I am violating a social contract, but I am not to discuss this contract? That is why I asked you about the NSA and secret courts. Although I prefer for you to not be angry, there might be a false equivocation between me being accountable to norms, and me being accountable to your outrage. The former seems more easily justified than the latter. Do you convince people of their need for self-restraint by losing yours?
The way I see it, social contracts and norms must be negotiated. They are usually decided by consensus, and consensus is determined by communication. So that is what I am trying to do, communicate about the issue. If I donât get to discuss it, then I lose my âvoteâ. People donât only get an input to the consensus if I happen to like their opinions! They are involved simply by virtue of being members of the society.
Really, if it was considered disruptive to discuss anything in the forums because some people felt there were already norms at play, nothing would ever be discussed. So, discuss your norms! I am not stopping you.
It seems rather easy to snarkily suggest that I am dysfunctional somehow. What sort of therapy am I in need of?
I am not here for therapy, I am here to discuss the topic at hand. Are you seriously going to suggest that the questions I introduced are not essentially relevant to the topic? So personal/public boundaries, the separate special status of sex, etc - none of these are relevant to a topic about masturbation on the sidewalks of NYC?
Why the insistence of personal innuendo instead of an actual open discussion?
I think that there arenât actual yes/no questions or answers. Didnât I already explain elsewhere that I am non-binary? That just as readily applies to other aspects of my life besides gender.
Yes or no BUT present a qualification. Not unlike saying âIt may seem to be generally true, but there are what might be significant exceptionsâ - except having the benefit of brevity. At least for those who can comprehend the words written for them without the presumption that they are not to be taken literally! You do seem to have an aversion to literal reading of what I say. Is that a problem? I donât think so, but it does get extremely awkward when you then get on a soapbox and call me out over it.
Do you not think that there are relationships between action and intention? Does you interpreting a gesture, a code, automatically confirm that the meaning you derived from it was intended by the sender? You get confused by conditional statements, and the difference of a phrase being declarative or imperative. When you confront me with these, and I explain the difference in eventually exhausting detail, where is your âgood faithâ? Where are your questions? The only parts of a conversation I can be responsible for are my actual words, and the intentions behind them. I only know as much about your models of respect, civility, word games, or anything else as you have the willingness and patience to explain.
If you simply decide to willingly interpret much of what I say as counter to what I explain I intend, but are too indignant to discuss the specifics of how or why, then just what I am I supposed to do about it?
I said that I am trying to understand the issue. Not engage in a personal crusade about it. If peopleâs norms are so important, I would suppose they would be more willing to discuss them. Putting a person who asks about your norms as the subject of a rhetorical witch-hunt seems lazy and evasive. Why not have pride in our norms? It seems like too much of a cultural shibboleth, like saying âIf I have to explain it to you, then you are the sort of person Iâd rather not talk toâ. Itâs not very inclusive, and could lead to echo chambers. Donât you embrace opportunities to re-examine your principles? (in a strictly Platonic, non-masturbatory way, of course)
I know you donât see it, but you donât come off as someone whoâs got their social and interpersonal skills well developed. A therapist is a great person to talk to about those kind of things, and can offer advice that would help.
Even wondering about this points to a personal problem that you arenât abundantly clear on these rather clear social boundaries. This is like sex-offender-class problematic to the normals to even have this question. That you donât see it suggests you would benefit from some time with a therapist whoâd be helpful and non-judgmental in helping you sort these things out. A counselor, priest, spouse, or other trusted close person is who you want to discuss this stuff with, not random people on the internet.
This is literally crazy talk. Seriously. Not crazy talk like, âha haâ, but crazy talk like a toxic delusion that will create only misery for you and those around you. A counselor, priest, spouse, or other trusted close person would be a good person to discuss this to clarify, though. Not random people on the internet.
To be honest, it truly does not feel like you are trying to understand the issue at all, and it more it feels like you are grilling me non-stop about we donât just have public sexual acts. But thanks for calling me lazy and implying that Iâm not self-reflectiveâŚ?
If the boundaries are so clear, then wouldnât reasoned discussion be less recursive? Saying that only people with a specialized social role can or should help sounds rather indoctrinary. I tend to be deeply skeptical of any issue which is supposedly âclearâ âcommon-senseâ, but yet can only be explained correctly by an expert. An expert on normative behaviors, no less!
What I am asking about is what is behind the norms. And what I am being told essentially sounds like âthat is a scary and wrong questionâ. If people have reasons for doing what they do, it seems odd that it would be controversial to discuss them. Some norms I encounter have what seem to be well-thought out bases. Some others just seem to be pure instinct or ideology. The less explicable norms appear to be, the more skeptical I become!
It is a matter of social methodology, not the rationalization of my own behaviors. And I do find it stubborn and insulting when others decide that they know better about how I live. None of you know me that well,
Thank you for a considered reply!
I mean âwhy donât weâ in the literal sense of âwhy is that?â - Not in the suggestive sense of âOh yes, why donât we have a picnic!â
I said that people making the topic out to be my own personal problem is a lazy tactic. I didnât accuse you personally of doing that, but there does seem to be a distinct trend of it happening in this topic.
Why is it that topics about sex supposedly say something about me for asking them? I seem to be able to speculate about most topics without people deciding that it says something deep about my own behaviors. If I talk about airplanes, golf, or hair-braiding, I donât get torrents of posts insisting that I have crazy ideas about them. Believe it or not, I can even be interested in topics which donât much involve me personally, such as the three I just listed.
If people canât discuss norms, then how do they create them, or teach them? Does the lack of openness and clarity actually help? Just ignore the wizards behind the curtian!
And yet you ignore the part where I say I felt like you were grilling me?
Just to be clear: âgrillingâ is a negative feeling, very similar to being sea-lioned.
It would be for some people⌠Boundaries are are important to recognize, not analyze. Like a wall. Itâs there. You should know itâs there. If you donât know itâs there, thatâs bad. Very bad sometimes. Asking why itâs there might be an interesting thing, but itâs not going to help you see the wall thatâs right there.
Boundaries are clear to normals intuitively. For us (by âusâ I mean non-neurotypicals) they are something we have to sort out. The people to sort those things out with are parents, counselors, therapists, priests, spouses, close friends, or other trusted close people. This is not because theyâre socially-appointed experts granted special moral authority (except priests, I guess), itâs because (as the normals get naturally, but we sometimes donât) they are people who you can trust to discuss these things with and learn from to grow into being a happier, mentally healthier, better functioning person. You want to be a happier, mentally healthier, better functioning person, right?
Magic, fairy dust, very large prime numbers, and extremely complex math that takes decades to learn. Seriously, I understand you want to analyze this stuff (itâs my first reaction to every problem too), but there are some domains in life where analysis isnât going to solve the problem. This is one of them. Also bowling. Personal values clarification is a great area for analysis. Analysis of the origins of social norms. is only useful if youâre trying to get a PhD in Sociology and live as a penniless barista.
This is my last reply, I have work to do at the day-job. Good luck.
I wasnât sure what to say about that. I did say above that I was interested in your views if you were comfortable discussing them. But I am not picking on you. I am interested because you said that you have strong thoughts and feelings about this. It is entirely up to you what you contribute to the discussion. I like it when you do. But I prefer when topics remain open, and we get a varied ecosystem of ideas. You and I debating back and forth with Acer as referee isnât what I would call ideal! An open and involved discussion I think would be better, so I try to encourage people to speak, rather than shut them up.
I can and do respect when people say that something is none of my business. But that only works when people donât keep discussing me! Itâs not fair to go from âIâm not discussing this with you Popoâ to âYou know what, fuck Popo! They obviously think Xâ.
I will make the effort to not impose upon you, But I hope others will chime in and revive the topic, so it is not supported by only a few of us.
I see where youâre coming from, itâs a good and reasonable question to want to know (from first principles, or otherwise) what types of experiences require consent and what do not.
I donât know, and neither does anyone else on this planet, not with the precision youâd prefer. For better or worse our norms have been set over centuries by general consensus of each individual culture. These norms can, do, and oftentimes should change.
But, the pre-existing norms in general have no need to explain themselves. It is up to challengers to do the convincing. We do not live in the small bands of 40-150 people our brains and intuitions evolved to thrive in, and it is unreasonable to expect that a society of millions should adjust to you as a condition of your membership in it, in the way that a single individual would expect to have significant influence in a small village or hunter gatherer tribe.
Of course, society does have many other obligations to individuals (which it may or may not actually uphold), but that is irrelevant here.
