- Sep 28, 2008
- 41,228
- 246,583
- 4,281
- MBTI
- INFJ
- Enneagram
- 954 so/sx
Are we "owed" a partner?
- Thread starter Nixie
- Start date
Nixie said:
Not sure if the intimate part is relevant. I think restaurant owners have choices as to whether they offer good service, and also choices as to which clients they cater to, which seems a strong enough analogy to the relationships stuff.
The first is basically a matter of law -- it's a bad idea to extend the law to do things like shutting down restaurants with bad customer service ratings, as that's over-extension, in the same way it's a bad idea to have laws against free speech, even if the speech said is 100% harmful and 0% helpful, in many cases.
The second is really a matter of respecting some level of personal choice.
Notice the first case is one where we basically agree ethically that the restaurant ought to change, but we won't make it illegal not to, for pragmatic reasons. The second is different, as it is ethically neutral whether you cater to people liking a certain kind of cuisine or another, more or less. It's not just a matter of separation-of-law-and-ethics.
The analogy to relationships: as in the first case, you get some men and women with disgustingly elitist, snobbish, insulting attitudes on who they'll date. It's legal suicide to require them to drop that, the same way it's legal suicide to prosecute people for a lot of the dumb shit they say. However, we can safely ethically look down upon it.
In the second case, the analogy is: even if a man or woman has good ethical attitudes to relationships, he/she still should be allowed personal choice as in the restaurant case. If he/she doesn't feel like satiating another's needs, then no big deal.
In other words, there exists a strong sense in which the two situations are analogous, which seems to demonstrate that the level of intimacy is not required to make the point, only the existence of reasonable personal choice.
What we can say is that a world in which there are people whose tastes don't get satisfied is imperfect/undesireable. Still, forcing person X to cater to person Y is placing distress on person X to cure person Y, so there's no real good in doing that, it is self-defeating. What needs to ideally happen is it becomes possible to meet Y's needs without harming X.
By the way, the correct logic for why we don't say that ethically (even if not legally), person X should romantically satiate person Y if not having good reasons not to do so (eg if the reasons are just elitist/snobby ones) is simply that we wouldn't apply that logic to someone who does NOT have elitist/snobby reasons: indeed, the default is even they wouldn't have to romantically satiate person Y. Instead we operate in these cases on the basis that, if there's no reason to, and not to, the default is no need to. There must be positive reason to do so -- its absence is already good enough reason not to.
Last edited:
Happy Phantom
Well-known member
The Mysterious Ticking Noise!
I am curious about your rationale for "elitist, snobby" reasons and who gets to define these terms and apply them to specific situations.
Why would personal preference, the whole point of woman having the ability to choose who touches their body, be ANY rationale for comparing eating someplace and letting someone touch you? I am seriously at a loss how the intimate nature of sexual contact can be compared to eating out hahaha
How do you justify thinking that a woman's "no" or "not interested" should be ignored or superseded because some outsider judges that it is "elitist or snobby". (Re read your comment and I am not saying you advocate this. But I am curious at the "value judgement " you bring into your comments by seemingly pointing out that "elitist and snobby" choices in partners is "wrong") If I do not want to have sex with a man because I find him ugly, isn't that my choice? As an individual, am I not granted the right to make such an intimate, personal decision based on my own desires and not some "politically correct" any penis will satisfy me and let's make every penis fair game approach?
The whole idea behind the anger and resentment is that women are choosing not to have sex and that somehow this infringes on every man's "right" to sex and companionship.
Why would personal preference, the whole point of woman having the ability to choose who touches their body, be ANY rationale for comparing eating someplace and letting someone touch you? I am seriously at a loss how the intimate nature of sexual contact can be compared to eating out
hahahaHow do you justify thinking that a woman's "no" or "not interested" should be ignored or superseded because some outsider judges that it is "elitist or snobby". (Re read your comment and I am not saying you advocate this. But I am curious at the "value judgement " you bring into your comments by seemingly pointing out that "elitist and snobby" choices in partners is "wrong") If I do not want to have sex with a man because I find him ugly, isn't that my choice? As an individual, am I not granted the right to make such an intimate, personal decision based on my own desires and not some "politically correct" any penis will satisfy me and let's make every penis fair game approach?
The whole idea behind the anger and resentment is that women are choosing not to have sex and that somehow this infringes on every man's "right" to sex and companionship.
Last edited:
I'm humming that song all day long.A little something to have stuck in ur head all day.
Happy Phantom
Well-known member
I’m pleased I could make your day a little better. Mine has taken a turn for shitsville. lol
Owed? Definitely not. Even deserve? Not really.
Also, this pervasive idea that "there's someone for everyone" is just completely flawed and based on assuming that we should take care of the feelings of single people. I personally see it as a little patronizing. It would be better for everyone to accept that practically and realistically it is impossible for everyone to find someone. Some people are "destined" to be and remain alone. Some people choose to do so. Some people try and try and can't make it work. Others settle. A very small percentage of the population likely finds "true love" imo.
Also, this pervasive idea that "there's someone for everyone" is just completely flawed and based on assuming that we should take care of the feelings of single people. I personally see it as a little patronizing. It would be better for everyone to accept that practically and realistically it is impossible for everyone to find someone. Some people are "destined" to be and remain alone. Some people choose to do so. Some people try and try and can't make it work. Others settle. A very small percentage of the population likely finds "true love" imo.
Who remembers r/incels? The stuff up there is actually very kosher compared to the things they used to say.
Perhaps they got banned? Or they acted it out irl and were put in jail, if not a psychiatric facility. Although, it hasn't been declared a mental issue yet (hope it never will be - rapists deserve to be neutered).
Given how rapidly things are being declared mental illnesses (they recently recommended that gaming is a mental illness and not just a subtype of an addictive disorder) I wouldn't be surprised if society decides that for some reason those who should not breed be allowed to join the rest of us.
I have no quips in them abandoning the rest of us and going off the grid with their toxicity.
These later ones are from r/nice guys
The sub-Reddit "nice guys"
It is posts where men complain about women and their choices of sexual partners and being excluded from female company because they are "nice". There is a fine line between "nice guys" and "incels" whereas the nice guy tries but only gets obnoxious after rejection and the incel has nothing but contempt for women. That is my own interpretation
Again, you see the concepts of "choice" being questioned and the idea that sexually active women can be "used up" by the choices they make with their bodies and become less desirable. A wonderful contradiction. Choose to have sex with me or you are a whore with no value.
The sub-Reddit "nice guys"
It is posts where men complain about women and their choices of sexual partners and being excluded from female company because they are "nice". There is a fine line between "nice guys" and "incels" whereas the nice guy tries but only gets obnoxious after rejection and the incel has nothing but contempt for women. That is my own interpretation
Again, you see the concepts of "choice" being questioned and the idea that sexually active women can be "used up" by the choices they make with their bodies and become less desirable. A wonderful contradiction. Choose to have sex with me or you are a whore with no value.
Happy Phantom
Well-known member