll of a hostess does us a favor and seats us at the bar right next to him and his friends.
>
> 3 p.m. Sticky buns, mimosas, and a game of Cat and Mouse to see who makes the first move.
>
> 3:15 p.m. Khakis & company are Europeans. Alexandra is smitten; I am indifferent.
>
> 3:30 p.m. We are now on the Euros’ bar tab and Alex has — somehow — already made out with two of them. I love NYC because there’s always a sexy foreigner in a tourist bar who’s happy to keep a blonde girl company.
there's something disturbing about the genericness of this -- sexy foreigners looking for blonde girls and vice versa. each side wants a stereotype to fill a role. a silhouette more than a person.
> 5 p.m. Now I’m making out with Khakis in the snow. He’s 41 (my oldest yet!), lives in Amsterdam, and has the most precious accent! He also has two cats … and a wife.
>
> 6 p.m. Alexandra has now kissed three of the Dutchmen. I’m getting bored. Time for a change of venue. “Come to our table at the Box later!” the Euros insist.
>
> 9 p.m. New bar, new boys. These are red-blooded American hedge-fund guys (yay!).
>
> 12 a.m. A thousand beers later and I can barely stand, but Alexandra and I are going to the Box.
>
> 2 a.m. Dancing on tables near the Dutchmen.
but remember, she's classy...
> 3 a.m. Kevin, hedge-fund guy, and friends from the last bar have stalked us to the Box. Stalking is a new level, but I’m ready to be so drunk in his bed. In the cab home, Alex leans over and says, “Are you going to tell him?” “Tell me what?!” Kevin asks. “I just got new boobs!” Kevin melts. Thanks, Mom!
>
> Day Seven
>
> 10:30 a.m. Kevin and I wake up fully clothed in his UES loft. Morning sex!
>
> 10:45 a.m. Oh my god: 30-year-old men are so much better in bed than 20-year-old men! We fuck twice. I pull my silk cami off and suddenly Kevin is sitting on my chest, dick between my breasts. This is new! He swings me on top of him after and I make him watch me and my new breasts ride him. I could do this forever.
she's lying about her interest in sex here. She'd "have a headache" in many many contexts where sex was available.
> 12 p.m. Byeeee, Kevin! I’ll never see him again, which is fine — but the southern girl in me is a bit shameful. That’s New York, though.
She's denying responsibility for her decisions here.
> I locate Alexandra in Fidi. Hangovers equal bagels.
>
> 2 p.m. Lox and schmear on an everything from Russ & Daughters. We eat the bagels in the lobby of the Indigo Hotel like degenerates.
>
> 2:15 p.m. “You girls want to share those bagels?” Two handsome blond guys stop to chat on their way off the elevator. They ask for my number and want to party later. These boobs have changed my life! But I can’t go back out tonight.
>
> 5 p.m. Brooklyn. Bed. If I dared drink again I would die … but I’m the reigning queen of NYC now. Alexandra takes off for the airport. Forty-eight hours with her was not enough! Peter texts to see what I was up to this weekend while he was out skiing. I send him back pictures of us doing lines in the bathroom at the Box. Unsure if these escapades are getting me any closer to having a mansion in Greenwich with Peter, but they do make fantastic memoir content.
This girl's aspiration is to write a book about her pointless life. presumably so she can impress others with how successfully high social status she is.
This is what a thoroughly second-handed lifestyle looks like. It's not pretty, and the sex/romance aspect (which predominates!) sure ain't helpin things.
-Justin Mallone
Twitter: @j_mallone
Elliot Temple
Feb 27, 2017, 1:01:43 AM2/27/17
to FIGG, FI
On Feb 26, 2017, at 7:44 PM, Justin Mallone <just...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Feb 26, 2017, at 3:52 PM, Elliot Temple cu...@curi.us [fallible-ideas] <fallibl...@yahoogroups.com> wrote:
>
>> On Feb 26, 2017, at 5:54 AM, Calvin Punch coep...@gmail.com [fallible-ideas] <fallibl...@yahoogroups.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 25 Feb 2017, at 23:24, Alan Forrester alanmichae...@googlemail.com wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 25 Feb 2017, at 17:16, anonymous FI anonymousfa...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>>>> You’re a second hander.
>>>
>>> Might romance then be good for second-handers?
>>
>> no. the success rate is shit. tons of breakups and divorces, heartbreaks and pain.
>>
>> tons of people who stay together because of the kids.
>>
>> tons of unhappy people hiding it.
>
> Came across this piece in New York Magazine.
>
> http://nymag.com/thecut/2017/02/the-professional-whose-mom-paid-for-her-breast-augmentation.html
ewww. it just keeps going and going.
> On Feb 26, 2017, at 3:52 PM, Elliot Temple cu...@curi.us [fallible-ideas] <fallibl...@yahoogroups.com> wrote:
>
>> On Feb 26, 2017, at 5:54 AM, Calvin Punch coep...@gmail.com [fallible-ideas] <fallibl...@yahoogroups.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 25 Feb 2017, at 23:24, Alan Forrester alanmichae...@googlemail.com wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 25 Feb 2017, at 17:16, anonymous FI anonymousfa...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>>>> You’re a second hander.
>>>
>>> Might romance then be good for second-handers?
>>
>> no. the success rate is shit. tons of breakups and divorces, heartbreaks and pain.
>>
>> tons of people who stay together because of the kids.
>>
>> tons of unhappy people hiding it.
>
> Came across this piece in New York Magazine.
>
> http://nymag.com/thecut/2017/02/the-professional-whose-mom-paid-for-her-breast-augmentation.html
here's another little case study:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nQmLj0wYmM8
heard the tune on a twitch stream. liked it (though not very much after one full multitasked listen. i think it's better as little bits and pieces. a remix could be way better than the original. i tried two on youtube though and they were bad, seemed really generic without much effort.). but the lyrics are sooo fucking immoral.
song tldr: ur happy af cuz ppl think she's hot and she's into you not them. ur a social-sexual winner!
Elliot Temple
www.curi.us
Kate Sams
Feb 27, 2017, 9:36:45 AM2/27/17
to 'Alan Forrester' via Fallible Ideas, FI
On Feb 26, 2017, at 10:44 PM, Justin Mallone <just...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Came across this piece in New York Magazine.
>
> http://nymag.com/thecut/2017/02/the-professional-whose-mom-paid-for-her-breast-augmentation.html
>
> It's notable cuz the portrayal is of a young, attractive woman with lots of social status. So her situation is what people who want this kind of lifestyle would consider pretty good…
> Came across this piece in New York Magazine.
>
> http://nymag.com/thecut/2017/02/the-professional-whose-mom-paid-for-her-breast-augmentation.html
>
[…]
> This is what a thoroughly second-handed lifestyle looks like. It's not pretty, and the sex/romance aspect (which predominates!) sure ain't helpin things.
Tons of effort and attention spent on impressing other people. Caring how they judge you. Desiring their approval. Also, the girl has to know how to do social stuff well in order to play the games she plays here.
So how did Rand’s view of romance/sex differ from this?
Does her view remove all of the second-handed aspects from conventional romance/sex?
Or does her view include some second-handedness which she wasn’t aware of?
Kate Sams
Feb 27, 2017, 10:15:31 AM2/27/17
to FI, 'Alan Forrester' via Fallible Ideas
On Feb 27, 2017, at 2:37 AM, Alan Forrester alanmichae...@googlemail.com [fallible-ideas] <fallibl...@yahoogroups.com> wrote:
> On 26 Feb 2017, at 13:54, Calvin Punch coep...@gmail.com [fallible-ideas] <fallibl...@yahoogroups.com> wrote:
>
>> On 25 Feb 2017, at 23:24, Alan Forrester alanmichae...@googlemail.com wrote:
>>
>>> On 25 Feb 2017, at 17:16, anonymous FI anonymousfa...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>
>>>> [5] What I desire from relationships is sex.
>>>
>>> If all you want is sex, masturbation is a lot easier than dealing with another person.
>>
>> "If all you want is to think about ideas, writing alone is a lot easier than dealing with another person.”
>
> That’s not true. If you can get good quality criticism it is a lot easier to improve your ideas with such criticism.
>
>> "If you want to play video games, solo is much better than competitive.”
>
> Solo can be better than competitive if there is nobody good to play with. Competitive can be better than solo if there are good people to play with.
>
> In both of the cases you cited above there is an objective fact about success or failure. There is also no upper bound on the progress you can make.
>
> Sex fails both of those tests. Orgasms are all kinda similar except in intensity and even the intensity is limited. And they are all done in pretty much the same way: you press or stroke some body part and then it happens. Also even having an orgasm often isn’t satisfactory. So it’s kinda difficult to say when you’ve done sex right.
What do you think is going on when people identify sex as: sex vs good sex vs great sex?
Are you saying that since these descriptions comes from ideas, there’s not an objective fact of that matter?
And then, in your view, this is a criticism of sex because people should want to do activities where there is an objective fact regarding success or failure?
> On 26 Feb 2017, at 13:54, Calvin Punch coep...@gmail.com [fallible-ideas] <fallibl...@yahoogroups.com> wrote:
>
>> On 25 Feb 2017, at 23:24, Alan Forrester alanmichae...@googlemail.com wrote:
>>
>>> On 25 Feb 2017, at 17:16, anonymous FI anonymousfa...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> If all you want is sex, masturbation is a lot easier than dealing with another person.
>>
>> "If all you want is to think about ideas, writing alone is a lot easier than dealing with another person.”
>
> That’s not true. If you can get good quality criticism it is a lot easier to improve your ideas with such criticism.
>
>> "If you want to play video games, solo is much better than competitive.”
>
> Solo can be better than competitive if there is nobody good to play with. Competitive can be better than solo if there are good people to play with.
>
> In both of the cases you cited above there is an objective fact about success or failure. There is also no upper bound on the progress you can make.
>
> Sex fails both of those tests. Orgasms are all kinda similar except in intensity and even the intensity is limited. And they are all done in pretty much the same way: you press or stroke some body part and then it happens. Also even having an orgasm often isn’t satisfactory. So it’s kinda difficult to say when you’ve done sex right.
What do you think is going on when people identify sex as: sex vs good sex vs great sex?
Are you saying that since these descriptions comes from ideas, there’s not an objective fact of that matter?
And then, in your view, this is a criticism of sex because people should want to do activities where there is an objective fact regarding success or failure?
Kate Sams
Feb 27, 2017, 10:21:06 AM2/27/17
to FI, 'Alan Forrester' via Fallible Ideas
On Feb 27, 2017, at 2:37 AM, Alan Forrester alanmichae...@googlemail.com [fallible-ideas] <fallibl...@yahoogroups.com> wrote:
> On 26 Feb 2017, at 13:54, Calvin Punch coep...@gmail.com [fallible-ideas] <fallibl...@yahoogroups.com> wrote:
>
>> On 25 Feb 2017, at 23:24, Alan Forrester alanmichae...@googlemail.com wrote:
>>
>>> On 25 Feb 2017, at 17:16, anonymous FI anonymousfa...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>
>>>> [6] What I desire from relationships is a boost to my pseudo self-esteem and affirmation that I’m good and capable.
> On 26 Feb 2017, at 13:54, Calvin Punch coep...@gmail.com [fallible-ideas] <fallibl...@yahoogroups.com> wrote:
>
>> On 25 Feb 2017, at 23:24, Alan Forrester alanmichae...@googlemail.com wrote:
>>
>>> On 25 Feb 2017, at 17:16, anonymous FI anonymousfa...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> So you need somebody else to tell you that you’re good and capable?
>>
>> It says desire, rather than need. It could be a pleasant addition to life.
>
> It’s a pleasant addition if you value other people telling you that you are good and capable.
do you think such an idea (“other people telling you that you are good and capable”) could properly be a part of reason-guided valuing?
also, if something is a “pleasant addition”, that indicates it affects you. compare to this:
FH:
> A truly selfish man cannot be affected by the approval of others. He doesn't need it.”
what do you think?
Kate Sams
Feb 27, 2017, 10:57:28 AM2/27/17
to fallibl...@yahoogroups.com, 'Alan Forrester' via Fallible Ideas
On Feb 26, 2017, at 9:12 AM, anonymous FI anonymousfa...@gmail.com [fallible-ideas] <fallibl...@yahoogroups.com> wrote:
> What are some implications of any of them? Like some require concern given to how others view you. Is this always a mistake? Should you care what your friends think about you?
Some people say that you should (at least somewhat) care how your friends view you. Otherwise, if you are oblivious to that, you could easily end up with no friends in your life.
> What are some implications of any of them? Like some require concern given to how others view you. Is this always a mistake? Should you care what your friends think about you?
But maybe they tell me this because they want me to think about them more?
Or do they have a point?
> Criticize this thought: “I care (which involves wondering) what my friend thinks about me. If she starts to think less of me, then I might lose this beneficial relationship as she might not do stuff for me anymore.”
>
> Compare to: “I don’t care or wonder what anyone thinks of me. I’m going to do what I think is right and if others judge that they want to interact with me (and I judge them accordingly), then ok.”
Conceptually, I don’t think so. There’s no conflict between the moral and the practical. Caring how friends view you because you want to keep them as friends seems like dangerous stuff to try to pull off without destroying your self/soul.
And if a “friend” drops you because you are selfish, honest, and just, then how much benefit would you really get from that “friend” anyways?
Kate Sams
Feb 27, 2017, 4:31:02 PM2/27/17
to FI, 'Alan Forrester' via Fallible Ideas
On Feb 27, 2017, at 3:38 PM, Alan Forrester alanmichae...@googlemail.com [fallible-ideas] <fallibl...@yahoogroups.com> wrote:
> On 27 Feb 2017, at 15:15, Kate Sams ksam...@gmail.com [fallible-ideas] <fallibl...@yahoogroups.com> wrote:
>
>> On Feb 27, 2017, at 2:37 AM, Alan Forrester alanmichae...@googlemail.com [fallible-ideas] <fallibl...@yahoogroups.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 26 Feb 2017, at 13:54, Calvin Punch coep...@gmail.com [fallible-ideas] <fallibl...@yahoogroups.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 25 Feb 2017, at 23:24, Alan Forrester alanmichae...@googlemail.com wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 25 Feb 2017, at 17:16, anonymous FI anonymousfa...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> [5] What I desire from relationships is sex.
>>>>>
>>>>> If all you want is sex, masturbation is a lot easier than dealing with another person.
>>>>
>>>> "If all you want is to think about ideas, writing alone is a lot easier than dealing with another person.”
>>>
>>> That’s not true. If you can get good quality criticism it is a lot easier to improve your ideas with such criticism.
>>>
>>>> "If you want to play video games, solo is much better than competitive.”
>>>
>>> Solo can be better than competitive if there is nobody good to play with. Competitive can be better than solo if there are good people to play with.
>>>
>>> In both of the cases you cited above there is an objective fact about success or failure. There is also no upper bound on the progress you can make.
>>>
>>> Sex fails both of those tests. Orgasms are all kinda similar except in intensity and even the intensity is limited. And they are all done in pretty much the same way: you press or stroke some body part and then it happens. Also even having an orgasm often isn’t satisfactory. So it’s kinda difficult to say when you’ve done sex right.
>>
>> What do you think is going on when people identify sex as: sex vs good sex vs great sex?
>
> I don’t see any reason to think two or more people referring to bad, good, great sex are talking about the same sort of thing when those terms are used.
Do you have an objective measure of success to assess differences between eating different foods?
Don’t include the category "poisonous or rotten food” — since that can kill you or make you sick. But besides that, do you have an objective measure of success you use to assess whether you are improving at eating?
> On 27 Feb 2017, at 15:15, Kate Sams ksam...@gmail.com [fallible-ideas] <fallibl...@yahoogroups.com> wrote:
>
>> On Feb 27, 2017, at 2:37 AM, Alan Forrester alanmichae...@googlemail.com [fallible-ideas] <fallibl...@yahoogroups.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 26 Feb 2017, at 13:54, Calvin Punch coep...@gmail.com [fallible-ideas] <fallibl...@yahoogroups.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 25 Feb 2017, at 23:24, Alan Forrester alanmichae...@googlemail.com wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 25 Feb 2017, at 17:16, anonymous FI anonymousfa...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> [5] What I desire from relationships is sex.
>>>>>
>>>>> If all you want is sex, masturbation is a lot easier than dealing with another person.
>>>>
>>>> "If all you want is to think about ideas, writing alone is a lot easier than dealing with another person.”
>>>
>>> That’s not true. If you can get good quality criticism it is a lot easier to improve your ideas with such criticism.
>>>
>>>> "If you want to play video games, solo is much better than competitive.”
>>>
>>> Solo can be better than competitive if there is nobody good to play with. Competitive can be better than solo if there are good people to play with.
>>>
>>> In both of the cases you cited above there is an objective fact about success or failure. There is also no upper bound on the progress you can make.
>>>
>>> Sex fails both of those tests. Orgasms are all kinda similar except in intensity and even the intensity is limited. And they are all done in pretty much the same way: you press or stroke some body part and then it happens. Also even having an orgasm often isn’t satisfactory. So it’s kinda difficult to say when you’ve done sex right.
>>
>> What do you think is going on when people identify sex as: sex vs good sex vs great sex?
>
>
>> Are you saying that since these descriptions comes from ideas, there’s not an objective fact of that matter?
>
> I don’t know what this question means.
>> Are you saying that since these descriptions comes from ideas, there’s not an objective fact of that matter?
>
>
>> And then, in your view, this is a criticism of sex because people should want to do activities where there is an objective fact regarding success or failure?
>
> Without an objective measure of success there is no way of assessing improvement. So then how would you assess whether sex was a good use of your time?
>> And then, in your view, this is a criticism of sex because people should want to do activities where there is an objective fact regarding success or failure?
>
Do you have an objective measure of success to assess differences between eating different foods?
Don’t include the category "poisonous or rotten food” — since that can kill you or make you sick. But besides that, do you have an objective measure of success you use to assess whether you are improving at eating?
Kate Sams
Feb 28, 2017, 9:48:50 AM2/28/17
to FI, 'Alan Forrester' via Fallible Ideas
On Feb 28, 2017, at 2:40 AM, Alan Forrester alanmichae...@googlemail.com [fallible-ideas] <fallibl...@yahoogroups.com> wrote:
> Not making you sick is a good criterion.
>
> Other good criteria:
>
> eating enough that you don’t faint or die of starvation.
>
> avoid nutritional deficiencies, e.g. - scurvy.
>
> eat a small enough amount that you don’t gain loads of weight.
What about eating experiences above these basic ways to mess up? (btw, one could say that sex also has basic ways to mess up, e.g. not having an orgasm.)
Do you have an objective measure of success to compare the experience of eating a bowl of oatmeal for dinner vs steak and lobster? The experience of eating cold pizza vs hot pizza?
If someone thinks curry is great, does that mean *everyone* thinks curry is great because they all agree there’s an objective way to measure these things?
And then do you use this objective measure to determine whether you are improving at eating?
No.
right?
there’s NO objective measure of success when it comes to the pleasure we get from eating various foods (above some basic ways to mess up that harm us physically).
I’m not arguing for sex, btw. I just think your argument here is flawed. My understanding of what you are saying is you want to be able to assess improvement (with everything?). This is how you assess whether something is a good use of your time. And what you think you need in order to assess improvement is an *objective* measure of success.
So apply this standard to other situations besides sex. Does it mean that since there’s no objective measure of success for the experience of eating cold pizza vs hot pizza (many ppl like cold pizza btw), then you don’t know how to judge whether warming up your leftover pizza is a good use of your time?
>
> Other good criteria:
>
> eating enough that you don’t faint or die of starvation.
>
> avoid nutritional deficiencies, e.g. - scurvy.
>
> eat a small enough amount that you don’t gain loads of weight.
What about eating experiences above these basic ways to mess up? (btw, one could say that sex also has basic ways to mess up, e.g. not having an orgasm.)
Do you have an objective measure of success to compare the experience of eating a bowl of oatmeal for dinner vs steak and lobster? The experience of eating cold pizza vs hot pizza?
If someone thinks curry is great, does that mean *everyone* thinks curry is great because they all agree there’s an objective way to measure these things?
And then do you use this objective measure to determine whether you are improving at eating?
No.
right?
there’s NO objective measure of success when it comes to the pleasure we get from eating various foods (above some basic ways to mess up that harm us physically).
I’m not arguing for sex, btw. I just think your argument here is flawed. My understanding of what you are saying is you want to be able to assess improvement (with everything?). This is how you assess whether something is a good use of your time. And what you think you need in order to assess improvement is an *objective* measure of success.
So apply this standard to other situations besides sex. Does it mean that since there’s no objective measure of success for the experience of eating cold pizza vs hot pizza (many ppl like cold pizza btw), then you don’t know how to judge whether warming up your leftover pizza is a good use of your time?
Elliot Temple
Feb 28, 2017, 2:39:32 PM2/28/17
to FIGG, FI
And it's so prevalent that people take it for granted not merely as true but as "basic" too.
Elliot Temple
www.curi.us
Kate Sams
Feb 28, 2017, 4:50:31 PM2/28/17
to FI, FIGG
On Feb 26, 2017, at 3:52 PM, Elliot Temple cu...@curi.us [fallible-ideas] <fallibl...@yahoogroups.com> wrote:
> On Feb 26, 2017, at 5:54 AM, Calvin Punch coep...@gmail.com [fallible-ideas] <fallibl...@yahoogroups.com> wrote:
>
>> On 25 Feb 2017, at 23:24, Alan Forrester alanmichae...@googlemail.com wrote:
>>
>>> On 25 Feb 2017, at 17:16, anonymous FI anonymousfa...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>> Sex is a creative activity (even if it's common to do it with very low levels of creativity).
>
> This is a rationalization.
>
> Sex is ritual.
>
> Can you put creativity into how to perform a ritual better? How to be more obedient, more exactly what's you're supposed to? Yes of course. But that's different than open-ended problem solving. It's different than what's normally called a creative activity. The ideal of a creative activity is a *beginning of infinity* where change is expected and appreciated. Sex is about as bad as it gets for that, about as opposite as it gets. While no starting points have unlimited power to entirely halt all progress, creativity, etc, it's hard to name much that's worse than sex from a creative point of view, besides violence, fighting, crying, and other overtly negative things. Even something very boring and tedious would lend itself to automation, but no one wants to build some robots to automate the physical act of sex (both sides of it) so humans can go do something else.
[…]
>
>> On 25 Feb 2017, at 23:24, Alan Forrester alanmichae...@googlemail.com wrote:
>>
>>> On 25 Feb 2017, at 17:16, anonymous FI anonymousfa...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>> Sex is a creative activity (even if it's common to do it with very low levels of creativity).
>
> This is a rationalization.
>
> Sex is ritual.
>
> Can you put creativity into how to perform a ritual better? How to be more obedient, more exactly what's you're supposed to? Yes of course. But that's different than open-ended problem solving. It's different than what's normally called a creative activity. The ideal of a creative activity is a *beginning of infinity* where change is expected and appreciated. Sex is about as bad as it gets for that, about as opposite as it gets. While no starting points have unlimited power to entirely halt all progress, creativity, etc, it's hard to name much that's worse than sex from a creative point of view, besides violence, fighting, crying, and other overtly negative things. Even something very boring and tedious would lend itself to automation, but no one wants to build some robots to automate the physical act of sex (both sides of it) so humans can go do something else.
>>> Also, sex is kinda dull. Devoting a lot of time to getting it is a bad mistake.
>>
>> Fundamentally dull? Or just the way people practice it today?
>>
>> Why is it different from any other game or art?
>
> Physically, sex is more parochial than eating. Sex has less variety and options.
Elliot Temple
Feb 28, 2017, 5:02:47 PM2/28/17
to FIGG, FI
a lot of cooks and cooking traditions have something against technology and ease, but some are progressive.
Richard Feynman wrote a story about how ppl were cutting green beans badly, basically pressing them against a knife with their thumb and going slow to try not to cut themselves. and he came up with a better way: stick a knife into a cutting board upright, then hold both ends of the green bean and push it into the knife that way. that's safer and faster. creativity! he also used creativity to reinvent the idea of having a bunch of wires or thin pieces of metal in order to do multiple cuts at once with something soft like a boiled potato. he went to a store to try to buy stuff to make one and then found the product already existed for use with eggs, someone else had thought of it too. his creativity in both cases was NOT appreciated by his boss/coworkers. he didn't get to keep using the improvements. people suck and lots of people dislike change/progress/creativity even when it's pretty damn innocuous.
Elliot Temple
www.fallibleideas.com
Kate Sams
Feb 28, 2017, 8:45:11 PM2/28/17
to 'Alan Forrester' via Fallible Ideas, FI
On Feb 26, 2017, at 10:44 PM, Justin Mallone <just...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Feb 26, 2017, at 3:52 PM, Elliot Temple cu...@curi.us [fallible-ideas] <fallibl...@yahoogroups.com> wrote:
>
>> On Feb 26, 2017, at 5:54 AM, Calvin Punch coep...@gmail.com [fallible-ideas] <fallibl...@yahoogroups.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 25 Feb 2017, at 23:24, Alan Forrester alanmichae...@googlemail.com wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 25 Feb 2017, at 17:16, anonymous FI anonymousfa...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>>>> You’re a second hander.
>>>
>>> Might romance then be good for second-handers?
>>
>> no. the success rate is shit. tons of breakups and divorces, heartbreaks and pain.
>>
>> tons of people who stay together because of the kids.
>>
>> tons of unhappy people hiding it.
>
> Came across this piece in New York Magazine.
>
> http://nymag.com/thecut/2017/02/the-professional-whose-mom-paid-for-her-breast-augmentation.html
>
> It's notable cuz the portrayal is of a young, attractive woman with lots of social status. So her situation is what people who want this kind of lifestyle would consider pretty good…
> On Feb 26, 2017, at 3:52 PM, Elliot Temple cu...@curi.us [fallible-ideas] <fallibl...@yahoogroups.com> wrote:
>
>> On Feb 26, 2017, at 5:54 AM, Calvin Punch coep...@gmail.com [fallible-ideas] <fallibl...@yahoogroups.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 25 Feb 2017, at 23:24, Alan Forrester alanmichae...@googlemail.com wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 25 Feb 2017, at 17:16, anonymous FI anonymousfa...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>>>> You’re a second hander.
>>>
>>> Might romance then be good for second-handers?
>>
>> no. the success rate is shit. tons of breakups and divorces, heartbreaks and pain.
>>
>> tons of people who stay together because of the kids.
>>
>> tons of unhappy people hiding it.
>
> Came across this piece in New York Magazine.
>
> http://nymag.com/thecut/2017/02/the-professional-whose-mom-paid-for-her-breast-augmentation.html
>
[…]
>> 11:15 a.m. Okay, mayyyybe I’’ll grace Peter’s phone with a slutty Snapchat. I’m not at work today and can devote my time to my real passion: men.
>
> her description of her real passion is fairly honest!
> One cannot substitute people for work. If a man defines his central purpose in terms of his relationship to others, this necessarily makes him a second-hander, no matter what form of the vice he chooses—whether he takes the path of a Keating who wants to be loved or of a con man who wants to deceive, of a dictator who wants to give orders or of an altruist who wants to take them. Anyone moved primarily by a social rather than a productive purpose thereby rejects reality, with everything this implies. That is why none of these types, however single-minded their behavior, qualifies as purposeful—assuming we mean by “purposeful” the value-oriented, effort-demanding existence described earlier. In fact, as Ayn Rand has observed, second-handedness in some variant is precisely what men resort to when they have dropped the discipline of purpose. Hoping to allay their anxiety and fill the void left by their own default, they have no recourse then but to run to others.
Rami Rustom
Mar 1, 2017, 11:56:37 AM3/1/17
to FIGG, FI
> That belief (no orgasm by someone = sexual encounter failure) is an extremely nasty myth which causes a great deal of misery.
> And it's so prevalent that people take it for granted not merely as true but as "basic" too.
Justin Mallone
Mar 27, 2019, 4:07:44 PM3/27/19
to FIGG, FIYG
Kate was criticized by Elliot as believing in an “an extremely nasty
myth which causes a great deal of misery” and did not follow up on
this criticism. No comments below.
myth which causes a great deal of misery” and did not follow up on
this criticism. No comments below.
Kate Sams
Apr 2, 2019, 5:19:05 PM4/2/19
to FIGG, FIYG
One reason I might not have replied to this in 2017 is that I found it embarrassing to have believed such a myth. I wanted to pretend it didn’t happen.
anonymous FI
Apr 2, 2019, 5:25:50 PM4/2/19
to 'Kate Sams' via Fallible Ideas, FIYG
On Apr 2, 2019, at 2:18 PM, 'Kate Sams' via Fallible Ideas
conditioned in you and affects how you live, even if you would
consciously deny it – and that this post is not even trying to follow
up on the issue and learn better?
Kate Sams
Apr 2, 2019, 6:36:48 PM4/2/19
to FIGG, Elliot Temple curi@curi.us [fallible-ideas]
One thought is that sexual touching can be fun and pleasurable before having an orgasm. So, even if there’s no orgasm, there’s value just in the touching. Also, people sometimes interpret sexual touching as involving emotional closeness, which they value as an important part of their relationship. So, again, that’s more value (even if there’s no orgasm).
I think the myth causes misery because some people might not be able to have orgasms or maybe they just don’t have one in a particular sexual encounter. But this doesn’t mean the whole encounter was a *failure*. There could be other things to value besides having an orgasm.
anonymous FI
Apr 3, 2019, 4:49:08 PM4/3/19
to 'Kate Sams' via Fallible Ideas, Elliot Temple curi@curi.us [fallible-ideas]
On Apr 2, 2019, at 3:36 PM, 'Kate Sams' via Fallible Ideas
you haven’t changed.
Changing takes thought and effort. Skip those and you don’t change.
This is an old idea.
Kate Sams
Apr 3, 2019, 11:49:03 PM4/3/19
to Elliot Temple curi@curi.us [fallible-ideas], FIGG
> Since you did almost nothing, you haven’t changed.
>
> Changing takes thought and effort. Skip those and you don’t change.
>
> This is an old idea.
Anne B
Apr 4, 2019, 7:28:25 AM4/4/19
to fallibl...@googlegroups.com, fallibl...@yahoogroups.com
On Wed, Apr 3, 2019 at 11:49 PM 'Kate Sams' via Fallible Ideas
Instead of thinking about changing the myths you believe, think about
noticing them. That's easier. And don't aim to notice them all, aim to
notice some here and there. This might be doable.
noticing them. That's easier. And don't aim to notice them all, aim to
notice some here and there. This might be doable.
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages