If you need a such a device to do the job which one should already be able to do as a caring and loving partner then you are already lost or just a shitty lover.
2 Likes
What’s wrong with “Hey. You wanna make baby?”
3 Likes
I suppose it beats unintentionally coming off as a smarmy, cartoonish lover boy. “I wish with all my heart to make hot passionate love to yoouuuu!”
1 Like
cause once was enough?
1 Like
I understood it this way and I am actually fascinated by the concept, even if I see the problems with the implementation.
The concept removes the cost of rejection. Why? Because by pressing the button, one is simply advertising his or her state or horniness and not actually asking for sex. That is a subtle yes essential difference. There is no rejection of the offer, because there is no actual offer, just a statement.
I also think that some of the sarcastic comments in this thread, as in “a working marriage should not need this system” are actually a consequence of the social cost of rejection. They say in principle that “a working marriage should have no cost of rejection” or, maybe, “a working marriage should have no rejection”. These feelings are quite common yer obviously false: rejection of sexual advances happens in any couple for perfectly reasonable reasons and repeated rejection ends up bearing a cost for both partners.
On this subject we should also remember that couple therapists see a large amount of couples where rejection of sexual advances comes from the man. It is not rare.
Back to my original question: I see no plausible other use for that dual button system, because I see no other interaction where the cost of rejection is as high. But I would like to be proven wrong.
5 Likes
About the only one I can come up with is deciding whether to split the bill equally in a restaurant (and you’d ideally need more than two buttons).
It’s one of those situations where saying to a group of one’s friends “Actually I’m not happy contributing to your steak and multiple expensive drinks because I have no money which is why I chose the small salad and a glass of water (not because I am on a diet as I claimed)” can be too awkward for many people.
If there were a system whereby people could anonymously indicate their preference with splitting the bill only happening if everyone agrees, I suppose that could have some use.
Narrator: It wouldn’t.
(Because people would first have to bring up the idea of using the system - which strikes me as the major problem with the sex idea. If you’re unable to address the idea of having sex due to fear of rejection, why would you be more able to suggest the idea of method of indicating your desire/availability for sex?)
1 Like
Given the friction of any real-world button implementation(notably, if I understand it correctly, the buttons are paired rather than somehow N-way-arbitrarily-associated and don’t have a mechanism for coding multiple flavors of inquiry(even if the task of coding ‘human social inquiries’ weren’t likely a fools errand, these buttons just have ‘is pressed’ and ‘duration’) so they would only be useful between two people who have already agreed on what the salient question is; which cuts out a lot of cases that aren’t sex-within-couples) I am also skeptical of broader plausible use.
However, in the thought experiment vein, I think it’s worth remembering the cost of rejecting in addition to the cost of rejection(it’s quite possibly the more ethically salient of the two).
Even if an inquiry isn’t overtly inappropriate in itself(of the wolf-whistling flavor, or with distinct implications that ‘no’ will not be taken well at all); getting it all the damn time is generally regarded as going from ‘potentially flattering’ to ‘exhausting and/or threatening’ fairly quickly.
I’m not sure I’d agree; but one can at least make a case for cost of rejection not being a terribly salient problem, as well as one that this mechanism doesn’t actually eliminate, a timeout may be less awkward but it’s still a no(not something that makes the person rejected happy; but potentially a ‘oh, you’d like your intimacy with zero emotional risk? Should I put you down for a pony as well?’ situation(obviously less so in contexts like 'homosexuals looking for partners in areas where ‘rejection’ might skew more toward 'outing and/or violence’s rather than ‘not interested thanks’); and one where you can argue that ‘if you can’t handle your SO saying ‘not now’ there’s a problem with your relationship or you’.
It’s the implications for the cost of rejecting that (while I agree on the impracticality in general) that I find much more interesting: even if you aren’t concerned about rejection or are willing to risk it there’s still the fact that you are making the other person reject you(often socially awkward for them) unless interested.
I’d definitely argue that a (hypothetical given the implementation issues) mechanism that would allow you to inquire of people without imposing rejecting costs on them would be both of practical utility and an ethical good.
Obviously, it would have it’s limits: it’s actually the relationship case we’re one would hope this would be less useful: if rejecting your partner’s requests is reaching burdensome levels that’s probably a bad sign(regarding compatibility, perception of entitlement, or similar); and a silent request mechanism would be vulnerable to a class of gaming the system because the same features that keep the person you are asking from having to know would keep everyone else from knowing; which eliminates the rate-limiting functions provided by a reputation for hitting on everyone constantly; but it’s still the rejecting cost implications that are of most interest to my mind.
2 Likes
Sorry. In my head “cost of rejection” was attributed to the process, not to a single end of the pair. I meant the sum of both costs, rejecting and suffering rejection. But I see your point.
1 Like
Yes, this.
The dynamics of asking and rejecting are still totally in play. If one person is always pushing the button and the other never pushes theirs, you’re still in the same spot, with the same feelings, button or no.
3 Likes
3 Likes
multi-button scenario: can this meeting be over now?
dual button multiple pairs: the amazon button redux. cards hanging around the house: a movie, dinner out, make dinner in, etc.
dual button one pair scenario: i’m so ready to leave this club, this movie, this coffee shop, the in-laws: but i don’t want to pressure you. related: i concede this session of milton bradley’s “life”, the game is too long. okay, yes: another round of scrabble.
the mad scenario: every couple gets a button on their wedding day for a free and instant divorce. yes, i really do want to fire these icbms.
5 Likes
I don’t think that your examples take into account the timing included in the discussed two buttons system.
Should we stop watching this movie, which I’m finding really boring but don’t want to hurt your feelings by bringing it up first, since you suggested it?
Or any similar question where if one person said it the other might say “I’m so glad you said that! I think so too, but was worried about bringing it up.”
Of course, passing out the button during the movie/dinner/discussion and describing it’s meaning would rather defeat the purpose…
you could also envision a button that “stays on” – but in all of those situations you want to know your partner has declined to engage without having to ask. you know because within the timeout period they haven’t agreed; so you settle in for the long haul.
Hey, You wanna test my vasectomy?
1 Like
Reading some of the comments here, it seems that many assume that in a couple the man will duct tape the button pressed and the woman will never press it.
That is a toxic gendered way to look at human behavior and a disservice to the women who find themselves at the asking end in a relationship. They are not that rare and we should not pretend they do not exist.
Furthermore, the idea that one partner will never press his or her button should have us (and the people in the couple) realize a different problem: if you have two people and one of them never presses the button, you do not have a relationship.
I didn’t really see that except for one or two joke comments near the top of the thread. Gender didn’t seem to be included at all in the discussion comments.
If the discomfort of rejecting or fear of rejection is uncomfortable enough that these buttons seem worth the trouble, that’s a symptom of something else.
4 Likes
What do you think it is a symptom of?
I think that there’s a baseline level of trust and communication required for all mutually beneficial human interactions. Intimate partners who live together (who share a living space, schedule, etc) must constantly negotiate all of the facets of their shared life.
A couple (as in the 2 button scenario) in which one or both partners are unable to negotiate will have a difficult time meeting the needs of either person.
Asking for things is an inherently vulnerable situation, but it’s also an opportunity for mutual growth and understanding.
edit: wrong consonant
4 Likes
