I’m being badgered to repudiate Richard Carrier now. It’s not going to happen. But the sentiment is revealing.
One obvious reason is that I’m not the boss of freethoughtblogs. Really! Ed Brayton is the closest thing to a boss, but even there, the individual blogs are semi-autonomous. They’re set up, they go their merry way, and unless there is a network-wide objection to something, nobody interferes. So if you complain to Ed or especially me, we’re just going to shrug our shoulders and tell you that we’re decentralized, a community of equals, and if you’re looking for the FtB King to smite someone you don’t like, that says more about your authoritarian mindset than how the blog network is run.
But another reason is what they’re complaining about is most definitely not actionable in any way. Richard is polyamorous, and posted an article asking for a date on his travels. I’m rather surprised at the concerns.
Look: I’m a sexually conservative straight cis-het man in a monogamous relationship. My views on my personal sex life would fit right in with a 19th century uptight Christian community.
So when I’m at a conference and I hear Darrel Ray speaking about his rather more adventurous sex life, I’d be terribly uncomfortable if I were imagining myself doing anything like that.
I can read Greta Christina’s book Bending and appreciate it objectively, but those aren’t my fantasies, and I’d be terribly uncomfortable in any of those situations.
I know I have a lot of gay readers. I, personally, have zero interest in gay sex, and have had a few experiences where I was made terribly uncomfortable by invitations to participate — I just can’t.
While I’m heterosexual myself, I have also had a few situations in which I’m invited to have sex with women…yep, I’m made terribly uncomfortable by that. I run away as politely as I can.
All you young people with your dating and your hookups and your sexual experimentation — terribly uncomfortable for me.
You all are weird as far as I’m concerned, and I would be terribly uncomfortable living your sex lives. But fortunately, you don’t make me, and I can understand that a lot of you would find my sex life to be unpleasant and interesting, so I don’t tell you what to do, either. None of us are made uncomfortable! A little healthy respect for our differences is a good thing.
So I read Carrier’s post, and no surprise, I was made terribly uncomfortable by it (no, really, sometimes I feel like a Victorian). But so what. I don’t define what Richard Carrier does.
I have one rule that gets me by: is it consensual? And what do you know, that whole damn post is about getting consent and setting personal boundaries and making crystal clear what he desires, and acknowledging the other participant’s autonomy. How can anyone complain about that?
If I sought to impose my sexual preferences on everyone else, that’s what would be creepy and wrong. If I tried to coerce others into sexual behavior that I enjoyed, but they didn’t, that would be worthy of condemnation. If I stood by while someone deprived another of autonomy so they could get their sick jollies off, I would be ashamed.
But this? Objectively fine. It’s a consentapalooza.
Well said. You can have sex with a bag of badgers for all I care as long as it’s consensual. But don’t ask me how to get consent from a bag of badgers, and don’t complain to me if you do get it and someone bites off more than they can chew.
Short story: I try not to give a fuck about who other people fuck. I find it makes both my life and theirs much simpler.
” …unpleasant and interesting…” [my emphasis]
Only the masochists…
That’s not a use I’m comfortable with of a platform. I’m entirely open to the possibility it’s my problem though and there’s nothing questionable about it.
I don’t understand why they want you to repudiate Richard Carrier in the first place?
Also I really want to see a 90s-style TV Ad for Consentapalooza!
We also don’t tell bloggers how to use their platform. We sign people up because they are interesting people, and then give them the freedom to write what they want. As long as they don’t turn into a bandwagon for the KKK or something similar that gets the whole network furious, we are allowed to be discursive and weird.
It’s funny and sad really. There seems to be this misguided assumption that everyone on FTB are prudes about sexuality because of the emphasis that is frequently put on conduct, boundaries, context, and consent. So as soon as someone makes a post that’s pro-sexuality, it’s like they think they’ve found some kind of “gotcha”. “Oh look, you’re just some horny dude just like us! Hypocrite!” Can people really not see the difference between a man looking for a consensual mutual-respect relationship that may or may not involve actual sex versus a man viewing women as nothing more than meaty goals to dunk his penis in, willing or no? I will say that I laughed particularly hard at one commenter’s idea that a fan responding to RC’s post would end up in a position of power imbalance with RC having undue influence over her.
Aw. Shucks.
*blushes*
Thanks, PZ.
Just out of interest, who’s doing most of the badgering? Because most of the objections in Richard’s comments seem to be people saying something along the lines of “You FtBers are so uptight, I can’t believe you’re getting away with this!”; along with the occasional apparently well-intentioned person misunderstanding power dynamics. And of course the occasional arsehole assuming polyamory is purely about sex.
Some people seem to think looking for lovers online is some shocking modern invention previously unheard of. lulz
Didn’t expect so many non-religious people would be getting so upset about sex and relationships being treated like completely normal taboo-free things.
Also, “How dare you dedicate a single post post on your own blog to looking for a date?” seems like a bizarre concern.
@8 Thumper.
Who’s doing the badgering?
The individual #1 Erlend Meyer was referring to, who apparently does bags of them.
Something about this idea really bothers but I don’t think I’m articulate enough to express my feelings properly. I’ll try anyway :p
We should trust women to make their own decisions. Y’know, agency and all that. Calling this is bad because of “power imbalance” feels like someone is saying that women aren’t incapable of handling this situation and making their own choices. If there is a power imbalance in a relationship I trust women are capable of recognizing it and addressing it before giving consent to anything.
@12
Power imbalance is a real and serious thing. Whether it’s teacher/student, employer/employee, president/intern, or yes even star/fan, there are situations where one person’s power can make a relationship unequal at best and unethical at worst. The weaker person may feel due to societal/cultural pressure that they are obligated to respond to the advances, wanted or not. Or they might respond to the advances out of fear because of the power the other potentially holds over them. These are real situations that happen in the real world, and they are a serious matter. However, RC’s post and the situation around it does not remotely fall into this category. RC does not have the kind of power over a fan that is present in the aforementioned examples, and he has been open about what is expected or not and what is required or not in the arrangement.
You mean it’s not for his abuse of statistical methods? Oh well.
To be fair, a blog post asking for a date is really unprofessional. To be even more fair, that’s his decision, so why does anyone care? besides maybe some diehard Carrier fan.
@13
Fair point about feeling obligated from societal pressure.
But you left out the converse (uhhh whatever the correct word is…) the problem is not coercing an other into the sexual behavior you prefer to watch…” The problem is when one disallows others from behaving the way they want.
I know, the peepingtom state that watches what people do in their bedrooms to be sure thee two people in it are of opposite (cis-) sex only, gets written about a lot around here, but we just gotta keep talking about how _that_ is a real problem. Worse than telling people to do it “doggie style” in order to watch, is to forbid it entirely, even when not watching (not matter how much the couple wants to (consensually)).
offtrack, rerailing…
right, who cares what he does, as long as he does it with he participants’ consent? To try to
benghazi him over it is too “bengaaahhhhzzzzeeeee”
And who is asking you to take action? The same people who say Carrier has some “nerve” to “call Shermer a creep”?
I guess I’m bothered because, yeah, its grossly unprofessional. I can’t fathom a blog network that would invite someone to join their ranks thinking “He’ll use the platform to get dates”. I’d be embarrassed to use a platform I’d been granted for as much.
By the same token, this blog network has decided that’s OK based on the fact its not rapey and that’s fine too.
I don’t see anything potentially dangerous about it. I just think its tacky. The blog network gets to decide and enforce what they consider tactful practices, not me.
It’s a bunch of people emailing me, out of some bizarre notion that I am the Overlord of FtB (could everyone get over that? I have no more power than any other blogger here, except as a member of the smallish executive committee…which hasn’t met in about a year, because there’s nothing for us to exec). Also a bunch of slymers who, as #6 points out, equate “sex” with “coercion”.
Some people also seem to think it’s an unheard of crime against the FtB stylebook for RC to post anything about his personal life. Um, like the posts we see about piles of grading right here at the end of every semester…
Aww pz i wanted to bring you to a crossdressathon :(. Youd look great in something with lace, probably black and silver
#18: It’s more a matter of the network deciding NOT to enforce practices. Really, honestly, this is a collection of equals.
Actually, the one group that does have real power is the small committee that recruits new members — they get to shape who is on the network. I’m not on it. I explicitly exclude myself from ever being on it. The last recruiting effort I made was…Thunderf00t.
I am clearly untrustworthy, and will never live that down. I am forever the damned pariah of FtB.
I’ve heard the (Freudian?) term, “negative perversion” to describe someone who is pathologically sex-negative to the point of being obsessed with the sex lives of other people, as if what consenting adults do behind closed doors is a personal assault against them. I faintly remember a comedian musing that gay sex must make an ultrasonic nails-on-chalkboard sound that only homophobes can hear, and from great distances, because why else would they be so fixated on the topic?
I’ve been to some squick-inducing corners of the internet. My response is to click the back button and return to more comfortable ground, not to summon the Guardians of the Internet.
@marinerachel
Why is it more tacky or unprofessional for Carrier to say “I’ll be in LA on this day and I’m looking for someone to go to a museum with and possibly more if we hit it off” than for Greta Christina to talk about her time working for a peep show or promoting her book of kinky erotic stories (including posting excerpts thereof) or advertising for monthly kinkster social meetups?
(Not to pick on Greta, and btw, I think all of those things are also okay.)
For some reason, I’m picturing The Church Lady whenever someone says “inappropriate”.
Bronzy,
tsk tsk tsk, [I see what you did there (NSA speaking), we see no “Guardians” here {eyes flicking sideways} ] When hitting a squicky site, do more than just “back button”. You gotsta “clear history” from your web-browser so the NSA will have no record of your visit to the squick.
Won’t somebody think of the badgers?!
Not me, I’m not weird. Which is really weird.
Wait…. awwwww. Okay.
As for Richard Carrier, good luck to him on the experiment. It’s not my business. People who think he’s exploiting some sort of power imbalance because he has a blog seem to me to have an over-inflated idea of how much power comes from having … ooooo … a blog on the internet. You’re sitting at home and wham! people can read your words all over the world. Instant command and control at your fingertips!
I mean, I’m dizzy enough from the shift in status which happens when we’re allowed to comment.
Somewhere I hope Michael Shermer is reading Carrier’s post and cursing, “why didn’t I think of THAT?!?!”
The closest that this gets to a “power imbalance” situation is in that it might be similar to a groupie having sex with a rockstar or a professional basketball player. In that situation, the power is unrelated to consent. Some might object that the desire to sleep with someone famous, or someone who is famous relying somewhat on their fame to gain sex, is “bad” and that might be an interesting discussion, but I don’t overtly see any problem with the situation when it comes to consent.
Carrier’s actions are in no way an imposition. He has approached no one and has put no one into an awkward situation. People are free to completely ignore him, even when social pressures such as politeness are taken into account. There is no power imbalance, and none of the issues that come with physical proximity. People may not like his actions, but they can click the back button without consequence.
For the record, I’d be saying exactly the same thing if Dawkins, or Harris, or Nugent, or anyone like that put up a similar article.
Mind you, even these wild & crazy young people with their dating and their hookups and their sexual experimentation mostly don’t write blog posts asking for dates. (I know this, I’ve done a survey.)
If anything, this tactic (for want of a better term) is actually more respectful of issues of power-imbalance than, say, approaching a prospective third at a convention (where Carrier actually might have a social advantage, in that he’s a Known Name). In that situation, the person being approached feels the social pressure to be polite and not offend, increased by his position in the group. Here, people who aren’t interested have no pressure put upon them at all.
I suspect that’s what actually offends the ‘pitters who are jumping on this–that RC has demonstrated that it is, in fact, possible to not merely engage in sexual conduct, but also proposition people, without ever once having an issue with ‘gray areas’ of consent.
Yup- I’m pretty much on board with this analysis. I even might have questioned it if the post was just asking for a museum-visiting partner, because that also might lead to awkwardness. But, the post clearly laid out some expectations, so there isn’t really any grey area to complain about.
A lot of people are really invested in equating anti-predatory sentiment with anti-sexuality sentiment, or at least anti-male-sexuality sentiment. Because if they acknowledge those are different things, they have even less of an excuse.
I read Richard Carrier’s post and I tried to feel offended and … nah. The guy wants a date and posts on his blog and he sets out some baseline rules and there’s no coercion. It’s all very sweet. I couldn’t even feel PZ’s “uncomfortable”.
Anybody complaining, demanding that Richard Carrier should be frog-marched off FTB – or “disciplined” at minimum – needs to take a long look at themselves.
I have to admit that, as a gay man, I’m a bit amused at the response to Carrier’s post. Maybe it is just that the gay community doesn’t have a strong tradition of pairing into exclusive couples, but triads and open relationships are not unusual in the gay community, and “I will be in this city during this span of time” posts on blogs and hook-up sites don’t often cause pearl-clutching. I’ve used his approach myself: Looking for a tour-guide who may be interested in more.
But when a straight guy does this… cue the outrage.
Is this a setup for more Michael Nugent wankery? PZ refuses to disassociate himself from the overtly sexual Richard Carrier. Shock, horror.
As a polyamorous woman in an open relationship with a married couple, I can completely understand why he made that post. It can be really hard to meet people to date out in real life, because I always feel the need to give disclaimers about what being part of my love life entails. It makes approaching people very difficult, and I feel much less creepy using the iinternet to put out a disclaimer and let interested parties approach me. A detailed, honest post like Carrier’s serves to put all of that out there, so women who aren’t interested in that kind of relationship can simply not contact him. As for using his blog instead of a dating site, I suspect he will find a smaller and more interesting group of women to speak to among his readers than among the denizens of OKCupid or the like.
marinerachel #18
I think your expectations of FTB are a bit out of alignment. There’s nothing “professional” about it. It’s just a very loose collection of people who are (mostly) pro-science, anti-religious, and pro-equality. If PZ gets to talk about Cthulhu, I think Richard should be free to ask a pool of people who think much as he does if any of them want to go on a date. And besides, if you don’t read below the fold of his post, there is nothing that should make even a church deaconess feel uncomfortable. If you do decide to read on, caveat emptor.
I have met Richard a number of times. He can say interesting stuff on virtually any topic under the sun, he has a jovial personality, and he has a great appreciation of good food and drink. Except for the sex stuff, I’d like to be his date!
Does this mean that PZ has to stop using his blog to plan get-togethers with Pharyngulites at conferences?
because what’s the difference?
I’m with my queer and poly fellows here, I don’t think there’s anything even slightly wrong with that post. It’s good poly, to my eye: good communication, good consent talk, good boundaries. If you’re looking for a date, it’s a pretty good template for how to do it right. Good on you Mr. carrier, I say.
For some of us, poly just works. I’ve been at it since I was 15, and hope to never stop, now I actually don’t hate my body anymore. I actually find monoamorous ways to be really odd sometimes, in the same way I find the religious odd, having grown up atheist. But if that’s how people want to manage their lives, who am I to argue? So good on ya, PZ.
I’m amused by PZ’s description of his own relationship attitudes … I’m in a very similar situation, I don’t give a damn what other consenting adults get up to, but myself I’m just very monogamous. To the point that my wife has told me she’s seen other women hitting on me and I didn’t even notice.
So if a person asks AHEAD OF TIME, in an OPEN INVITATION, for anyone who is interested in CONSENSUAL activities to contact him regarding some sexyfuntimes at a convention, that’s terrible, but if a person at a convention suddenly gropes/propositions/harasses someone with whom they had no previous contact, that’s ok and nothing to be remarked upon or, for god’s sake, talked about after in a derogatory way? Sure.
Good on him, i hope he meets someone and they both have a great time.
Not much else to say about this really….except that the people crying out “unprofessional” should remember this is a blog…and that Richard is representing noone but himself….What you meant to say is “distasteful” to you, subjectively….and that’s just your problem.
marinerachel @3:
This sounds like you think there is a proper use of a blog. Given that blogs are the property of the blog owner, they get to decide what it or is not proper.
Put another way, as a blogger I find it mildly-offensive isn’t quite the word (what’s a milder word for that?), but we’ll use that for the moment-offensive that anyone would think there is a proper use for a blog.
****
How many years has it been now that people think PZ is in charge of FtB?
Y’all don’t understand – it’s all about ethics in freethought blogging!
New Sexual term: Doing it PZ style = participating or propositioning any sexual act that you damn well know most will not be comfortable with by you fun seekers…
Oh my dog.
So many of the comments (the ones not deleted anyways) are so fucking ignorant over there.
PZ from OP,
Thanks PZ, nicest thing anyone’s said to me all day. (so far)
sugarfrosted@17,
Um, is this blog his profession?
Ah, azhael@45 nailed it.
Yeah, I haven’t gone back to take a peek in a few hours. They were already bad earlier, they’re probably a cesspool now.
Actually, didn’t realize the post was a couple of days old. No new comments since yesterday. Still lots of ignorance thought.
If Carrier finds what he’s looking for, and has a good time, I hope he trolls the haters hard by posting written consent. :) Not that he needs it, but every cake needs frosting.
I’m about as interested in Richard Carrier’s genital use as much as I’m interested in the regularity of Richard Dawkins’ bowel movements, but I felt he crossed a line in using a high-profile atheist blog network to score some poontang. I am unimpressed with Carrier’s attitude when I registered this discomfort: “Get off the internet” was churlish and childish response to a fairly mild comment.
I’m wondering about the specifics of the complaints. Are they about the type of sexual relationship, or the fact that it was posted on a blog, or the fact that it was a “call out” for a date, or that it included specifics about the types of things Carrier likes and supports, or what?
Not that it matters at all to the conclusion that it’s nobody’s business.
It’s just that this story is missing some juicy gossip details that might provide insight into the thought processes of whatever types of nosy people would be following Carrier’s blog yet be upset about that. (And I’m more nosy about them than I am about anyone’s consenting adult personal life, since the objections are far more peculiar.)
Score some poontang? Really? Wow, luckily that isn’t misogynistic or anything, the way you phrased that. Nothing to see here, I guess.
I didn’t read his post, but if he’s single, or in an open relationship, and he wants to lay it out there what he’s looking for, I don’t see the problem. Like PZ, I’m a cis-hetero man who would never dream of cheating on my wife (and the opportunities have been there several times), but I wouldn’t say we were exactly boring. It’s good to introduce new things, and change it up a bit.
I’m definitely not as Victorian as PZ – hell, I had friends with benefits a decade before anyone ever uttered the words – but those relationships were extremely clear. I was never a person who could go to a bar and pick up a stranger with the hope of sleeping with her. Just couldn’t do it. But among my friends, people I liked and respected, there were a few with whom there was a special connection, and we regularly engaged in physical pleasures. It’s odd how it all works. I can see how sex could severely complicate a friendship, and perhaps even spoil it, but if you have the right friendship, it can seal it and make it more special than ever.
The slymepit is obsessed with Carrier being poly and the fact that he cheated on his wife. They’ve been waving it around as some sort of ‘gotcha’ thing, Maude alone knows of what.
Oh, okay, it’s the fact that he posted on a blog about it, then. If he did that all day long I would see the objection, but he posts a lot of other more broadly interesting things on there, so those of us who aren’t interested in the offer could just scroll on past that.
It kind of seems similar to me to when PZ is going to be in any particular town and he posts that he’d like to meet up with the locals. of course ex isn’t included in that arrangement, but it’s still a “call out” for human interaction and outside the scope of posts enjoyed by the entire readership of the blog. And those who aren’t interested can skim past the post and read other things on his blog.
Funny how you’re still completely incapable of separating the idea of dating/companionship/relationships from the idea of sex. “RC is looking for a date via his blog, therefore he’s just a horndog trying to score some ‘poontang’.” The idea that RC could possibly be looking for more than just someone to stick his dick in seems not to occur to you.
Oops, blockquote/preview fail. I meant in regard to the Slymepit, mentioned at 58 (by Gen, Uppity Ingrate and Ilk). Never mind. Have a great day!
polishsalami,
I can guess what “poontang ” is from context. By all means, try to keep the level of discourse on the more adult level than Carrier, you’re doing a great job.
Personally, I wouldn’t give a fuck how mildly you tried to criticize me for being comfortable with my sexuality, if I were in his place.
That.
… Also that.
I don’t think this is about confusion so much as wilful blindness. They badly need this to be ‘hypocrisy’ for precisely these reasons…
… Compounded, quite possibly, I’d add, with some amusement, by the following: a lot of MRA types seem to me themselves to have some incredibly negative attitudes about sex. The quarter oddly and hypocritically obsessed with promiscuity–pretty much exclusively on the part of women–suggest the same to me, especially. I’ve long figured they’ve hardly got past the ‘girls are icky’ stage of social development. Or only so far as: they’re icky, but you’re a loser if you can’t score. Real men get sex but regard anyone they have it with as beneath them. It’s a dirty, disgusting business, but necessary to express your all-important dominance, see? Who are you uncouth, dirty people who not only respect your partners, but communicate with them in good faith? Wrong, wrong, wrong… It’s supposed to be all the game and trickery and dominance, dammit, or I’m gonna get these mammalian bonding cooties all over me!
.. comment missing the end
polishsalami
I wanted to say that no matter how mild you were, I would probably give a similarly dismissive answer as Carrier.
Everyone’s pretty much said what I wanted to, so I’ll just repeat for emphasis.
freemage @33:
charlie @44:
Bingo. Carrier isn’t following the script, and for a reactionary conservative that’s the worst thing in the world.
freemage @33:
hyperdeath @31:
This, underlined. I can’t think of a better way to avoid power balance issues than to do a public blog post.
I just have to argue with myself a little bit, though: I can also sympathize with women who are a bit tired of being viewed as sexy pieces of meat finding Carrier’s article to be more of the same, and saying nope, I think I’ll skip that blog from now on. And that’s fine.
I’ll be in my bunk.
…of course, equating “expressing an interest in having sex with someone” with “viewing them as sexy pieces of meat” is kind of the problem.
I was thinking of starting a blog again once I move, but now that I hear that I can’t be unprofessional on my blog, I guess I have to give up on the idea.
polishsalami @54:
Nowhere in his post does RC state that he’s looking for sex. That’s an assumption on your part. He’s looking for a date.
Your discomfort is your own. There is nothing wrong with seeking a date using one’s blog.
Again with people trying to dictate what is or isn’t permissible on someone’s blog. It’s as infuriating as posters that tell PZ that he needs to talk less about feminism and more about science.
He expresses interest in PIV in response to a trans woman asking if he’d date trans women. That screams to me that, yeah, sex is on his mind re: the date he’s looking for.
And that’s fine. I really couldn’t give a shit whether he is or isn’t intending to have sex with whoever he’s going on a date with. Denying that sex is an aspect of what he’s seeking seems dopey though.
I think individuals who post romantic propositions on atheist or scientific blogs are wading into uncharted and potentially dangerous waters. Let’s take a hypothetical example of Steve Novella’s blog. He is an Assistant Professor of Neurology at Yale University. If he decided to post on his blog a romantic/sexual proposition to his audience, this could theoretically have negative repercussions. No doubt his site is visited by medical students, residents, patients, etc..and any one of them could report him to his Chair or the Dean. His reputation could be tarnished. I personally think Richard is doing nothing wrong and I hope he will have a great romantic interlude with someone special. But the reality is that if anyone with a reputation (professor, doctor, lawyer, teacher, etc..) publicly posts a romantic proposition on a blog, twitter, forum, etc then unfortunately that person is putting himself/herself at risk.
To be fair, he does say that he would enjoy it if the person shared his hotel room “non-platonically”. But yes the focus of his post seemed more about the company than the sex. His detractors seem very focused on the idea that RC is just out to find some “poontang” and seem incapable of imagining that some guys don’t just date girls for the opening in their crotch.
I have a strong feeling this manufactroversy is coming from the same gaggle of ‘pittiful ‘pitters looking for any excuse to scream about how horrible us FTBullies are. And it really doesn’t matter what, specifically, Carrier did, as long as they can kinda-sorta-maybe spin it as “unprofessional” or something, and crow/preach about how FTBers really have a lot of soul-searching to do because one of us said something dirty and we shouldn’t be so quick to demonize the Slymepit blah blah blah…
marinerachel#72
I looked at the Facebook page of Dwiki Nugroho-Brue, the commenter who asked RC about dating transwomen.
I get the feeling Dwiki is not a transwoman.
For the record, specifically seeking out sex in an honest, non-coercive fashion isn’t actually wrong either, even though close to half of the commenters seem to be unconsciously reiterating the toxic societal idea that it is.
@ragdish #73
Why? For not being celibate? Is that still a requirement for academics these days?
@Ibis3 #78
You would be surprised. At my institution a bright medical student fell prey to such a social injustice. She got accepted at a prestigious Orthopedics residency and following a consenting video tweet of her provocative table dancing at an end-of-school party, her position was revoked. We all enjoy getting wasted and do fun things after our final exams. Before the advent of social media I’ve had my share of fun. And despite recommendations (myself included) to the program to have her reinstated, the position was witheld from her. So yes, in academic medicine there is a hyper-Christian mob that seeks to abolish all fun, impose celibacy and sack those who don’t comply.
I posted this before on Richard’s blog, but I’ve thought about it some more and wanted to add something. I think that things like this are a perfect primer on how to think when one encounters New Ideas.
When I first read this post, my immediate gut reaction was “eeew, that feels a little creepy/weird.” And if I hadn’t been hanging around SJW types for the last few years, I might have been perfectly happy to stick with that gut response.
But my exposure to the people on this blog network led me to automatically ask the question: “Is this unfamiliar thing making me uneasy because it’s a problem, or because I have a problem?” And there are mental techniques to check that.
One of them is role reversal: I asked myself, “If a poly woman whose work I enjoyed reading made a similar offer, and I was still in the market for a relationship, would it get my interest?” And I had to admit that, yes, it probably would.
The second thing I did was to ask myself: “Is anybody getting hurt here?” Not me, that’s for sure. Maybe Richard or someone he meets. But that’s their problem – it sure isn’t my problem. And they’re taking no more risks than anyone else in this type of relationship – probably less, because everything is spelled out before hand.
So I said, “Huh, I guess the problem was in my own head, after all. Carry on and good luck, RC.”
These are good mental habits, and I would highly recommend them to everyone who expects to encounter New Things in their lives.
@72, marinerachel
Not really. Dating someone is not the same as one date. Dating is a relationship over time. It’s fairly common for people to expect sex as part of their relationship with a dating partner, yet not necessarily on a first date.
The last fucking thing we should do is knuckle under.
@ragdish
Sounds like your institution could use a Slut Walk.
As a socially awkward, aromantic/asexual woman, I could only wish that all hookup attempts worked like this. I really hate having to deal with dating and sexy times negotiations on the spot, especially since I have trouble recognizing what people are looking for until we’re all deep into Awkward Land. There’s nothing ambiguous about what Carrier wants, and one would have to go out of her way to accept his proposition while inaction declines it.
Gosh, ragdish. If only you’d been there to tell Richard Carrier, before he made that blog post, that his sex life is unorthodox and unacceptable to christians. I’m sure he would have taken your anecodtal warning seriously and never made that post.
Sadly, you were too late to save Richard, but if you keep at it I’m sure you can prevent this calamity from happening to some other individual, some day. Good luck to you, brave soul.
I wonder how many of those (I’d say “ignorant” but I suspect many of them know what they’re doing) douchey blabbertraps scolding Richard Carrier for his public polyamory (both on this “date” post and on a previous post on the topic, which drew the attention of the most tedious sea-lioning ‘pitters you could imagine – you could probably name the two I’m thinking of) would elect to similarly scold the man who endorsed polyamory thusly:
The significant difference here is one of degree: Richard Dawkins (quoted above from The God Delusion) is ruminating over whether human monogamy makes any sense (and appears to conclude that it does not); Richard Carrier not only concludes that it does not but goes ahead and discusses it openly and without apology with his readers.
There’s a strange sexual disconnect within the various anti-FTB legions: they’re obviously perfectly fine with pickup-artistry and random sexual hookups, etc., but only within certain parameters (most of those parameters presumably involve the man doing the picking and hooking and the woman being little more than an end-of-level Boss guarding her Loot). Clearly, an out polyamorist publicly seeking company and being explicit about his expectations is beyond the pale, but the pit-prudes are perfectly fine with a Skeptic Name acting the booze-baiting sex-pest so often that his reputation extends beyond the women-at-cons grapevine, all the way to the executive level of the organisations that run those conventions, even resulting in multiple public accusations of rape & assault.
There’s a special kind of motivated stupidity that seeks to somehow equalise the two behaviours in order to scold the one who’s actually been honest and explicit. I suspect that if Carrier wasn’t on FtB and was saying the exact same things independently, he’d barely be a blip on the hate-dar of the pit. But he’s here, he’s vocally feminist and he’s sexually unconventional, therefore by pit standards he’s the enemy and his FTB “bosses” are hypocrites – how dare they allow someone on-site who doesn’t hate sex the same as they do?
The FTB-haters talk a good game regarding being all about skepticism and freedom of behaviour, but when it comes down to it they’re just judgemental authoritarian prudes with glaring double-standards and embarrassingly little idea of the spectrum of human sexual behaviour. PZ admits he’s personally a Victorian prude (I myself am extremely vanilla in my behaviours as well), but he differs from the hatewagon in that he doesn’t prescribe or proscribe others’ consensual behaviour or judge them for doing things unconventionally.
*hem**hem**hem*
The contraction “I’d” does not appear anywhere in the videos or the lyrics
it is “I would” all the way.
sothere
pbthttt
This post illustrates why I so hate the fashionable weasel-word of the anti-gay brigade: “disagree”. As in, “I shouldn’t have to serve these people, because I disagree with their lifestyle.” One could easily say of the various behaviors mentioned in this post that PZ disagrees with them. Because they make him uncomfortable, he has no desire to engage in them. The salient difference, of course, is that PZ isn’t out to discriminate against those who do engage in those behaviors.
Reading over some of the comments on Richard Carrier’s post I am amazed and darkly amused at how so many men cannot tell the difference between a blog post and an elevator.
…there’s another side of this. Richard Carrier’s post explicitly appeals to women’s sexual and/or romantic agency. The thing MRAs hate most in the world.
I’m going to chime in as someone who is both entirely fine with Carrier being polyamorous and even putting up that blog post, and as someone who elected not to read it because just the title and beginning that I saw in my email made me uncomfortable. My very first thought reading it was um… not sure how I feel about this being here, followed immediately by well, actually, it’s fine being here, because it’s not like it violates any FTB rules or something, so more power to him. Not gonna read it, though.
But I know that this is my problem, and not Carrier’s. I wish him the best of luck.
On a separate note, something marinerachel said above about Carrier being asked if he’d date a trans woman and his response to that, but the question is off topic and I know this isn’t a 101 place and so… I’m not sure if I should ask it or not…
And I just realized my first sentence came across terrible… “fine with Carrier being polyamorous”… like… what?
I really shouldn’t have included that in my comment at all.
Just ignore that whole portion of the sentence. Let’s make it it this:
“I’m going to chime in as someone who is entirely fine with Carrier putting up that blog post…”
Arrgghh… I’m still bothered, because to me the second post make it worse, now.
*facepalm*
I don’t know how to fix that. I really don’t care about people’s sexuality. It’s none of my business.
Why do I have the feeling that there’s a huge overlap between people being ok with cornering a woman at 3 am in an elevator and the people being upset about a guy putting up a blogpost where the ball is firmly in the hands of the prospective date?
Unless you can make a sound case that the action itself is immoral, in this case the ols advice: don’t read it! is fully warranted.
Wow, I was expecting all kinds of exciting raunchy propositions in that post, and it was… a trip to a museum or two. And maybe sexytimes, but also maybe not! And no expectations of such! It really couldn’t get much more innocuous than what it was. And why not on his blog? That’s where he’s most likely to find people interested in him, of course. This isn’t even a tempest in a teapot; it’s a tempest in a micropipet.
“Poontang” is a slang word that not everyone is comfortable with; I will not use this word henceforth.
____________________________________________________________________________________________
Just to clarify my position:
*I fully support Carrier’s life choices
*Richard Carrier can post whatever he likes on his blog, including a search for women to date
* I make no statement as to what is/is not “proper” to be posted on a blog
I will say however that the internet is not Richard Carrier’s living room, and his blog is not a private diary. This is a major blog network which has hundreds of thousands of viewers, and a comment section. I felt slightly uncomfortable with Carrier’s post, and told him so. End.
As to Carrier’s reaction to my comment, he was a jerk. He has one less reader, life goes on.
On a broader note, not everyone can be comfortable with every sex-related discussion. My attitude to Carrier’s post is the same as what I’d feel if (hypothetically) PZM started talking about erectile problems, or Ally Fogg discussed his masturbation rituals — TMI. I think people should accept that reality.
Dang, that was a disappointment. I was expecting something freaky-deaky, and all I got was a writer carefully setting forth the circumstances of the post, the circumstances of his life, and the circumstances of a possible date at a museum. I started to say “a fucking museum” but fucking wasn’t the gist.
I didn’t read the comments, but I hope nobody is kicking him for being honest, open, and slightly vulnerable. I am sure they are, though. And the kickers probably include a few of the guys who want consequence-free sex with women that they have just met and made drunk.
(Me, I’d love to go on that date with him.)
polishsalami
Yes and?
What’s the solution?
That nobody be ever allowed to talk about personal sex related stuff on the internet because it makes you uncomfortable? I mean, you could ask for content notes, but I’d say the fucking post title should be a give-away. Apart fron what carlie said: not much sex stuff in there. Very general.
NateHavens @91, 92, 93
Tell us, Nate, what you really want to say. :-)
polishsalami,
Why the need to tell him that you don’t like he posted that, though? If you tried to shame him for posting it, then you obviously did want to make a statement about what is or isn’t appropriate to post on a blog.
To make it clear to other commenters, this was your exchange:
You “just” told him you were uncomfortable with his post, but he was a jerk in his response. Right.
We do accept that reality. That’s why we’re not asking people to force themselves to be comfortable with it.
But if you actually tell someone you’re uncomfortable with them expressing something about their sexuality (without violating your privacy or intruding in your space), then you can and should expect a negative reply from them. That’s not called being a jerk.
I, for one, am made very uncomfortable by polishsalami’s username. It’s sexual connotations are disturbing and highly inappropriate for a patron of a mainstream atheist blog. Please excuse me while I clutch my pearls and collapse onto the nearest fainting couch …
sigurd jorsalfar @102
I had a different reaction. I was wondering how and why one would polish a salami. Is it practice so one could later polish a turd?
Huh, I didn’t see “polish” as the verb, I saw “Polish” as the nationality.
“Don’t get icky human sex stuff in my pure Vulcan rationalism!” Thbbbt.
And I really don’t care to mock someone’s chosen display name, as long as it’s not deliberately offensive.
Oops, I didn’t read upstream far enough to realize the context about snarking on the username. Faint away.
Al Dente #103:
Your comment reminds me of a scene from One Foot In The Grave, when Margaret sent Victor grocery shopping with a list that contained “polish” and “wine”, and he brought home a bottle of Polish wine which turned out to be undrinkable.
Saad #101:
It’s not the negativity, it’s the juvenility. “Get off the internet” sounds like something from a One Direction fandom page.
Beatrice, an amateur cynic looking for a happy thought #100:
Nobody is trying to “shame” Richard Carrier about his lifestyle choices, or what he posts on his blog. I can assert his right to blog about any issue he wants, while retaining my right to have an opinion on those posts.
___________________________________________________
I’m now of the opinion that Carrier should disable comments if possible for these kinds of posts — it works for Anita Sarkeesian.
Or you could practise a bit of self-restraint and not comment there.
What does closing the comments have to do with anything? I thought it was the post itself making polishsalami uncomfortable?
sigurd jorsalfar #109:
Don’t tell me where to go and what to do.
Polish salami is the marketed name for the Jagdwurst, a German sausage.
You’ve spent a lot of time here and at Richard Carrier’s blog telling Richard Carrier what to do. If I were him I’d be more than happy to lose a sanctimonious, hypocritical prude like you as a reader.
Then quit telling RC how to behave and what he should do. Get it?
Free speech-your speech can and will be criticized.
Freeze peach-your opinions are sacrosanct and cannot be criticized.
You are showing freeze peach, not free speech.
[OT]
Wow, I feel like I’ve regressed about 10 years in maturity, just reading this.
(especially as coming from the person accusing Carrier of childishness)
polishsalami
But quoting ghostbusters at him was what, academic conference style?
+++
Though I’m a bit disappointed about RC’s answer to how standards of attraction have nothing to do with feminism. Bllshit. Like the rest of us he’s been bombarded with messages about which bodies are desirable (young, white, feminine, slim, able bodied) and which aren’t, so it’S bullshit to claim that one’s personal preferences are just some innate trait.
That doesn’T mean that one should be ashamed for them, ut being a bit more aware of them and their origin is in order.
What does closing the comments have to do with anything? I thought it was the post itself making polishsalami uncomfortable?
Well, you see, Beatrice, polishsalami has heavily backpedaled on that one. NOW he claims Richard’s OP was fine. It was really Richard’s comment to him that has him all worked up. He doesn’t like being told that his discomfort about human sexuality means the internet might not be the right place for him. Instead, he demands that people who post on the subject, as Richard Carrier did, should turn off comments in future posts on the subject so that he, polishsalami, won’t be tempted to post something stupid and be reminded that he’s a prude. Oh but he’s not telling anyone what to do.
But don’t worry, he’ll teach Richard a lesson by not reading his blog any more, i.e. he’ll continue to read it but he’ll whine about it at the slymepit rather than over here.
Given the inanity of some of the responses above, I’ll simply re-state my main points:
*Richard Carrier can pursue any consensual relationship he wants
*Carrier can blog on any subject he wants, including romantic and sexual issues
* What is considered appropriate for blogging is entirely subjective (a more accurate statement than “I have no claim” made at #96. Better would be “I have no authority to claim”)
I also have a right to disagree with the content of that blog. It is simply untrue that I am telling Carrier what he can and cannot post.
sigurd jorsalfar #116:
Please don’t say that I post at the Slymepit, an offence that leads to automatic bans at Pharyngula. Thx.
You didn’t merely disagree with the ‘content’ of the blog, whatever that means. You were ‘uncomfortable’ reading a post about a topic that you felt didn’t belong at FTB, i.e. you felt none of it should been posted in the first place.
And yet you read it anyway and can’t stop talking about how uncomfortable it made you, even though you were warned by the title and in the first few sentences, and again in the comments, that maybe a guy like you shouldn’t read it. The inanity here is coming entirely from you.
I was right. polishsalami is trying to polish a turd.
polishsalami @96
I agree — the internet is not Richard Carrier’s living room. But Richard Carrier isn’t going on to every web site on the internet and making posts looking for dates, he’s doing it on his own personal blog, which IS his Living Room, or as close as it gets on the internet. If he had made the same post on some public forum, or in the comments thread of someone else’s blog, the people who run that forum or that blog would have every right to ask him to remove it, or to forbid him from making similar posts in the future. But on his blog, only he gets to decide what is and isn’t appropriate.
The thing is, I don’t have a problem with you saying that the post made you uncomfortable — I had no problem with the post, but as far as I’m concerned, you have the right to feel uncomfortable and the right to say so. But free speech isn’t one sided — just as I believe RC had the right to make the post, and I believe you had the right to say it made you uncomfortable, I also think RC had the right to say “then this isn’t the place for you, go away.” And, since it happened on his blog, his personal space, he would be within his rights to remove your comment or block you from posting again.
I guess that’s what I don’t get — why you seem to think it was okay for you to be critical of his post, but not for others to be critical of your comment. You have the right to be critical, but so does everyone else, and ultimately only the owner of the blog gets to decide what comments he/she will allow.
One of the great things about the internet is that, if the owner of a blog says “your comments aren’t welcome here”, even if he/she blocks and/or deletes your comments, nobody is stopping you from starting your own blog, where you can post all day long about how you feel about other people’s posts. But you don’t get to be critical of someone else and expect to be free from criticism yourself.
polishsalami @ varioius
The juxtaposition of these two sentences is rather comical.
Bullshit. People don’t toss opinions out into the ether with the expectation that they will evaporate after having no impact whatsoever. There is a reason you felt Richard Carrier (and the Pharyngula commentariat) needed to know how you felt about his post.
Giliell #115
I agree (mostly) about the origin of attractions, but I think Carrier tried to smooth any negative feelings his potential dates may have over being rejected. Personally (this isn’t just a phrase – I really do mean that this only my personal reaction to a very personal thing) I would rather be rejected because of a nebulous “personal preference”, rather than being told that that “personal preference” is heavily influenced by mainstream culture and that I don’t measure up to current ideals of beauty or desirability.
If you won’t shut the fuck up after expressing your opinion, which you have done, you are bullying everybody into accepting you are the boss of the situation. You aren’t. Only one way to prove so. Shut the fuck up about it.
I’m not the only person who read this in Sam the Eagle’s voice, right?
Erland Meyer @ 1
Honestly, this makes me a bit uncomfortable, it sounds a little like “I don’t care if my neighbors are black, white, green, or purple!”
Hey, PZ! What’s with all the atheism and feminism here? You used to write about science, and now your science posts are outnumbered by all the social justice commentary. Don’t cross the streams, man.
(I’m not telling you what to write or anything, but I have to tell you I am really uncomfortable and disappointed with your blog.
Just so you know.)
Wait – somebody posted something sexual in nature on the internet that not every single person is completely comfortable with?
Wait – somebody said something sexual in nature that not every single person is completely comfortable with?
Wait – somebody said something that not every single person is completely comfortable with?
UNACCEPTABLE!
@115, Giliell
Maybe you could try to state your case to him. Though I’m not sure what you think the feminist issue is in all of this, or why. You haven’t really said, as best I can tell.
I don’t think he claimed it’s innate (and in his book, Sense and Goodness without God, he speculates about formative influences on his preferences). And the word “so” (as in “therefore”) doesn’t follow in your sentence, it requires an additional premise: that being bombarded with such messages actually changes people’s preferences.
The comments section over at Carriers blog is full of the usual slyme/ftb haters, though most of their inanity has been deleted. I’m not poly, or anywhere near LA, but it sounds like it would be a fun excursion with excellent companionship. How ridiculous that all those idiots felt the need to inform Richard that he is going about meeting a new potential sex partner all wrong by being honest and upfront about his needs and expectations. It’s as if they simply cannot comprehend actual reciprocal, adult, sexual relationships. The cognitive dissonance is illustrated perfectly by one troll who came over here to complain that he was highly uptight about the subject matter. polishsalami
Score? Poontang!? Sex = bowel movements. This polishsalami person sounds like the epitome of asshole frat boy. Sex is a male competition where you score points with your male friends by tricking women into having sex with you for bragging rights. It’s typical macho man bullshit.
Your silly opinion that sex is far too icky to talk about openly is noted and has been duly dismissed as utter nonsense. Sex is a normal, healthy, adult activity. Equating sex with excretion, or discussing women as if they are sex trophies is neither healthy, or adult.
Nope, that would be kielbasa. Jagwurst is simply hunters sausage. I don’t believe that anyone who used the term poontang gets any benefit of the doubt that they meant to evoke penes with their nym. I am utterly unimpressed with your logic too.
Anri, #126
Yup. And when put like that, the parallel becomes pretty clear with the religious right and their reaction to the
gay agendaexistence of gay people.polishsalami @96:
So you think there is UNacceptable subject matter for bloggers to discuss. It’s *his* blog. He can do with it what he wants. I don’t know why this is so hard for you (and others) to understand. It doesn’t matter if he’s part of a blog network or all on his lonesome (like my blog and many other commenters here). He gets to run it as he sees fit.
What does the number of commenters have to do with the subject matter that a blogger posts?
What does a comment section have to do with the subject matter that a blogger posts?
I get it. You’re squicked about it. Not everyone shares your opinion. Moreover, it’s simply not your right to tell a blogger what they can and cannot discuss on their own blog. You obviously can dislike the subject of a blog post. You can state that talking about finding a date via a blog makes you uncomfortable. But to tell a blogger they shouldn’t discuss a subject that you don’t like is telling them how to run their blog.
You don’t have that right.
polishsalami @108:
Why should he do such a thing? I don’t understand what relevance a comments section has to a blog post.
Polishsalami
It should be obvious by now that you’re going to get as much sympathy for your proscriptive prudery here as you did at Richard’s blog.
Bottom line: it’s Richard’s personal blog, not his LinkedIn page and not some profile page on his employer’s website. If he wants to seek like-minded company in an open and honest manner from among the people who read his articles, I see nothing untoward in that. Your dislike of the content of his post doesn’t award you the right to scold him and tell him what to do at his personal space.
You assessed Richard’s post, he passed the comment through moderation and responded to you. I fail to see how repeating yourself over here has any value, especially when you seem resolute in ignoring people’s responses to you.
polishsalami @108:
What Sarkeesian has to do with this is beyond me. However, I don’t blame her for disabling comments as most of her commentary in the past came from hysterical man-children with as much self-control and self-awareness as your average four year-old.
Anyway: why should Carrier disable comments on posts about polyamory? Avoiding the slyme-trolls and concerned citizens like yourself might be an attractive idea, but he doesn’t manage his blog that way. So how about you stop reading when you see something that trips your ick-o-meter and click elsewhere?
peggin #120:
Thanks for the considered reply.
I can handle criticism, but I resent misrepresentations of my statements. I actually think Carrier’s practice of replying to most comments (and giving reasons for deleting comments) is a good policy; I just felt his response was unbecoming of a public intellectual.
Which statements do you feel have been misrepresented, and in what way?
On the subject of disabling comments, I happened to notice that some websites close comments for subjects that are sensitive or likely to attract hordes of trolls (eg. the Holocaust, 9/11). This would have saved Richard from trawling through a whole lot of trollish comments.
polishsalami
I’m not telling you to stop commenting or anything, but your comments are repetitive, they do not actually answer any questions and the thread has now successfully been turned into a merry wheel of you repeating a statement, people commenting on your statement and you denying you meant to say anything by writing that statement.
It’s making me uncomfortable.
polishsalami @96:
The second sentence implies very clearly that there are things which are appropriate to say in one’s living room or diary, but not on one’s blog. You contradicted yourself within two sentences!
Another problem I have with the second sentence: Looking for a date is not something one does in their living room or diary. You have to leave your own private space to get to know new people. And if only for an invitation to people to enter your private space.
polishsalami @136:
1) If he wanted to be spared any comments on this topic, he would have disabled them. I’m pretty sure he knows that option exists.
2) You’re going to put polyamory in one category with 9/11 and the holocaust? Really?
136, polishsalami:
Fair point – it would certainly have saved him from you, my dear sausage.
Richard Carrier manages his blog as he sees fit and he’s sufficiently experienced and equipped to deal with his current troll infestation. I doubt very much that he requires your advice or your approval.
Will you now, please, contribute something to this thread other than your (now rather tedious) concern?
polishsalami @ 134
Yes, you handle criticism so well, you’re characterizing accurate representations of your statements as misrepresentations which you resent.
Kindly quote someone interpreting you as saying something other than this.
polishsalami @ 136
So Richard Carrier looking for a companion on a trip is of a sensitivity on par with the Holocaust or 9/11 and the pearl clutching of a bunch of prudes is apparently something he’d want/need to spare himself. You’re adorable.
polishsalami, #134
Your comment to him wasn’t exactly a reasonable, well thought out critique either.
Telling someone you don’t like them talking about their sexual preferences on their own blog deserves a reply like “get off the internet”.
If resentment can be such a powerful driver for closeted/selfrepressing gays to lash out publicly against homosexual relationships, it seems like there will be a long, long way to go for acceptance of polyamory.
The headlines along the way will be clickbait gold just the same though. So there’s that.
I agree with all of that, and that’s coming from someone even more “conservative” about it. That is to say, I find sex weird in general, and the bizarre obsession with it on TV to be laughable at best and infuriating at worst (“worst” being what I’ve termed “genital roulette”, where every season they seem to presto chango every single cast member into a relationship with another cast member, because stable relationships apparently are unrealistic to artists).
I think it bears mentioning that there’s a difference between an open invitation on a web site and a directed and pressured invitation to some specific person in an uncomfortable setting. I can see far too many “the game” types thinking it’s hypocritical to then criticize THEM for “just trying to convince some woman at a bar to have sex”, as though that’s all it was. I don’t pretend to understand all the subtleties of figuring out when flirtation is wanted or unwanted, but then again I’m not even part of this “game” to begin with, I abstain from the whole enterprise so those are skills I don’t need. If you WANT to take part though, it’s your responsibility to learn, and until you do, playing it safe is best. Just, think of what the other person wants and prioritize it, which will often mean you’ve got to just leave them alone instead of pursuing your (rather trivial, frankly) goals.
The last recruiting effort I made was…Thunderf00t.
HAHAHAHAH! So ThunderPUTZ was *your* fault! Is that dumshitte still putzing up the Internet these days?