Apr 5
something commented on Savage Love.
@exnihilo (#106, 119):
THANK YOU! I too am disgusted with Americans mistaking the automobile as some sort of gold safety standard. They're usually too brainwashed to consider cars objectively. About 1 in 80 Americans die by car (counting only the kinetic damages), and obviously far more have a serious injury due to driving. However, motorcycles are indeed more dangerous to their users (mostly due to the presence of cars, which is no consolation for those of us killed by the mistakes of others).
MarleyBarley: your fears aren't unreasonable. They're just inconsistent and counterproductive. You might want to skip to my last paragraph.
Motorcycles are less sociopathic than cars. You're less likely to kill someone if you're on a motorcycle. You get better mileage (requiring fewer dead Iraqis (and fewer dead Americans due to lung diseases (and fewer life forms due to climate change, etc))), cause less congestion, consume less parking space, and cause less road wear. Perhaps the only reason we permit cars at all is that our government is too weak to fix the problem: any reasonable evaluation of the cost/benefit ratio shows that we should be dumping trillions of dollars into viable alternatives, making cars the least desirable alternative except for very specific purposes. And what the hell is up with SUVs? Driving an SUV while sober is about as dangerous to those around you as driving a car while legally drunk, and they're more dangerous for their occupants as well. Stupid Americans.
Oops--this turned into a rant against cars. I know that your point was more about sensible comparison of risks. Sorry to take that tangent.
I haven't seen data, but I'd like to speculate on a hypothesis: regularly driving a motorcycle makes you less likely to have a car accident, because you become a far better (more defensive and aware) driver. Not that that's worth much, since you're more likely to be killed in a traffic accident, but at least I bet you're less likely to kill someone. Come to think of it, I bet that those who spend, say, 10 youngish years regularly motorcycling (and taking safety courses/refreshers/etc) spend the rest of their lives driving far more safely--I'm going to pull a number out of my ass and speculate that the difference is easily a factor of 10.
Just one complaint: "it is a bicycle with an engine attached"--I think that's a poor comparison. While bicycles are ridiculously safe (6--20 times safer than just normal day-to-day life due to the enormous health benefits), the addition of the engine takes that advantage away. Americans mostly die due to lack of exercise, and so while regular (e.g. transport) bicycling increases life expectancy by around 7 years, if you add a motor, that advantage vanishes--now you're just in an un-armoured car, going at superhuman speeds with a bunch of large chunks of metal being controlled by other superhuman morons.
But I'm still with you: if I'd dump someone for one dangerous activity, I'd have to dump someone for any other. For example: regularly not going for a daily jog/bike/hike/dance/workout, or jaywalking, or eating any processed foods, or not eating enough leafy greens, or living in a polluted area, or not living in a country with health care...
More...
THANK YOU! I too am disgusted with Americans mistaking the automobile as some sort of gold safety standard. They're usually too brainwashed to consider cars objectively. About 1 in 80 Americans die by car (counting only the kinetic damages), and obviously far more have a serious injury due to driving. However, motorcycles are indeed more dangerous to their users (mostly due to the presence of cars, which is no consolation for those of us killed by the mistakes of others).
MarleyBarley: your fears aren't unreasonable. They're just inconsistent and counterproductive. You might want to skip to my last paragraph.
Motorcycles are less sociopathic than cars. You're less likely to kill someone if you're on a motorcycle. You get better mileage (requiring fewer dead Iraqis (and fewer dead Americans due to lung diseases (and fewer life forms due to climate change, etc))), cause less congestion, consume less parking space, and cause less road wear. Perhaps the only reason we permit cars at all is that our government is too weak to fix the problem: any reasonable evaluation of the cost/benefit ratio shows that we should be dumping trillions of dollars into viable alternatives, making cars the least desirable alternative except for very specific purposes. And what the hell is up with SUVs? Driving an SUV while sober is about as dangerous to those around you as driving a car while legally drunk, and they're more dangerous for their occupants as well. Stupid Americans.
Oops--this turned into a rant against cars. I know that your point was more about sensible comparison of risks. Sorry to take that tangent.
I haven't seen data, but I'd like to speculate on a hypothesis: regularly driving a motorcycle makes you less likely to have a car accident, because you become a far better (more defensive and aware) driver. Not that that's worth much, since you're more likely to be killed in a traffic accident, but at least I bet you're less likely to kill someone. Come to think of it, I bet that those who spend, say, 10 youngish years regularly motorcycling (and taking safety courses/refreshers/etc) spend the rest of their lives driving far more safely--I'm going to pull a number out of my ass and speculate that the difference is easily a factor of 10.
Just one complaint: "it is a bicycle with an engine attached"--I think that's a poor comparison. While bicycles are ridiculously safe (6--20 times safer than just normal day-to-day life due to the enormous health benefits), the addition of the engine takes that advantage away. Americans mostly die due to lack of exercise, and so while regular (e.g. transport) bicycling increases life expectancy by around 7 years, if you add a motor, that advantage vanishes--now you're just in an un-armoured car, going at superhuman speeds with a bunch of large chunks of metal being controlled by other superhuman morons.
But I'm still with you: if I'd dump someone for one dangerous activity, I'd have to dump someone for any other. For example: regularly not going for a daily jog/bike/hike/dance/workout, or jaywalking, or eating any processed foods, or not eating enough leafy greens, or living in a polluted area, or not living in a country with health care...
Mar 23
something commented on Savage Love.
If it's illegal to sell gerbils in California, then isn't it fairly meaningless to cite lack of gerbils in CA pet stores as proof that there's no demand? I am not saying that anyone has actually done this (although my past experience with humans would lead me to be unsurprised if someone somewhere has), but shouldn't that particular piece of evidence be gathered from pet stores where gerbils may be sold?
Also, I would imagine that the choice of rodent is not particularly important. Doing the same with mice or rats or (if you're Rick Santorum) raccoons (which aren't rodents, but I doubt he knows that) could perhaps reasonably be referred to as "gerbiling" just as photocopying on a Canon is often called "Xeroxing".
Again: I doubt this is a very common practice. I'm just criticising the nature of the presented evidence.
Also, I would imagine that the choice of rodent is not particularly important. Doing the same with mice or rats or (if you're Rick Santorum) raccoons (which aren't rodents, but I doubt he knows that) could perhaps reasonably be referred to as "gerbiling" just as photocopying on a Canon is often called "Xeroxing".
Again: I doubt this is a very common practice. I'm just criticising the nature of the presented evidence.
Feb 25
something commented on Savage Love.
SAD:
Yes, it's okay to feel cheated on when someone lies to you or breaks an agreement.
Are you coming here to ask that question, or to ask whether it's reasonable to be upset when your boyfriend watches porn? I guess it's okay to be upset about whatever you want to be upset about, provided you've communicated clearly beforehand, but it may not serve you well.
If you want a boyfriend who doesn't watch porn, good luck--most guys do, many girls do, and the number of creative, versatile, knowledgeable guys who don't watch porn is probably very small indeed. What do you hope to gain by controlling someone's thoughts or choice of entertainment?
Are you hoping that Dan will convince you that you shouldn't be upset by porn? You'd have to talk a little more about why you're upset; maybe find one of the therapists he mentions in the previous letter (and remember that it would serve you well to ignore any stigma against therapy that you may have--a good therapist is gold!).
Yes, it's okay to feel cheated on when someone lies to you or breaks an agreement.
Are you coming here to ask that question, or to ask whether it's reasonable to be upset when your boyfriend watches porn? I guess it's okay to be upset about whatever you want to be upset about, provided you've communicated clearly beforehand, but it may not serve you well.
If you want a boyfriend who doesn't watch porn, good luck--most guys do, many girls do, and the number of creative, versatile, knowledgeable guys who don't watch porn is probably very small indeed. What do you hope to gain by controlling someone's thoughts or choice of entertainment?
Are you hoping that Dan will convince you that you shouldn't be upset by porn? You'd have to talk a little more about why you're upset; maybe find one of the therapists he mentions in the previous letter (and remember that it would serve you well to ignore any stigma against therapy that you may have--a good therapist is gold!).
Nov 29, 2012
something commented on Savage Love.
Do you also advocate throwing out sheets and mattresses when you change partners? Why or why not? What's the difference? For that matter, what's a partner?
Good bondage gear can be expensive, or time-consuming to make. And I wonder when it makes sense to throw away old gear when you plan to immediately buy something identical.
Good bondage gear can be expensive, or time-consuming to make. And I wonder when it makes sense to throw away old gear when you plan to immediately buy something identical.
Nov 25, 2012
something commented on Savage Love.
PP: I've been there a few times. It hurts like hell.
The "uninformed" thing does carry considerable weight. Most people who ask for (er, demand) monogamous behavior have never given an equal chance to poly, and simply ask for monogamy because of cultural conditioning and fear of the unconventional or unknown... So, yes, most people who ask for monogamy are ignorant by any definition of that word.
But some aren't. There are a few people out there who have tried various points along the continuum without bringing their socially inflicted prejudices along with them, gathered the experience they needed, and decided that monogamy is right for them. That's not easy, and anyone who has done so has my utmost respect.
Anyone who can't do this but who is willing to demand that I change behaviour is going to be problematic for me, because I only appreciate self-righteousness of the well-informed ;) For you? You could treat it as a red flag, for sure, but is it a red flag that points to real problems with insecurity/ignorance that could lead to further trouble?
It's also possible that she demands monogamy now, but if you agree to it, she'll re-evaluate when she is completely secure in your relationship. You probably won't be able to argue her into poly, unless she's spectacularly logical and has too much free time. She'll have to come by it without your input, by exposure to independent sources. And it may well never happen.
Long-term relationships among humans tend to last 7-ish years (not by coincidence, that's approximately long enough to raise kids to the point at which they can be well taken care of by the tribe). Marriage artificially extends that, especially as our lifespans increase far beyond what they were when marriage was invented. You could try committing to a 7-year marriage to her, and re-evaluate at the end.
Not that "commitment" is ever binding. You could also fall in love with a woman who likes poly, at which point you'll be hard-pressed to stay with the one who wants to own your sexuality (and dumping a girl you love because she would keep you from another girl you love is the worst. thing. ever.). But signing up for "commitment" (whatever that means to you two) for a finite time may be something to think about.
More...
The "uninformed" thing does carry considerable weight. Most people who ask for (er, demand) monogamous behavior have never given an equal chance to poly, and simply ask for monogamy because of cultural conditioning and fear of the unconventional or unknown... So, yes, most people who ask for monogamy are ignorant by any definition of that word.
But some aren't. There are a few people out there who have tried various points along the continuum without bringing their socially inflicted prejudices along with them, gathered the experience they needed, and decided that monogamy is right for them. That's not easy, and anyone who has done so has my utmost respect.
Anyone who can't do this but who is willing to demand that I change behaviour is going to be problematic for me, because I only appreciate self-righteousness of the well-informed ;) For you? You could treat it as a red flag, for sure, but is it a red flag that points to real problems with insecurity/ignorance that could lead to further trouble?
It's also possible that she demands monogamy now, but if you agree to it, she'll re-evaluate when she is completely secure in your relationship. You probably won't be able to argue her into poly, unless she's spectacularly logical and has too much free time. She'll have to come by it without your input, by exposure to independent sources. And it may well never happen.
Long-term relationships among humans tend to last 7-ish years (not by coincidence, that's approximately long enough to raise kids to the point at which they can be well taken care of by the tribe). Marriage artificially extends that, especially as our lifespans increase far beyond what they were when marriage was invented. You could try committing to a 7-year marriage to her, and re-evaluate at the end.
Not that "commitment" is ever binding. You could also fall in love with a woman who likes poly, at which point you'll be hard-pressed to stay with the one who wants to own your sexuality (and dumping a girl you love because she would keep you from another girl you love is the worst. thing. ever.). But signing up for "commitment" (whatever that means to you two) for a finite time may be something to think about.
Nov 8, 2012
something commented on Savage Love.
"She flipped out and has threatened to force all our mutual friends to pick her over me."
Seems like a great way to get rid of extraneous second-rate "friends".
Seems like a great way to get rid of extraneous second-rate "friends".
Oct 10, 2012
something commented on Savage Love.
As far as we know, life began exactly once. Or maybe once for each kingdom (animals, plants, viri, etc). Or maybe many times, but kingdoms went extinct (that's awfully likely).
Life does NOT begin at conception, nor at birth. Life is a continuous process. By just about any definition other than "Life is what happens at conception/birth", it is utter nonsense to claim that life begins at some point in the process of DNA building itself a new body.
Life THAT'S WORTH PROTECTING might begin at conception or at birth, but it seems more reasonable for it to begin at the onset of consciousness or memory, or at the point of the acquisition of the other symbiotic life forms without which we could not survive (e.g. e. coli in the gut), or, better yet, at the ability to recognise and admit when you're wrong.
For that matter, I rather love the idea of getting people to define what they mean by "life that's worth protecting" and then discuss how it applies to animal rights. How can anyone believe that it's okay to kill sentient life forms that play and learn and mourn and have loving families, but that it's not okay to squish a few thousand cells that are less capable of experience than a gnat? Getting them to pin down that definition is fun.
But no, I'm going back to "Life that's worth protecting begins when you start regularly using experience, observation, reason, and scientific impartiality to recognise and fix your faulty preconceived notions."
More...
Life does NOT begin at conception, nor at birth. Life is a continuous process. By just about any definition other than "Life is what happens at conception/birth", it is utter nonsense to claim that life begins at some point in the process of DNA building itself a new body.
Life THAT'S WORTH PROTECTING might begin at conception or at birth, but it seems more reasonable for it to begin at the onset of consciousness or memory, or at the point of the acquisition of the other symbiotic life forms without which we could not survive (e.g. e. coli in the gut), or, better yet, at the ability to recognise and admit when you're wrong.
For that matter, I rather love the idea of getting people to define what they mean by "life that's worth protecting" and then discuss how it applies to animal rights. How can anyone believe that it's okay to kill sentient life forms that play and learn and mourn and have loving families, but that it's not okay to squish a few thousand cells that are less capable of experience than a gnat? Getting them to pin down that definition is fun.
But no, I'm going back to "Life that's worth protecting begins when you start regularly using experience, observation, reason, and scientific impartiality to recognise and fix your faulty preconceived notions."
Oct 6, 2012
something commented on Savage Love.
"Why do all the beautiful girls only go for guys who are assholes?"
Based on my observations, pretty girls don't need to go for anything--guys come to them. Which guys? Guys who have no qualms about bothering a girl who has surely been hit on 1000 times already this morning, guys who have far more self-esteem than they really ought, guys who ignore the "not interested" signals. If you're a pretty girl, it just doesn't seem to make sense to look for _more_ guys, when you already have guys hitting on you every 3 minutes. And you just don't realise that not all guys are assholes, because all the guys who talk to you _are_. So you choose the king of the assholes.
At least, that's my theory. Prove me wrong :)
Based on my observations, pretty girls don't need to go for anything--guys come to them. Which guys? Guys who have no qualms about bothering a girl who has surely been hit on 1000 times already this morning, guys who have far more self-esteem than they really ought, guys who ignore the "not interested" signals. If you're a pretty girl, it just doesn't seem to make sense to look for _more_ guys, when you already have guys hitting on you every 3 minutes. And you just don't realise that not all guys are assholes, because all the guys who talk to you _are_. So you choose the king of the assholes.
At least, that's my theory. Prove me wrong :)
Sep 12, 2012
something commented on Savage Love.
There's a lot of talk about how WTT's proposed action was "creepy". Maybe it is... but why? I don't see why it is intrinsically creepy for discussions of sex to span generations, as evidenced perhaps by the fact that it's a cultural rift: the creepiness is much greater in the USA than in most countries.
I think Pritchett nailed it here:
"but do not write an awkward letter! All you are going to do is communicate your own insecurities about the 'gift,' and trust me, she's got enough weird cultural hang-ups about sex and pleasure to deal with!"
So I give you a choice: discuss sex openly and be creepy, or do it covertly and communicate that sexual things should not be discussed between generations. I can't swear it's the best choice or even possible for everyone, but I'd far prefer to err on the side of showing that open communication is possible. Yes, it means pushing on a boundary, but that's a big part of what education is: pushing (gently!!!) on (stupid) boundaries.
I think Pritchett nailed it here:
"but do not write an awkward letter! All you are going to do is communicate your own insecurities about the 'gift,' and trust me, she's got enough weird cultural hang-ups about sex and pleasure to deal with!"
So I give you a choice: discuss sex openly and be creepy, or do it covertly and communicate that sexual things should not be discussed between generations. I can't swear it's the best choice or even possible for everyone, but I'd far prefer to err on the side of showing that open communication is possible. Yes, it means pushing on a boundary, but that's a big part of what education is: pushing (gently!!!) on (stupid) boundaries.
The Stranger
RSSSeattle Art & Performance Quarterly
A complete guide to Seattle's current art, film, dance, and theater season.
Facebook
Twitter
So why not ask God what He thinks? Lots of people do, and they get lots of different answers, and they're all not only different but completely incompatible. If God is actually answering, then He's more than a little undecided Himself.
Nobody has ever figured out a way of establishing what God really thinks--if someone had, then we'd all ask Him, get the same answer, and there would be no more religious debate. As it is, most religions can be used to justify most any position you care to take.
Therefore, trying to figure anything out with the aid of religion is moronic.
DTMFR.