So, this is experimental. I’d like to go on a date in May. And for the first time, I’m going to try a bat signal: putting a call out on my blog. I don’t know anyone else who has tried doing that, so I have no precedent to work from as to etiquette or even arguments for or against doing it. So I’m just going to do it and see what happens and document and assess. If you know anyone who might have an interest in dating me, let them know. If you might have an interest, read on.
- I’ll start by making sure anyone considering this is up to speed. I am polyamorous. I currently have many girlfriends. All I consider my friends. Some are just occasional lovers. Some I am more involved with. They are also polyamorous, or near enough (not all of them identify that way, but all of them enjoy open relationships). And I will always have relationships with them, as long as they’ll have me in their life.
- Many different things can be meant by the following terms, but just for the present purpose, if by a primary relationship is meant someone you live with or just about as good as live with, a secondary as someone you date regularly, and a tertiary as someone you date occasionally, all my relationships right now are secondary or tertiary, mostly because of geography. I live in Californwhere the rents are cheap, which means, where no one wants to live. And I’m unlikely to move anytime soon. So relationships with me, at best, are likely to be tertiary—long distance chatting with occasional being together throughout the year. Even so, I always take such friendships seriously. And I’m always open to more.
- In person I am always very frank and open about myself and my life and wishes and feelings, and I prefer people be that way with me, although I fully understand most people aren’t as fully comfortable doing that as I am.
- I travel North America a lot. So far, particularly to Southern California and Ohio. But I range far and wide in my adventures.
The rest you can find out by googling me (along with your preferred keywords). Or checking out my body of writing (even the writings of my enemies). But really, my religious status is obvious. As are my politics. And social views. I’m into wine, whiskey, and meat. I’m 0.5 on the Kinsey scale (so, in between 0 and 1). Not heavy into kink (but get along well with people who are). I have an unusual fetish or two (but don’t expect any of my partners to share them). I’m pro sex worker, and prefer partners who are as well. I also like women who are non-monogamous, or who even enjoy recounting their sexual exploits. I’ll have the opposite reaction than most men to how high Your Number is, or you’d like it to be.
-:-
Okay. So if all that hasn’t scared you away, read on. Otherwise, I’m definitely not your type!
This May I will be in the Los Angeles area. I shall be spending time with several of my girlfriends, and family. But there is a hole in my schedule due to a date having fallen through, and I’m looking for someone to go on a date with then. It requires your taking at least one day off work (if you work a regular week). I’ll be free between noon the Wednesday of May 13th to noon the Friday of May 15th.
Within that window I’m flexible, but here is the date I had in mind: I was originally going to take someone really excited by the opportunity to see the Dead Sea Scrolls, which are now on display at the California Science Center, and that is still my plan, especially as the same museum has the Endeavor, plus tons of other cool science stuff, from aerospace to biospace. We could definitely spend hours there if not a whole day.
I am also planning to have a hotel room, and am comfortable sharing it platonically. Certainly I would enjoy sharing it non-platonically, but I don’t expect it. I’ll enjoy our day regardless. If you are going to have sex with me, it has to be because it’s fun and you want to, not because it’s something you owe me. On the same understanding, if you have a place for me to crash in town (platonically or not), and are happy to have me over to spare me the cost of hiring a room, that would be lovely too. And yes, if you are poly or open and live with a partner or two, I’m comfortable with that as well!
This also means you don’t have to live in the LA area to join me for this. If you can get to LA, and don’t mind sharing a room (at my expense), the opportunity remains.
I can probably only fit one woman’s company into this visit. And just as for you I’m sure, I’m only likely to say yes to someone who sparks something for me, and that’s too subjective and idiosyncratic to predict or define. So for both reasons, please don’t take a no badly. But if you want to at least inquire, please message me on Facebook … or email if you are still that old school. Just remember, it’s an unfair advantage you knowing a lot about me and what I look like, and I not knowing the same, so please do remedy that information disparity, at least a little, first thing. I would very much appreciate it.
Okay. Bat signal engaged!
Now it only remains to see what happens.
[Stock trolling remark deleted—RC]
FYI, your link for “As are my politics” seems to point to the wrong page.
Ooops! Good catch. I duplicated the link from the bottom of the paragraph. Fixed.
[Stock trolling remark deleted—RC]
We get it, Richard. You have had some success in seducing women. Fine. You have shown that you can live up to the standard in the propaganda about atheists’ wonderful sex lives.
But for some reason no one in the atheist community of any stature wants to acknowledge the fact that atheism as a strategy for sexual fulfillment doesn’t work for a lot of men. Oh, sure, it probably works for the average-looking young christian woman who grows up subjected to her parents’ abstinence pledges, fear-based sex education and the like. She holds the gatekeeping position any way, so becoming an atheist can disinhibit her about enjoying her natural advantages.
But this doesn’t work for the sexually yucky christian guy. The easy-to-reject young christian man discovers pretty quickly that he doesn’t increase his sexual market value by becoming an atheist. Instead he probably becomes another of those neckbearded incel atheists who shows up at atheist gatherings and wonders when he can cash in on the promise in atheist propaganda about sexual liberation.
If anything, the secularization of sexual relationships has made rejections more psychologically damaging to men. In the Before-Times, when everyone shared approximately the same religious beliefs and took them more seriously than they do now, girls could reject the advances of the unbangable christian man by saying that god forbids fornication. This lie deflected attention and had the effect of sparing the young man’s feelings. Even after scores of such rejections, he could still maintain the illusion that a god loves him even if women don’t.
Now, in our emerging “Jesus who?” age, women can give more or less the real reason for rejection: You don’t make me wet, so go away and leave me alone. The secular men who receives scores of these honest rejections must feel really bad about themselves after a while. No on wonder one of them suffers from an existential crisis every so often and goes postal.
But again, atheist authority figures don’t want to talk about this for some reason. Instead they prefer to talk about how their atheism leads to all kinds of wonderful sexual opportunities for themselves.
Holy shit. MRA propaganda! Christian even! Such a rare bird these days. It’s almost quaint. I had to let this one through because it’s so hilarious. (And embarrassing to its author.)
Now I’m curious as to whether this technique will work. I put an ad on Craigslist once, got a real girlfriend out of it, so strange things do happen. 😀
Yeah. Lots poly folk are on OkCupid, for example. Which isn’t all that different from this.
Is doing the same thing only more efficiently (and publicly) really a negative? Time will tell. This is, as I noted, experimental. Maybe it’s just not a functional approach to putting yourself out there when wanting to meet people. I honestly don’t know.
But someone has to find out, I guess. So here goes.
Scrolling through the comments I’m curious as to whether you’re experiencing an uptick in sexual harassment since posting this? Not to victim-blame. It’s just rather telling the way sexual harassment is used as a weapon against feminists, even male feminists.
Not anything comparable to what women get. Just what you see here (plus the comments I announced as deleted). Including the fake twitter account, which I think could count.
P.S. One thing to look for is if these sexualized insults spread to posts that have nothing to do with the subject. That would be clear cut sexual harassment. Keeping an eye out.
Actual Post Script:
An attempt to sexually harass me was made on my Idaho event announcement post (one abusive comment, deleted as not meeting my comments policy even remotely).
[Stock trolling remark deleted—RC]
Hi, Richard. I too am polyamorous and also bi-curious. I would love to go on a date with you. I sent you an e-mail with picture attached. (And yes….That is mine ;0 )
Could you not delete the trolling remarks please? I’m honestly here to laugh at what attempts people are making to troll you (especially but not limited to the unsuccessful attempts) and if you’re deleting that then what’s the point. There has to be something for the guys, right?
The best punishment for a troll is that they must suffer in knowing they wasted their time even attempting it, and that no one will ever see what they wrote.
Net effect: They stop trolling as often. Because it just isn’t fun anymore.
(But don’t worry, they were all eye-rollingly lame.)
I’ll fuck ya!
That sounds a bit too reductive.
Mark Plus @4
I am not exactly R Carrier’s biggest fan but I have to ask what the hell your comment has to do with the price of fish?
I propose to you that Carrier’s lack of a belief in God is about as much motivated by a desire to attract more women as your lack of belief in goblins.
Whether atheism makes things easier on guys or harder is irrelevant. Neither situation will make a god, yours or anyone elses, pop in or out of existence.
I must admit though, this is a new one: atheism makes rejection harder to bear therefore God exists (or at least, we ought to pretend He does).
This is a totally inappropriate use of a platform.
Not really.
I disagree. This is Richards blog to be run as he sees fit. That goes for anyone who blogs at a private site that is all their own. It would be different if he had a blog that was on the HuffPo where he discussed religious or social issues. But that’s not the case. I find it mildly (offensive isn’t quite the right word here but anyways) offensive that some people think there is a proper use for someone’s blog. You don’t get to dictate how Richard runs his blog or what he gets to blog about. No one does. It’s not unprofessional or inappropriate to use a blog for whatever you choose to use it for. You’re the one with the problem so perhaps you should try to identify why you have this problem rather than admonishing RC.
I concur.
I should also add that the implied notion that professionals can’t pursue dates unless “in secret” is a perverse concept of professionalism. Professionals do not surrender all rights to their identities and relationships and sexlives as a “punishment” for working in a profession. And anyone who thinks they do, has a fucked up idea of what being a professional means.
(Or they are confusing “a blog with unaffiliated readers” with “a workplace with employees,” but I can’t imagine anyone here was so stupid as to actually be confusing those, so I’m assuming they weren’t.)
@ oc : Why? What is your reasoning for that? Who are you to tell someone else how they may and may not use their blog? If you aren’t interested or don’t like what you are (voluntarily) reading you are under no obligation to reply or even read any of what’s written here.
Text was so provocative. Try to be less open :). You might intimidate someone real gem of a person. Not all even know what they want. 🙂 Cheers. Love your site.
No. I don’t want to date anyone who would be intimidated by these things. And I’m pretty sure they wouldn’t want to date me. And a society that attempts to suppress our honesty, our sexuality, and true selves is the problem in this scenario, not the people who rebel against it. Meanwhile, trying to rope people in by hiding who you are may be an unhealthy trope popular among the monogamous. But by and large, polyamorists are over that.
ok so maybe intrigued u know. I like 2 c the freaky stuff maybe to watch maybe to play. But no.1 first: gotta see the D bro. Maybe send me a pic to my email ok? So many time I go to see the guy who saays he knows whats going down but then his dick is gross. Imma talking maybe huge but it has the smell, it has the cheese. You hearin’ me bro. Peace out. I felt likke u 2 when my first girl she left. stay stron my bro.
This comment was too bizarre to delete. It sounds like a bot composed it. The sad thing is, it probably was an actual person. Shudder.
So let me get this straight. You REALLY want to fuck one of your fans, so you are just turning on your “bat signal” in hopes that one of your fans that you deem to be fuck-able will jump at the chance.
You should take this stuff to a dating site, Richard. Using your position as a public figure (writer/speaker) to solicit sexual relationships seems to be akin to just trolling for groupies.
You are contradicting yourself. How would doing the same thing on a dating site be any different than, as you put it, just trying to fuck a fan? If you really thought that was my aim, you should be recommending the most efficient means. Which would be here. Not OkCupid.
But besides being illogical, you are also something of a sexist. Because you just reduced all my girlfriends to faceless, mindless “fans” whose only function is to be fucked. In fact, you seem to be saying all that relationships with women consist of, is fucking.
And you are a prude. Because you seem to be disturbed by the notion that men and women actually like having sex, and actually (gasp!) do that! And even ask for each other’s consent to! The horror!
The real reason for joining the Atheism+Feminism religion emerges
The scary thing with comments like that is that you clearly are so misogynistic that you can’t even imagine a man actually caring about women and women’s concerns—such that you can only assume it’s all a ruse to get laid; that men only ever “pretend” to care about women.
But if you can’t imagine anything else but that, it follows necessarily that you yourself are not a man who cares about women and women’s concerns (otherwise, you would not be incapable of imagining other men so, and thus would not assume every man who does, is pretending).
Hello, misogynist.
Uh no. Logic fail buddy.
I can imagine a lot. I’m no misogynist and automatically assuming that I am, through faulty logic, showcases cult-like behaviour. So too does asking your (I assume) fans for sex. That’s very, very close to taking advantage of women (some of which undoubtedly quite young and impressionable), I’m sure a lot of feminists would agree.
Women are not children. If you want to infantilize them, as incompetents who can’t make decisions for themselves or consent to how they choose to live their lives, then guess what, you are sounding like a misogynist.
You are also sounding like a misogynist because you still show no sign of imagining a man actually caring about women and thus actually being a genuine feminist and dating women and having a lot of girlfriends who like or love him as a person. That you can only imagine men pretending to that, means you don’t care about women yourself (since if you did, you’d be able to imagine it, and thus would know I could care as much about women as you do, and thus you could not claim to know I’m pretending to). That’s entry level misogyny.
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, like 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. So I said, “Huh, I guess the problem was in my own head, after all. Carry on and good luck, RC.”
These are good habits, and I would highly recommend them to everyone who expects to encounter New Things in their lives.
Agreed and well said.
Best of luck on your search! I’m a longtime reader and admirer of your work! You are perhaps the greatest author still living. I’m also poly and it certainly makes finding a compatible partner difficult in this monogamous-centric day and age.
*tips fedora*
Not a trilby?
If you’re ever in Tokyo, I’d be happy to meet you. I’m poly, sex positive, kinky, etc, and have always thought you were cute. 😉
That’s very kind to say. I’m not wealthy enough for trips to Japan. But this reply applies.
If I were single and didn’t have kids, I’d see you in LA! Lol Hope your endeavor finds you a fun date.
I’m curious as to why you’re reaching out to your fan base instead of using a service like OKCupid. Isn’t there a question of ethics regarding the power differential between author and fan?
Like how?
And why would it be any different on OkC?
Or, in fact, ever, anywhere?
Your comment just makes no sense.
No, there isn’t. This isn’t a pastor/altar boy, teacher/student, owner/employee type situation. With regard to this post, Richard isn’t in a position of any significant power over anyone. There’s no power dynamic at play that would make this post questionable.
[Stock trolling remark deleted—RC]
I’m asking this completely seriously. Please answer honestly:
If a critic of feminism or, heaven forbid, an MRA would publicly declare being polyamorous and ask for multiple dates on a blog post, what do you think the average feminist reaction to it would be?
I think you’d agree, if you are honest, that the average feminist reaction would be outrage. That man would be accused of sexism and misogyny.
So given that, why do you think polyamory and publicly asking for multiple dates is ok for a feminist? Do you think that other feminists give you more leeway for the sole reason that you are a famous feminist? Do you agree that’s a double standard?
I will be curious to see if you’ll answer this honestly, or if you will simply censor me with a “Stock trolling remark deleted”.
That they’d be a shitty date probably worth avoiding.
Not really. He wouldn’t be accused of sexism and misogyny for asking for a date. He’d be accused of sexism and misogyny for his sexism and misogyny. Which would be the reason, they would point out, that he’s a shitty date probably worth avoiding.
Women choosing to not date “critics of feminism or MRAs” and to date instead feminists is the exact opposite of a double standard. It is, in fact, just a standard.
Way to avoid the questions I posed. I think you know perfect well what the average feminist reaction to such kind of blog post would be. But of course you can’t admit that because it would reveal the double standard. If you declare being a womanizer and ask multiple women on dates, that’s ok, because you are on the “right” side.
Just take care to not to ask for a woman on an elevator. You might end up being the witch of the week of you-know-who.
I think I personally know far more feminists than you do. I also suspect I’ve read far more contemporary feminists than you have. So my judgment has a far higher prior probability of being correct.
The fact that your fantasy has never once played out, ever, only verifies that fact.
Meanwhile, if you think polyamory is immoral, maybe you should be a Christian? (Unless you already are.)
As to your delusional adoption of the elevator myth, read my Snopes-like discussion of that fallacy here (search that window for “elevatorgate” and start reading).
Learn the difference between ethical, considerate, consensual – and – unethical, inconsiderate, and nonconsensual.
Please.
It will make the world a better place.
Honestly im shocked and more then a bit horrified that this was deemed kosher on FTB, Y’all are normally so uptight. But now Richard, as cool as the poly thing is, lets just admit it youre a hound dog, and i hypocrite to boot. I can only imagine the class A shit you lot would flip if any other white cis male posted something like this. that being said, have at it hoss
The myth that we on FtB are uptight has no basis in fact and never has. And your prediction of how I’d react to men asking for dates online is consequently entirely false. So you have no evidence for your illogical charge of hypocrisy. Other than myths and fantasies in your head that are entirely contrary to reality.
But you know what is uptight? Derogatorily calling polyamorous men hound dogs.
Im sorry but its not a myth the FTB is uptight, the slightest criticisms and you all flip your lids.
Dont put words in my mouth Carrier i ever passed judgement on all poly people, i just happen think people who cheat on their partners and retro actively claim to be poly so people will feel sorry for them are hound dogs. But all in all this is a good development hopefully now people will see that the ethics of Atheist+ really come down to little more then “its only bad when other people do it”. Youre willingness to bend you definitions of cheating and monogamy read (to anyone with any sense) as a slight twist on the usual crap excuses used but cheaters since time immemorial
Yes, it is a myth.
And gainsaying is not an argument.
(Unlike you, I backed my assertion up with a link to evidence. So you clearly don’t know the difference between evidence-backed claims and unevidenced assertions.)
Meanwhile, you are just repeating the false equivalence fallacy. Honest resolutions of personal relationships are not the same things as rape, assault, harassment, and direct violations of consent. Indeed, even cheating is not the same thing same thing as rape, assault, harassment, and direct violations of consent.
So until you learn how logic works, you do not appear to be qualified to make arguments.
It’s a myth I tells ya. Myth!
https://mobile.twitter.com/jennifurret/status/370743723048464385
Funny. I already refuted that myth.
Or did you mistake me for Jen McCreight? Or for someone who didn’t publicly disagree with her about that multiple times?
so just so we’re clear, Atheists Ireland provides proof that they arent the cult of nugant, purely in Dublin, or no longer talking to PZ because they love rape, and you just cast that off as “well of course thats what youd say” and yet when you provide some weak evidence that goes strongly against the general consensus on the beliefs of A+ and we’re all meant to swallow it because of course Carrier is the good guy in all this.
Once again you put words in my mouth, never did i call you a rapist or even insinuated that youd done something legally wrong, please try and be more honest. In my personal views there are many many ways you can be a skeevy douche without breaking the law. I think sleeping around behind your wifes qualifies perfectly as something that makes you shitty and yet isnt and shouldnt be against any laws.
In general i try and ignore the personal lives of scholars and just look at them for their work (in this i view you quite highly actually). However when it comes down to people like you who spend half theyre time judging and condemning people for their personal lives, i think its both fair and mandatory that we look into your personal life and judge you according to our moral standards no matter how different they are from yours. Fair is fair after all.
also most of your arguments on social issues like this especially ones involving your self seem to rest strongly on the Arbitrary Redefinition fallacy
Sorry, Gulox, I have never said consensual dating and flirting was bad when other people do it. I have never condemned anyone, ever, for having done anything I do.
You are caught in a myth. Like a creationist still obsessed with the Garden of Eden.
Sorry Carrier, you’re caught in a myth. You in fact have condemned people for flirting, i trust youll remember “elevator gate” and while im sure you would view it as something more akin to harassment neither the law nor the court of public opinion actually backs up that position. So we are left with the idea that after talking to someone all day asking them to “not take this the wrong way, but do you want to come to my room for some coffee” and then immediately backing off when told no is wrong, but posting what is little more the “Anyone DTF?” to millions of strangers is totally fine. Its not like im in the minority here, the vast majority of people in the atheist community (or at least the community outside of FTB) that have written about have talked about how skeevy it is.
No, I have not condemned anyone for merely flirting. (Nor do I myself flirt without etiquette.)
And as I linked you to my demonstration that the elevator incident was not merely flirting, nor, as I explicitly say there, anything I condemned as harassment, you clearly didn’t read that, and thus are just repeating claims I already refuted. That’s some hard core dedication to your myth there.
And had you read what I told you to go read, you would know that incident did not involve the guy talking to Watson all day. He spoke to her not at all. He was a complete stranger when he approached her in a closed and isolated space, at a time and place wholly inconsiderate. Go read the facts.
If you think a public profile asking no specific person for a date is skeevy, you may have a problem with human relationships. But if you think it’s the same thing as cornering a specific tired stranger in an elevator at a scary hour and place and putting her in an uncomfortable spot after just having heard her say she doesn’t like that, you have a serious problem comprehending how reality works.
According to you and your crew yes, according to the rest of the world it was a standard Watson exaggeration/attention grab.
But and this is were it gets important you keep dodging the point that when people fail your moral standards you take issue with that and demand people rectify their behavior, when you fail to meet other peoples standards (and the standard held by most people in this case) far from changing or even taking the briefest look at yourself, you throw out ad hoc attacks about them being MRAs, misogynists, or being devoted to myths. Rendering your moral judgement to little more then “Richard Carries is always right, when he cheats its not the same, when he solicits random sex its different ect.” without backing any of it up. So unless you can some how prove that your morals are objectively correct youre simply throwing out your views with religious like fervor.
Huh? You lied about the facts of the case. Now you pretend you were making a completely different point than the one you did. Way to dodge reality, bro.
In actual fact I have repeatedly said that people who fail at things (including myself) can rectify it by apologizing and fixing it and resolving to do better. I might need to blog about this, because people like you seem oblivious to the fact that having moral standards does not mean the options are Perfection or Nihilism.
Meanwhile, you haven’t defended any moral values here. You have made undefended assertions, many of them contrary to the facts. Whereas when I defend a moral standard, I explain why that should be the standard, and give evidence and a logical argument for it.
Example: someone who affirms the view that male feminists must be pretending just to get laid, is factually signalling they are a misogynist, because (A) if they could imagine a male feminist both caring about women and women’s concerns and getting laid, then they would know that’s a possibility [FACT]; and (B) therefore they would know that they have to adduce evidence of pretense before asserting it [FACT]; so (C) when they don’t do B, that entails ~A (modus tollens).
But if (D) a person cares about women and women’s concerns, then (E) they know one such person, and therefore necessarily can imagine such a person; and therefore A. So if ~A, then necessarily ~D: the person in question does not care about women or women’s concerns. (F) Entry level misogyny is not caring about women or their concerns. Therefore, if ~A, then F.
I’ve stated the argument in simpler format before now.
But here is a logical, fact-based demonstration of the conclusion. Now, you can bite the bullet and insist that it is moral to be a misogynist. Or you can concede it is not. In which case, you must concede I’m not the one being immoral here, the people who can’t imagine a man caring about women and their concerns are. Or else reject logic and reality.
Your call.
Meanwhile, you have made no arguments at all that anything I have done is wrong, even by your own standards.
Perhaps my details on “Elevator Gate” are wrong but seeing as the primary source has been deleted one must go though secondary sources. Although id argue that even with your version of events, you still have to work in some way that asking one strange women to have sex (or coffee or what ever) is wrong while asking potentially the entire internet of women for a date in which sex is implied by you (now don’t twist that to say that i’m imply dates=deserved sex), without knowing how many of them may be made uncomfortable/triggered/ what ever you want to call it is moral right.
My point is simply if you want to be the “patron saint” of the morality police, that you’d better do a better job of being moral in the first place. (nice use of the word bro by the way, really put me at easy to see my native tongue used).
What you’ve done here is provide a perfectly logical argument refuting a position i never claimed to hold. I may as well come back with A=2*B there for B=1/2 A and then claiming that i have the logical high ground as literally non of that can be challenged. But I’ll repeat i never claimed or even insinuated that male feminists only hold those views because they want to have sex. Nor have i stated anything that would preclude me from being a feminist of a different branch form that that i’m aware of. I do hold that despite your claims of high moral fiber you just do as you please and moralize it after by twisting definitions and belief in some kind of “Carrier Exceptional-ism”. So if you are truly desperate to drag feminism into it here’s how ill work that in for you, “Richard Carrier uses his particular branch of Feminism to retro actively justify his actions and beliefs that would appear, to the outside at least to run contrary to the rest of his beliefs”
You’ve essentially drawn up Lewis’s trilemma, but much like that your argument excludes from the choices at least one major choice that renders the whole thing moot.
I actually have made arguments to suggest that what you’ve done is wrong. Namely that when one is in a monogamous relationship failing to uphold that monogamy is a strong moral failing, then sprinkle in the apparent hypocrisies and the willingness to redefine commonly used words to make you look like less of a moral failure.
You’re arguments rest of little more then twisting what i say into a nice little straw man and then redefining terms into a bat to beat it with.
“the primary source has been deleted” — WTF? The primary source is a video. It has not been deleted. I link to it in the text I linked you to read.
“if you want to be the “patron saint” of the morality police, that you’d better do a better job of being moral in the first place” — False. One does not have to be morally perfect to have and discuss and hold people to basic moral standards (nor does having and discussing and holding people to basic moral standards entail claiming to be a saint or the police). So far, I have held everyone to the same standard I hold myself to. Nothing more is required.
“I actually have made arguments to suggest that what you’ve done is wrong.” — No, you haven’t.
“Namely that when one is in a monogamous relationship failing to uphold that monogamy is a strong moral failing, then sprinkle in the apparent hypocrisies and the willingness to redefine commonly used words to make you look like less of a moral failure.” — That’s not even a sentence. Much less an argument. Even as a sentence fragment it’s unintelligible. It presents no conclusion, does not state a single coherent premise, backs none of its quasi-premises with any evidence, and exhibits no logical structure.
The rest of your comment is gibberish.
[Stock trolling remark deleted—RC]
[This troll tried impersonating Amy Roth to represent her as a prostitute, which is an excellent way of showing what swell people these trolls are. Remarks deleted.—RC]
I feel uncomfortable reading a swingers magazine-style ad on a mainstream atheist blogsite. To quote the Ghostbusters: “Don’t cross the streams!”
If human sexuality and relationships make you uncomfortable, then definitely get off the internet.
so anyone who disagrees with you has their comment deleted & are labeled a troll or mra. what makes you think anyone would date someone who employs censorship & ridicule when presented with an opposing idea.
Exactly the women I like to date.
Of course, they also know that your comment is a clusterfuck of fallacies. Which is why I like my girlfriends.
I do not delete comments of “anyone” who “disagrees” with me (note: this very comment refutes your claim; and is not the only example here).
I delete the comments of people who violate my comments policy.
Unlike you, I like women who can tell the difference between defending an opposing idea, and insults, lies, abuse, vacuous emoting, links to harassing porn, and the like. I especially like women who agree the latter have no right to publish on my platform. And I like even more women who think it’s funny that I piss off trolls like you by deleting those trolls’ attempts to substitute for evidence and rational argument insults, lies, abuse, vacuous emoting, links to harassing porn, and the like. Those women are the best.
P.S. Learn how to use capital letters. It’s time to stop commenting like a child.
Please get off your cross and your high horse.
Too bad my old BBS from the 90’s isn’t still up. You would have loved it. Nasty Playmates. It was wild back then.
I don’t even know what that means.
But it doesn’t sound like something I would have liked.
Would you date a transwoman?
I’m very much into PIV. Beyond that, my aesthetic standards are the same.
PIV…..particle image velocimetry? Peak inverse voltage? 🙂 Loved your post, by the way, and am saddened by the kneejerk reactions to it.
Google will help you.
This is actually a reasonable preference. I too feel the same way. You will however be crucified for this preference.
Yeah. Literally crucified.
(Eyes rolling.)
Hehehe… no, I got it initially. Was just making jokes. Actually I had to use Google to look those other two up.
By the way Richard, my name is [removed for security–RC], I must say your post spoke to me. I have been in polyamorous relationships before, and one didn’t turn out well. The Guy I was with dated men without my knowledge before we became a polyamorous couple.
Given that this was the case, I do have some trust issues. Unfortunately he ran around with other men, and I honestly didn’t know what he was doing. When I did yank this information out of him, it was as if getting caught was simply the next step of his master plan.
For the most part, I admit that I felt a rather uncomfortable at first, as the men he was seeing were obviously big guys, for you and me at least.
Reasonably later, I got more involved, and things seemed to be flying well.
Yet it turned out that our relationship in fact was not flying so good. You mentioned that you are a little on board with kink. My boyfriend was quite into BDSM and swinging, and the community was nice. Usually nobody asked invasive questions, they were just happy for you to be there, and they didn’t bloody care who you were, at least until you put on the mask. But it turned out that they were not my at all my friends. They became a bit possessive, as if they were the ones in charge. I told my boyfriend that in order to get our relationship back on course, our flight plan, so to speak, should just only include me, and one of the group. We met up with them, we agreed that the first one to talk got to stay with us, and it was a little awkward.
Not much later I found out that this didn’t work out either. They both got more and more into the BDSM arts, eventually wearing the masks full time when they were at home. I tried talking him out of his new-found obsession, but he said that it would be extremely painful for him to take off the mask. I decided that it was in our best interests to part ways. Eventually broke up with him, and tried to get things back on track.
But your part about being pro sex worker really spoke to me. After I broke up with my then boyfriend, I starting seeing a prostitute regularly. He was a really sweet guy. We became fast friends, and he has now a lot of loyalty to me, for a hired gun at least.
Confounding me, this didn’t fly so well in the long term. Ultimately, I want to thank you for your article.
If you are interested, please write back. You mentioned that you move around a lot, which is completely, absolutely fine with me, as I am ready to go mobile.
This all seems too personal and tangential here. I don’t like this kind of approach.
Hi Richard, do you ever travel to France? I’m in sync with you on most of your stuff. I make my living through music (keyboard player in a band) and being ex-military I enjoy an active life including skydiving and I am an expert trampolinist (which comes in very handy if you like to experiment sexually). I’d love to hook up if you’re ever in Nice.
Sadly not wealthy enough for trips to France! (Any more than Japan.)
But if you are serious, and you ever you see I’ll be there (as that would certainly be announced on my blog, which will also hit my Facebook wall), or you will be in the US, you can email me and we can chat and find out if we get along at all, and then see where that goes.
[Stock trolling remark deleted—RC]
[Attempts to insult my commenters with sexist remarks deleted—RC]
[Stock troll comment equating polyamory with prostitution deleted—RC]
[Stock troll comment complaining about the deletion of his troll comments, yet still containing no evidence or argument for any position they claim to be defending, deleted.—RC]
Rick: I believe someone on your facebook page said they would take you up on your offer if they were 10 years younger. That piqued my curiosity as you didn’t mention age preferences. 18-58 sound about right?
Also, are you getting many replies?
Several good replies so far. And I don’t have any fixed rule about age, beyond what the law requires.
What I find attractive is subjective, personal, ineffable; incapable of useful definition.
Why is that your business and why are you Facebook stalking Richard?
I think the issue here is that you are using your platform on a blog network to hook up with women. Given that the responses you are likely to receive will mostly be from fans, there will clearly be a power imbalance.
Additionally, how does this relate to skepticism or freethought? Presumably you were given a blog at FtB to share your thoughts in those areas. Your post is at best unethical, and I can’t imagine your fellow bloggers are thrilled that you are using the platform in this way.
Nice try. But that’s bullshit top to bottom.
First, I have no power over women who go out of their own way to ask me out.
Fame is not some sort of Dracula force that subjects the wills of those who succumb. (I’m not even that famous. And what I’m famous for is my mind, my values, and my accomplishments. Which are basically what people fall in love with in anyone generally.)
Second, FtB enforces no contract whatever on what we write about, and in fact has explicitly given us carte blanche to write about anything, as long as we live by a reasonable set of values (usually our values when onboarded).
So there isn’t any plausible way to argue it is unethical to talk about my personal life here, my interests, and places I’ll be, and that people can meet me in this capacity if they want to.
Third, you are the last person who is likely to be endorsed by my fellow bloggers as speaking or them.
In fact, your declaring opinions on their behalf is the only thing unethical going on here.
Hello, James MacDonald.
To answer your quote:
“Additionally, how does this relate to skepticism or freethought? “.
It seems related to me.
For me, skeptical thought and free-thought of the established norm leads me to a place where sexuality and relationships can be more openly discussed.
Spot on.
Indeed, I missed the massive irony of someone asking what free love had to do with free thought.
Hm.
Someone’s thought isn’t quite free enough here to be pontificating about what free thought is.
How bizarre….nothing wrong with anything you’re looking for but ftb isn’t really supposed to be used as a platform to get women to sleep with you is it? The whole tone of this is creepy and weird as hell, and you have the nerve to call Shermer a creep.
Hey guys, I’m a famous historian….now who wants to fuck me??
Nice try. But bullshit.
There is nothing at all comparable between this blog post (which pursues nothing other than honest and informed consent to whatever, and imposes on no one in particular) and what Shermer has been criticized for doing.
Whereas, thinking that asking for a date and a possible future relationship consists of nothing more than fucking (even though the article in question specifically mentions sex is not required) is a fucked up way for you to see human relationships generally. You might want to see to that. Because that is actually creepy.
Why do you assume you get to decide what someone else’s blog is for?
Unpop your monocle.
You’re sadly mistaken in thinking there are “official” rules about how bloggers at FtB can run or use their blogs. Seems to be a problem among many of the trolls in this thread.
O and as it was said before, it’s clear why you’re such a feminist….
Which remark, as I already established, makes you a misogynist.
Of course you’re going to say that, you’re trying to get laid
Damn, I wish you were bi or gay, because you sound like someone I would love to meet. Just a short comment to say good luck to you and let you know your posting is the most refreshing, real, succinctly genuine posting I have ever read. Totally real and I got to believe, even though the polyamorous subset may be nascent in the social media world, there are some hot, together and smart women who will join you on this adventure. All the best!! Dave
[Stock troll comment, expressing the bigoted, prudish belief that polyamorists are PUAs and have STDs, deleted.—RC]
@Juha Nieminen #23
This sort of crap always half-amuses, half-infuriates me.
It’s amusing because this sort of cluelessness really is funny, in the way human foolishness can be funny. It’s infuriating because there exist people who invest so much time and effort into opposing a viewpoint they clearly have never bothered to understand.
Juha Nieminen, can you articulate, clearly and precisely, what is sexist or misogynist about what RC has written? And why on earth do you suppose that to “publicly declare being polyamorous” would result in “outrage” from the “average feminist”?
Slymepit dudes, MRAs, and their fellow travellers: I hate to break it to you, but polyamory is pretty common, both among Freethought Blogs bloggers and their readers. And those who aren’t into it certainly don’t have a problem with it.
We don’t have a problem with sex. We have a problem with sexism. Run along now, and learn to distinguish between the two.
You have an obligation now to tell us whether this experiment works.
I was a bit surprised by the topic of this post, but it’s your blog, you get to say what you want! I’m quite amused by the people who want to function as official FtB Post Police.
I hope you end up with a suitable date in the end, whatever the means, and you both enjoy yourselves.
Well, not an obligation.
But yes, I was thinking of writing a results report of some sort. But that has to be after the date, and with my date’s permission (and possibly collaboration).
I don’t know, Richard — It sounds more like “50 Shades of Confusion” to me.
Huh?
I don’t think you know what 50 Shades was about.
Or what confusion is.
When you say “I am polyamorous”, do you mean that is your choice, or would you say you were born that way?
Don’t know. Doesn’t matter. I can and should pursue my own happiness in any consensual and honest way I want and need. Regardless of whether who I am is a product of genes or environment or reason. Or all three.
That’s how liberty works.
Welcome to America.
My interest was also piqued by the woman saying she wished she were 10 years younger, and I responded to her in that thread. Her comment actually really pissed me off when I realized she was probably about 8 years older than you. This isn’t just a question for you, Richard, or any kind of accusation, but hypothetically, would you agree that if someone your age were comfortable with dating down to age 20 but only comfortable going up maybe 5 years older, is not a true feminist? Again, I’m not accusing you of holding this view, but I’m really curious what your opinion is on this and how it collides with feminism?
Other than that, good luck! You’re not hurting anyone and you’re enjoying life and on top of that, your work educates and entertains a lot of people who truly appreciate it.
I don’t think what someone does or does not find attractive can be linked to feminism in any way. Other than insofar as it might reflect their values regarding things like consent, or indicates they are limiting their thoughts based on biases and not free attraction. But by and large they have nothing to do with each other. One is a system of beliefs about the world. The other is a subjective personal aesthetic.
Indeed, one of the central premises of feminist thought is that when it comes to our private lives, as long as consent is being respected and psychological harm is not involved, we shouldn’t be policing the aesthetics of people’s sexuality at all. Notice, homosexuality.
If someone feels I’m too young for them, that’s their business.
If someone older asks me out, and I am not attracted to them, that’s my business.
Ideology has no control over sexual feelings. Notice, trying to Deprogram Gays.
But if you are curious (and you seem to be asking about my own personal preferences), if Shirley Bassey, Helen Mirren, or Judi Dench asked me out, I’d be swooning my way there. But I don’t think it discredits anyone as a feminist if they don’t share that sentiment. There isn’t anything you can do “ideologically” about physical attraction.
Many feminists argue that power differentials in sex potential sex partners, stemming from a person’s popularity and reputation, muddy sexual consent, and can even destroy it, and I think I slowly start to see why this is the case. Trying to connect a powerful professional blogging platform with a person’s own sexual desires, is nothing short of super creepy.
I have no doubt that impressionable young women could be manipulated into uncritically submitting themselves to the author’s demands (like Filly of Post 32), which is probably exactly what the author had in mind in the first place. I see this as a clear anti-feminist act, and I strictly condemn it.
Filly of Post 32 might be a troll (i.e. fake).
But even if she’s real, I don’t fathom where you see her consent or ability to consent being in any way compromised.
And that’s feminism. Not anti-feminism.
LOL@ all the useless trolls and naysayers here. Any of you seriously reckon Richard’s gonna give a damn what you lot think once he’s all cosily shacked up with some bird in his hotel room, and she’s busily telling him about all the other guys who’ve been knobbing her?
LOL what a bunch of envious prudes.
A bit crudely put for my taste. But basically correct.
I should add that that is already a guaranteed thing:
Regardless of how this one sought-after date ends—and it’s definitely on, I’m deciding who to go with—many people overlooked the one line in this post where I mentioned that same week I’m spending several days around that one open window of time with several existing girlfriends of mine. Which, of course, makes it funny when people claim this post means I can’t get a date—you know, other than all those other girlfriends I have, which entails I must not have trouble getting dates, since you don’t magically generate girlfriends out of a Gauntlet monster generator—but your point also holds: yeah, they and I will indeed be shacking up and having fun sharing stories about our sexual adventures. And likewise laugh our asses off at the knobheads here who freak out about that.
Hi Richard,
I am a long time fan and I appreciate the honesty and candor of this post. While i think you may not have intended them too be so, some of your statements about sex are problematic.
You seem to be asking for the services of sex workers without wanting or intending to pay for them. This is problematic in many ways. It devalues the work of already marginalized members of society. Many sex workers live in poverty, and refusing to pay them a living wage worsens the problem.
I work full time as an advocate for sex workers in the developing world. People who want a sex workers services for free are bad people who exploit vulnerable people with violence and threats. I know you are not like this. Please consider rewriting or at least paying the sex workers the wages they deserve.
I’m going to assume this is a troll. Because I have a hard time thinking this is meant seriously, rather than just a more oblique way to equate polyamory with prostitution and slyly call all my girlfriends whores.
But on the off chance you are actually this off your rocker and actually believe the things you just said:
I actually date sex workers (like, for real, not hypothetically). So, I think I know more about this than you do. They would tell you that dating them does not devalue their work at all. They get to have relationships like anyone else. Relationships that are not a business transaction. If they don’t want that, they won’t contact me. If they want to offer me a professional service, they can contact me about that. If they want to date me not as a financial transaction, they can contact me about that. And that I allow them those options is exactly what respecting them means.
Best wishes, Richard. I hope you meet someone(s) awesome and have a ball. Don’t let the haters get you down.
I’m not sure why anyone would find this ethically questionable or inappropriate. I also don’t see why anyone would see such a post being here on FtB as hypocritical. It’s as though they don’t believe us (feminists) when we say we’re not out to stop sex from happening. It really is all about consent, people. Good luck finding someone to share a very cool date with, Richard.
Yeah, this contradictory behavior of theirs, claiming to be pro sex and thinking we are anti-sex, and to prove it going all anti-sex on us (!?), is a head-spin very popular with them. It started already the moment I came out as poly. It’s practically a defining characteristic of the Slymepit (where a few of these trolls come from).
Hi Richard,
The comments are an interesting read as to the different attitudes towards non-traditional relationships. I baffles me how much other people care what consenting adults do in privacy. It also baffles me that many people cannot separate dating a woman and sex. I mean, you explicitly state sex is an option and not a requirement and still people don’t get that. It seems like such a narrow view towards the interaction between men and women. It would depress the hell out of me if the whole of my relationship with my wife revolved around sex. Sex is important, but outside of that our relationship is about so much more.
I’d like to read your thoughts on that.
I’d also like to read your thoughts on the difference between polyamory and open relationships where you don’t necessarily have a romantic connection with the other person. I’m in an open relationship and when I meet poly people I often meet resistance from them to the idea of an open relationship because they feel there should always be feelings involved. I disagree of course, but I find the attitude confusing. Why can’t they understand other people have a different arrangement in their relationship when they themselves have a non-traditional relationship? Do you recognize this attitude? What are your thoughts?
Yep. All of that.
But note that with regard to “you explicitly state sex is an option and not a requirement and still people don’t get that,” they cannot comprehend a real relationship, and so they can only imagine my saying that is some sort of PUA “trick,” just as several commenters think I only “pretend” to be a feminist to get laid—because they literally can’t imagine a man actually caring about women and their concerns, so they have to assume it’s a ruse.
That they think this way is disturbing to me.
On the other thing, “your thoughts on the difference between polyamory and open relationships where you don’t necessarily have a romantic connection with the other person,” I think it’s more of a fuzzy continuum than anything. (And if you google around to read discussions of this, you’ll find not all, but most poly writers agree.)
I have had casual sex with someone I didn’t really develop a friendship or rapport with (before or after), simply because they wanted to, and they were fun. And personally, I didn’t much like it. It was okay.
By contrast, nearly all of my lovers (even those who don’t pursue me much more than as a sex partner) I actually developed good rapports with and consider my friends (and all those who pursue staying even tighter as friends, I welcome as such). And sex with them is awesome.
But in both cases feelings were involved. Even in the most casual case of all, I still cared about her as a person, and was sharing an emotional experience with her. We do, after all, love everyone to a degree. “Love your neighbor as yourself” was not requesting a global orgy, but just having feelings for everyone. So it’s always about feelings. The only question is how strong and what kind. And even that’s not dichotomous. Even that comes in a whole continuum of degrees.
So personally, I don’t see a very clear distinction between being open and being poly. I let people identify however they want, though. But we can negotiate the relationships we want, all of them, not just one kind. I use poly because I do have “traditionally” poly relationships (more than one woman I am in love with) as well as more casual ones, so it serves as an adequate umbrella term people more readily understand or can more easily google.
All this means I agree with your reaction, i.e. “I often meet resistance from them to the idea of an open relationship because they feel there should always be feelings involved,” I think that’s a holdover of monogamy expectations in the poly sphere, because I assume they mean not just feelings (caring about someone, the way you would even a stranger, or even the more so you would a friend or acquaintance or colleague) but Big Complicated Feelings. And that’s just not the case.
Yes, those can arise. And if they do, that’s totally fine—as long as you aren’t trying to force yourself to follow some society-written script about what you are “supposed to do” when you have Big Complicated Feelings. Throwing away those scripts should be what poly is all about: once we realize those scripts were badly written, and not for us anyway, we need to rewrite them, realizing there are a lot of alternative and way better scripts to follow, and we can even write our own, together.
But such feelings also don’t “have to” arise. You can be good friends with someone (even really really good friends, or just merely good friends, or what have you) and thus have good friend feelings for them, and have a nice sex life together as well. If that’s all you feel, that’s your relationship. You don’t “have” to push it toward anything else (just feel what you feel; and enjoy that). Nor is it “inevitable” that that will happen (the “sex ruins everything” myth, which is based on not a lick of fact, beyond it being a self-fulfilling prophecy).
In my case, for example, I have a lot of friends with whom I have sex. Our feelings for each other are real and significant. But no different than close or dear friends of any kind would have for each other. I have a lot of friends that are more distant, more like comfortable acquaintances, with whom I have sex. And we care about each other more than strangers, but not as much as dear close friends, and we are fine with that. And I have several girlfriends for whom I can honestly say I feel real love, in the full-blown ga-ga sense (and yet even in that, there are degrees), and they are all fine with that (it does not bother them that I’m in love with other women as well as them; nor does it complicate our lives).
I say, people need to be more open to these possibilities. All of them. Not the restricted, scripted ones society tries to tell us are the only “correct” ones.
Kudos for being open and honest, describing yourself and your intentions with clarity and sincerity. My wife and I both identify as poly, and wish more people had your traits. Thus, I just wanted to give some support, and let you know you’re not alone. I’d also like to tell the haters out there that they can “fuck off. ” 🙂
I wish you happiness in LA at the museum and afterward, as well. I’d join you in a heartbeat, but … Too bad you’re a generation too young for me.
I fully support your post. I’m in a polyamorous relationship, where my boyfriend and girlfriend are married to each other. We are all free to date/have sex/play outside of the relationship. Finding people to date was difficult enough when I was completely single. Now I feel like I have to put the details of my situation out there, so people not interested in sharing me won’t waste their time. Your post was a very honest and effective way of explaining your situation and what you are looking for. I applaud you for that. And I admit I would put my proverbial hat in the ring if you were coming to my state. Alas I am not rich enough to travel to California. I hope you find a fun and interesting companion to fill your free time.
Well, do note, I travel a lot.
You are welcome to email me if you want to explore anywhere that might go.
A few genuine questions for you (and anyone in a “polyamorous marriage”): Why do you bother to use the term “marriage” to describe your relationship at all? Does term have any objective meaning, other than whatever meaning you wish to pour into it? Does your idea of “marriage” make any demands on you or ask any responsibilities of you?
Marriage is an actual, literal civil contract. It confers actual recognized rights and powers under the law.
If you want to know which rights and powers, every state’s legal code is accessible online.
I have so many other questions, I don’t even know where to begin!
– Exactly which aspect of “love” are you polyamorous about? (agape self-sacrificial love, brotherly love, mere effection, eros? For reference, see C.S. Lewis’ book “The Four Loves”).
– If you’re talking about the first type (agape, self-sacrificial love), are you really prepared to give yourself fully over to love and cherish every one of your “girlfriends”? If one of them gets cancer or needs some other emergency help, will you drop everything else to help them?
– What if one your many “occasional” girlfriends wants to get serious — perhaps even get married, and maybe even adopt some kids?
– When you first got married to your wife Jen, did you NEVER intend a life-long commitment to her? I also see you never even intended to have children. Is it accurate to even use the term “marriage” to describe your relationship with her?
C.S. Lewis was not a psychologist or sociologist and therefore was not an authority on human emotion. Indeed, most of our scientific knowledge of love and emotion and sexuality accumulated after he died. So, update your sources.
On a less theological and thus more reality-based categorization of love, see my other comment.
How much we do or sacrifice for each other is precisely what we get to negotiate, consensually, together. We can set any level of involvement we both want and can offer. Accordingly, it varies.
And if we can’t come to terms (e.g. if she wants things I don’t, and can’t offer), we aren’t right for each other. We move on. Happily.
Even often with referrals.
It’s common in the poly community when one relationship doesn’t work out, that your ex will help you find someone more to your needs and desires, and we pass referrals around the community in just such a fashion—since poly relationships break up more commonly in an amicable way than monogamous ones do, because of all the ways poly relationships avoid the toxic pitfalls endemic with monogamy—like falsely thinking you “have to make it work,” which results in dragging a relationship out far beyond it’s natural lifespan, to the point of accumulated resentment, and past both partner’s breaking points, often by accumulated interactive silence and dishonesty in the effort to not “cause problems” and thus “make it work.” But most people who are poly, if it’s not working, they tell you. And it’s not that tragic. Because you have other relationships to turn to. And you have accumulated no resentment. And you are already on board with that being the best way to manage our lives.
These kinds of toxic beliefs about monogamy ruin lives. Literally half of all marriages end in divorce—and a lot of those that don’t, end up in some state of tolerated disappointment—demonstrating it’s a failed model of relationships. It works for some people. But clearly, not most.
I, like most, believed these myths once. I thought you were supposed to always “make it work,” when in fact it wasn’t ever going to work. And there isn’t any way one can magically know that in advance…it’s something you will only ever discover after experience and time (especially as people change over time, and your self-understanding changes over time). So to think you can make a “forever promise” to such a thing is patently foolish and contrary to all sensible understanding of how human beings work.
Ultimately, marriage is just a civil contract conferring rights from the state not available to the single. It serves no other valid function. And like all contracts, it’s not eternal. It can be dissolved. And it doesn’t have to be dissolved in flames. Adults can amicably decide their contract has run its course and move on.
The sooner we all accept that, the happier the world will be.
I like you even more, RC, for positively acting on your convictions.
I have followed a lot of your speeches and presentations. I know a lot of atheists who still live like Christians and still have shame on normal positive behavior.
Hope my next few dates go as well as the ones you have eluded to in your description of a good date.
Richard, You have an excellent blog and of course you can choose to do what you will on it. You’re a brilliant historian and philosopher. And in general consensual romantic requests are fair game. Yet consent is nuanced and context dependent. Are you treading in uncharted waters with unpredictable outcomes? Can a line be crossed with romantic propositions on a scientific blog? Are we dealing with power differentials between yourself the one who controls the blog and the audience? What about privacy issues?
I’ll give you a hypothetical example to illustrate. I am an academic neurologist and I wish to start a neuroscience blog outside the boundaries of the university. On this blog I regularly discuss various neuroscientific issues and becomes quite popular among medical students at my institution. One fine day I write a similar post asking for a date. Medical students see that and then report the matter to my department Chair or to the Dean and sequelae may result in a tarnished reputation. Are you putting yourself at similar risk?
Granted, anything one says on a blog can theoretically be used against you. I could start an atheist blog and a hyperreligious medical student could report me. Anything is possible. However, tweets, blogs, emails of a romantic or sexual nature warrant special consideration to protect all individuals (ie. the blogger and the audience). Then again, perhaps I’m being way too paranoid for absolutely nothing. What are your thoughts?
“A scientific blog?”
???
Um.
I’m not a scientist.
I am not blogging for any employer, either. It’s my own property.
In fact, I have no employer. I am an independent scholar.
And this blog covers all subjects. Including my personal life. A lot.
That is actually, in fact, what personal blogs are for.
There are also no power issues between bloggers and readers. There are no privacy issues, either. I have the right to keep private or make public whatever I want about myself. So do my readers.
To suggest that people cannot talk about their personal lives in public because “you might get fired!” says a lot more about how awful a world must be that would fire you (or punish you in any way at all) for pursuing romances consensually and honestly on your own personal time and space.
This is a Christian idea. Not a secular or sane one. People should be free to express and discuss their sexuality on their own time and in their own places and not be punished for it. It has fuck all to do with their jobs or their ability to do them.
And if you need a historical lesson to illustrate the social injustice of what you are suggesting, read up on Alan Turing. Or this. Or this. Or this.
Trying to police people’s legal, consensual sex lives, romantic lives, and private lives by using economic coercion, is fundamentally immoral. And that is what should be the target of your concern here.
Already guaranteed? Nice work there, son!
You know, given that this has reaped dividends already, maybe you should think about capitalising on it, and see if you can get some more women to join you – you know, make it a three-or-four in the bed sort of deal? Hell, if I was fortunate enough to be in your position, I’d be up for giving it a shot.
The “already guaranteed” was in reference to my other girlfriends (who are already sleeping with me), not the LA date.
As to your recommendation to try and work up a group deal, although I don’t expect any such arrangement this time, I already have group sex—when my girlfriends are enthusiastically in for it (many of them even ask for it). But it’s not generally a first date thing. You usually have to know your partner well first before even discussing it.
Although, I have been invited to a first date that ended that way…more than once. But it wasn’t my plan. It was theirs. I don’t assume anyone is down for it. And I’ll do it if it’s offered. But I actually more prefer not to do group on my first date with someone. Because I like that to be as much about us as possible, so I can get to know them especially (in bed and out). I can think of exceptions though (e.g. hooking up with an awesome married couple our first night hanging out, because they are awesome).
If you don’t mind a platonic interaction, then why close the door on men who think they may have a good day with you? While I understand that you are in search of your ideal, and to find it, you have to map out what that ideal is, you have left the door open to find less than the ideal, but have closed the door on men, who may be an at the very least a very interesting conversation and a wonderful afternoon, in a similar way to a platonic female. Why?
The immediate place my brain went was that it seems like you know there would be no chance of having sex with them at all, but then I thought that maybe you think you get along better in the company of women (or maybe you haven’t met the right male friends), or that you are looking for at least a flirtatious environment (you didn’t state this explicitly above). Maybe it is because you are defining “date” as “time with a member of group I am attracted to.”
I’m floundering in understanding it, but I think it is just because the difference was not covered and I feel like, personally, platonic time with both men and women feel the same to me, but I’m very much a straight woman. Let’s just say I’d also call myself a .5 on the Kinsey scale.
What would be the difference between a “platonic date” with a woman and an afternoon spent with a man you had a good time with?
I should say, it is perfectly fine to shut that door and that you can have any interaction you want and define it any way you want. I just want to know what the difference is for you, since that wasn’t really covered, and since I don’t personally feel one once I’m on a platonic level. I was also hoping you would cover this for any men out there who might be thinking, “aww, I want to spend a platonic afternoon with you and I think we’d get along great.”
This sounds like you think relationships are only about sex. Because it doesn’t appear to have occurred to you that “platonic” does not mean “non-romantic.”
I’m looking for a girlfriend. And I want to devote that available time to that. Looking for a girlfriend requires dating. And dates often end with “that was nice, but we aren’t suited to each other” or “I need more time and experience with you to decide about going further.” Thus, if that should be how this date ends, I don’t want my date stranded with nowhere to sleep (or for me to be so). And I have no problem respecting that.
Thus, we are still exploring the prospect of a relationship; and that does not require assurances of sex. Platonically ending the night respects the latter. That does not negate the former.
So why not do something else?
Because looking for relationships is a much better use of our time, in the pursuit of happiness—mine and theirs. That’s so even though there have to be dates that end in a no.
“This sounds like you think relationships are only about sex.”
No. I think it is pretty clear that I’m trying to open your perspective to include people you know you would never have sex with, which would mean I very specifically believe that relationships do not have to include sex.
“Because it doesn’t appear to have occurred to you that “platonic” does not mean “non-romantic.””
You are correct. 🙂 I think that clears it up.
An interesting post. Going out of town and looking for a date. What is the problem with that? I don’t get all the trolling and people trying to make this look like something other than what it is. Im an old married guy and I don’t see a darn thing wrong with this. Frankly, if you aren’t interested in dating Mr. Carrier and you find his posting on his own blog that he is looking for a date, then please feel free to go away and read something else. I envy you for going to the science museum and seeing those things. All I ever get to do is go fishing from time to time. Good luck sir, and I hope you have a good time and a pleasant date.
Just FYI, the backstory is (other than the Christian trolls here, who honestly think polyamory is destroying the world):
A bunch of people delusionally think we are anti-sex prudes. But, because in reality we are not, we often publish pro-sex articles on our blogs. Which they then flip their lid at, because “we are anti-sex prudes” (they delusionally insist), therefore our writing pro-sex cannot be evidence falsifying that myth, therefore (by circular logic) it must be hypocrisy.
Now already we are off the rails of rationality. But here is the wild twist: their newfound delusion that we are hypocrites, enrages these people. Something must be done! So they grab their torches and pitchforks and endeavor to attack us (for being the thing they are angry we are not, even though we are that thing). The weird thing is that the way they choose to attack us, is to pretend they are anti-sex prudes, so as to “teach us a lesson.” Or something.
It doesn’t make sense. But alas. That’s what most of these comments are really about. Many of these commenters don’t actually believe any of the things they are saying. They delusionally believe we believe them, and therefore “repeating” them back at us is supposed to somehow expose our hypocrisy or something. I don’t know.
That it’s all delusional, illogical, and completely out of touch with reality is both hilarious and frustrating.
“like falsely thinking you “have to make it work,” — In other words, your relationships make NO demand on you at all?
Nice demonstration of a straw man fallacy. You just equated “too many intolerable demands” with “any demands of any kind whatever.”
Go learn some logic. Then try again.
I also noticed nowhere are the importance of CHILDREN’s wellbeing mentioned. How exactly is polyamorism ordered to THEIR good?
Google “polyamory” and “parenting.”
I know a polyamorous family who live together.
Imagine that instead of having 1-2 parents on whom you can rely you have 4 parents. There is always someone available for you, there is always someone looking out for you. If both of your biological parents are stressed out and too busy there are still 2 people you can go and talk to. They are the most secure and happy kids I know. You wouldn’t think it was particularly weird if someone had their grandparents living with them; it isn’t weird to have other adults living with you.
Not everyone does it this way, there are other ways that also work.
C.S. Lewi’s distinctions of the different “loves” is based on the various Greek words for love: Agápe (ἀγάπη), Éros (ἔρως), Philia (φιλία), Storge (στοργή) — which as a student of Greek, I’m sure you’re very familiar with! I think these are simply meaningful and valid ways to talk about it.
I wouldn’t claim C.S. Lewis is an expert in human emotion. But even with a current scientific body of data on HOW human emotions work — that doesn’t necessarily tell us anything about how we OUGHT to act. You’re going to find rather reductionist studies seem to be supporting either side. It’s not at all clear based on the scientific literature alone what one SHOULD do.
As a side note: You’re also probably well aware of the inherent inequality in polygyny vs. polyandry — it mainly benefits men, but not the converse for women. It would seem the principle of charity, stability, equality and the well-being of children would favor monogomy.
Search:
“Discover Magazine – Monogamous societies superior to polygamous societies”
“Joseph Henrich, Robert Boyd, and Peter J. Richerson, The puzzle of monogamous marriage”
Dude, going backwards to ancient Greeks is the wrong direction. Scientific facts are in the other direction.
There is no evidence that monogamy works better than polyamory. And polyamory is the opposite of polygyny and polyandry (the latter are both one sided and thus oppressive and unjust). Thus, you can’t draw conclusions about polyamory by studying sexist oppressive polygynous (or even polyandrous) cultures.
Case in point, one of the arguments in Henrich et al. is that polygyny leaves a large pool of men without sexual partners, thus ginning up crime and unrest. Note how polyamory does not have that effect. In fact, it has the opposite effect: it makes more sexual partners available to everyone.
So, you, like a Creationist, are misusing the science.
I would recommend you instead read Sex at Dawn: How We Mate, Why We Stray, and What it Means for Modern Relationships. Written by a fully qualified psychologist and an MD (since you like science so much).
“Nice demonstration of a straw man fallacy. You just equated “too many intolerable demands” with “any demands of any kind whatever.””
Not at all — most people’s ideas of “intolerable demands” is extremely subjective. What is an “intolerable demand?” (Besides the most obvious cases — where someone is forcing you to commit a crime, or subjecting you to abuse)
Unless everyone considers all demands intolerable, you are not defending yourself here.
The question of CHILDREN (“What about the children?”) is interesting,
but rather naive, IMHO. We are poly, and our son is top of his class,
a brilliant, curious, thinking, tinkering, guy that has a great
environment and loving parents. He is one of the most well adjusted
kids I have met, and he acts like a mini-adult in many ways. That he
sees his parents having social actions with others changes none of
that. It’s not like he has to step through orgies to walk across the
living room. What he actually experiences is acceptence in a larger
adult group, and participates in the discussions sometimes and hangs
out with us, a group of friends. We even (sometimes) play group
multi-player video games together and include him, which he likes very
much. It’s not weird to him; it’s just normal social interaction.
If you’re worrying about CHILDREN, there are some real things to worry
about, but loving households isn’t one of them.
The CHILDREN that I feel very sorry for are those growing up in
households fill them with lies about possibly burning in hell.
Spending a lifetime in fear of an imaginary unending torture has
profound effects on people, and it isn’t good. Living under the
continual fear of being spied upon by the ultimate all-knowing
security-camera-in-the-sky, always being judged with no secret too
small, causes real harm to children, twisting their minds and scaring
them into obedience to an archaic system of strict rules and
judgement, and where independent thinking and judgement is a crime,
not a virtue. Walk the line, question nothing (or if you do question
something, do it superficially such that it doesn’t really harm your
faith), adopt the group-think, OR ELSE.
Also, if you’re concerned for children, you should be far more
concerned for those in broken homes, where the parents fight
regularly, or where there’s abuse, alcoholism, neglect, and so on.
Many of these problems are symptoms of deeper problems, and the
children suffer dearly.
“if you’re concerned for children, you should be far more
concerned for those in broken homes, where the parents fight
regularly, or where there’s abuse, alcoholism, neglect, and so on.”
Yes, I’m concerned about them, too — And also for children without a stable mother/father relationship — particular children with no parents at ALL. (We actually adopted two orphaned children ourselves and give money to organizations that support adoption and troubled families). One concern need not trump all the rest you mentioned.
The sexual act itself that produced a child is an inherently monogamous act. There should be a congruity between the act itself — and the fidelity, responsibility and love of the parents involved. When casual, sexual union is completely isolated from any charity, long-term commitment (and yes — monogamy) of the parents, I think that produces a real injustice for children. If I could apply Ockham’s Razor’s (simplicity or economy of explanation) as one guiding principle to the structure of marriage, family and the raising of children — monogamy wins hands down.
By way — I have not said one word about religious belief.
Why you think sex and love must be tied to children I can’t fathom. Infertile couples can’t be in love or enjoy a sex life?
Obviously your worldview makes no sense.
We don’t need to even love or have sex with someone to have their child (rape, divorce, separation, in vitro fertilization, etc.) nor do parents have to be the one who made the child (remarriage, adoption). Nor does it have to be two people raising a child (most cultures throughout history were extended household cultures, in which multiple family members and friends all helped raise a child). Nor are even two required (plenty of single parent children grow up just fine; while many children from traditional mom-dad homes grow up completely messed up; good parenting is about parenting, not numbers).
#59
History being a social science is why I consider this a scientific blog. But I digress from the discussion here. Best of luck and I hope you have a most excellent romantic interlude (platonic or not). Polyamory does bring to my mind this Monty Python sketch:
I don’t see the relevance of that sketch.
PZ Myers not only nails this issue shut (since trolls kept asking him to scold me), but the entire comment thread there is a fantastic read. I highly recommend it to everyone here!
Because of PZ’s comment thread, I wanted to come by and give positive support. Polyamory isn’t for me, but more power to you.
One of the comments in PZ’s thread suggested that posting a blog post about looking for dates and inviting people to contact you – that actually has less power-imbalance and consent issues than asking for dates on the spot in person at a convention or meeting. That’s a brilliant observation, and and made me love this even more.
My goodness. I read PZ’s summary and, from the sound of the vitriol trolls aimed at you over this, thought this post was going to be salacious. Or at least licentious. Instead, it’s so nicely… bland. 🙂 Sounds like a lovely day at the museums, a stellar model of explicitly establishing a continual clear consent framework, and honestly, a smart move to seek a potential partner in a place where you are most likely to find women who have a lot of things in common with you (otherwise, why are they reading the stuff you write?). I don’t see how anyone could find something to complain about here.
So I Googled “PIV,” and this was one of the first hits: https://witchwind.wordpress.com/2013/12/15/piv-is-always-rape-ok/ Is this satire? Or is there really a serious “radfem” view that penis-in-vagina intercourse is always rape?
Upon further investigation, it looks like this is a view that is taken very seriously by radical feminists. The idea is that PIV is inherently violent and harmful towards women, and the only reason a woman would ever “choose” to have PIV intercourse is because she has been brainwashed/tricked by the patriarchal system, so it still counts as rape even when consensual.
That might be a Poe.
But it reads like things I’ve read from an extreme fringe misunderist wing of feminism, whose members are extremely rare (rarer even within feminism than white supremacism within atheism). So it could well be legit. It’s just as bizarre as flat earthism. (Yes, also still a thing.)
Note, though, that “radical feminism” is a historical term for a more varied movement within feminism. So it’s not applicable here, as being too general. Misandrist feminism might be a better term.
Here’s some evidence supporting my last post:
Search for:
“Effects of family type (monogamy or polygamy) International Journal of Psychology and Counselling”
“THE NATIONAL MARRIAGE PROJECT : The Next Generation Series A Comprehensive Review of Recent Research David Popenoe and Barbara Dafoe Whitehead”
That’s not a new piece of information. I already refuted trying to use that data to make your point here.
Hello Mr. Carrier,
Let me begin by saying two things: first that I have no problem with polyamory, and second that even if I did have a problem I expect a man such as yourself would not care.
That said, I do think you’re deliberately misrepresenting the criticisms that some of your commentators are leveling against you. And while the misunderstanding for the most part is probably more their fault than yours due to some spectacularly poor articulation on their part, they aren’t posturing as men and women of reason. You are.
Their first criticism is you’re engaging in an unseemly blending of purpose. Check out your sidebar on the top left of the page. Where does it indicate that this is a blog which serves as both an intellectual outlet, and also as instrument for you to obtain booty calls? Do you imagine if you stated that from the beginning that your blog would have been taken as seriously from an academic standpoint? It has the same feeling as a popular preacher inviting beautiful young women back to his hotel for personal bible study. It muddies the preacher’s motives. Is he there to spread the word of god, or women’s legs? Your purpose here is now similarly muddied.
The second criticism is one of hypocrisy. Is this not the same community that rage exploded into thousands of gooey social justice chunks when some random man asked a woman to his room for coffee in an elevator, and no more? The clear implication of the elevator proposition was “Hey let’s talk, and then sex if you want to!”, where as your request is “Let’s share a hotel! You don’t have to have sex, but I’ll need to see a pic of you first for reasons. Cheers!” It seems like this some members of this community’s application of when hippie sexual freedom is appropriate is… capricious. At best.
From your responses to you critics you appear a profoundly unlikable person. This, rather than rampant misogyny, may be the root cause of the high volume of trolling you’re receiving. Nevertheless, I wish a speedy end to the mudslinging, and good luck to you.
That you call asking for a date a “booty call” immediately convicts you of having derogatory attitudes toward dating. That exposes you as sex-negative.
Your standards also make no logical sense. Nowhere on my blog does it say it’s an “intellectual outlet” either. Those words, nowhere here. So apparently, by your reasoning, it would be unethical for me to even have “intellectual discussions” here.
The real question then is, why do you think a blog description must mention every possible thing the blogger might ever blog about? And why do you think that’s some sort of ethical standard anyone should have?
And why does asking people for dates call anything into question about your capability in philosophy or history or politics or the merits of any of your arguments? There is no plausible logical connection between having a public dating life, and anything else we say or do “being muddied.” And expectedly, you stated none.
Meanwhile, your attempt to use the elevator myth on me convicts you of being delusional. If you do not know the difference between that, and this, you have a serious fucking problem. And to help you with that, go find my discussion of “Elevatorgate” here. For you not to notice the difference, quite frankly, makes you look scary.
Would you ever consider dating a guy?
As stated, 0.5 Kinsey.
So, no. Not my sexual orientation.
As an aside, if you ever get the spare time and have the inclination, you should read up on why the LGBTQIAetc community has largely abandoned the Kinsey Scale, in favor of using more descriptive words.
tl;dr orientation isn’t linear
Noted.
I truly could care less as to whether or not you’re polyamorous. You’re also free to do whatever it is you like with your blog. My problem is that others do care, some far too much, and it will distract from what I believe is your most important work (the historicity of Jesus). I could see opponents using something like this in future debates in an ad hominem attack/red herring and I just don’t think you should be even giving them that opportunity; it’s unnecessary. Either way, good luck and I look forward to seeing you demolish more Christian apologists in the future.
This is Christian thinking: that people’s sexuality causes ill repute, therefore people should hide their sexuality.
The people who are fucked up in this scenario? The ones who think people’s sexuality causes ill repute.
I will not submit to oppression. And that is what you are describing. I will not let Christians decide how I am going to live my life or what I’m going to discuss about it. This is the same as saying I should not be out as gay, because “that will be used against me.”
Christians don’t get to put us in the closet.
And if any Christian tries such a bullshit ad hominem or well-poisoning fallacy, I’ll call them on it. Full on. And anyone who is not embarrassed they tried that, is someone who is too irrational to be persuaded even by someone who lives like a monk.
The sad thing is that your concern trolling is so disingenuous. You never said this when I wrote a defense of the legality and morality of sex work. Yet that was used against me in debates. Exactly as you “feared.” You never said this when I came out making a strong case against the historicity of Jesus. Yet that was used against me in debates. Exactly as you “feared.”
Nope. Only when I’m dating, do you freak out.
Wake up. And purge this little Christian anti-sex homunculus from your mind.
Fight oppression. Don’t endorse it.
Add this Aussie to the list of those wishing you well. Hope you have fun and success and a great day, night and time generally.
BTW. As a huge astronomy and space exploration buff I’d love to read about the Space Shuttle Endeavour display and see your impressions , thoughts etc .. on that – hope they let you take photos there and we get to hear about that part of your visit to the California Science Center.
PS. You may have mentioned this elsewhere and I haven’t (yet) seen but what are your thoughts on Heinlein’s / Michael (martian) Valentine’s sex lives and community arrangements in the famous ‘Stranger in a Strange Land’ novel and how much do they line up with the reality you’ve experienced of polyamoury?
[This troll tried impersonating Rebecca Watson to represent her as a prostitute, which is an excellent way of showing what swell people these trolls are. Remarks deleted.—RC]
Ok, I read about a quarter of the comments, and as amusing as it was, I probably should get on with things.
Anyway, I just wanted to say, I wish more people of public note would be this honest. Most of the more questionable conduct that has occurred from celebrities wanting sex is their willingness to use their clout and fame to blur the barriers and maintain secrecy. In posting this, you’ve been upfront about what you want, and given the other a chance to state what they want, so there is no need for boundary blurring, and the process lends itself to transparency. I mean, if you Richard were to act unethically, then your reputation would be on the line for all to see. For that reason I wish you luck on your venture, and I hope it succeeds as a model for others to follow.
Good luck with this Richard. I love the approach and hope you meet someone that you hit it off with.
The disingenuous prudery on display here is staggering – at least it would be, were the double-standards and ignorance of your average MRA/FtB-hater not already well-known due to being frequently broadcast at this very site at every possible opportunity.
Where precisely does the idea of FtB being a hotbed (as it were) of steely-eyed Victorian chaperones come from anyway? Is it really as simple as a few thoughtless goons with a warped agenda conflating (carelessly or intentionally) the general local attitude towards consent and context with prudish sex-negativity? Clearly, the insane overreactions following the Elevator thing and T-foot’s infamous, petulant flame-out over harassment policies are still reverberating throughout the misogysphere and still being glommed on to as ammunition to launch at feminist skeptics & atheists.
Richard, I was surprised by one thing, though – this charge of you attempting to leverage some alleged author/reader power differential gave me an unexpected chuckle. First: no offence, but you’re not 1984-era David Lee Roth trawling the backstage area for starstruck groupies; second: it seems like an attempt to depict you in the role of a teacher trying it on with his students. I really don’t see a person publicly seeking like-minded company like this as problematic in any way (it’s your personal blog, not your LinkedIn page, for example); any more than if you’d just posted a link to a dating site profile and left it at that (of course, this was far better as you were explicit and honest about the whole situation).
Anyway, it’s almost like your critics don’t even read past your post titles before commenting (and if they do they’re usually just skimming for ammo not and bothering to actually comprehend). Seems like you did the right thing expunging & summarising the usual suspects’ idiocy. All the best.
I also thought the “coercion through fame” charge was beyond ridiculous. Of course, the people claiming that are being wildly disingenuous. They don’t believe their own arguments, but are trying to set some kind of “logic trap” to make Carrier look like a hypocrite. Unfortunately, their understanding of “logic” is just as bad as their understanding of “consent”, so they just look like morons.
Bringing this to your attention: https://twitter.com/MythicalJesus
Check out the “Tweets and Replies” tab.
You might already know.
Thanks. Reported as a fake account. But Twitter is unlikely to do anything about it.
This is the view of a fringe minority. Pro-tip: your rectum is not a good source of information about feminism, radical or otherwise. Also not a good source: the internet ponderings of a fuzzy-headed nobody, cherry-picked because they support your preconceptions (or because you think you can use them as anti-feminist propaganda.)
No, Steve McRib. Yours is the community that rage exploded into thousands of noisesome sillyfecker chunks when a woman, uncomfortable at being propositioned by a stranger in an elevator, said, “Guys, don’t do that.”
And proceeded to harass the shit out of her for years after.
But other than Richard not, you know, propositioning a stranger in an elevator at 4:00am, and the person propositioned mildly objecting and then getting hyperbolic shit for it–sure, this is EXACTLY THE SAME SORT OF THING.
“nor do parents have to be the one who made the child (remarriage, adoption). Nor does it have to be two people raising a child”
Every child that comes into the world has had (at least at one point in their lives) ONE father and ONE Mother. But that does NOT in any way preclude the importance of secondary care-givers or the involvement of extended families. In fact, one of the tragedies on our modern age is the fragmentation of the extended family.
That has nothing to do with who you love or have sex with.
So I’ll consider this your admission that I refuted everything you tried to argue against polyamory here.
“So I’ll consider this your admission that I refuted everything you tried to argue against polyamory here.”
I simply acknowledged that extended families/close friends are a very good thing to have in helping raise children. But what does that have to do with the merits of polyamory? The two are not the same thing.
BTW: Simply because a person raises legitimate criticisms about the wisdom of polyamory and it’s alleged good for society (and for children) does not automatically make them an oppressive, anti-sex, prudish, trolling hater.
Anyway, I’m afraid I’m going to have to leave it at that, for now.
Cheers, Dan
I don’t think you understand how refutations work. You made a claim. I refuted it. You haven’t even tried re-defending the claim I refuted.
Moving the goal posts is a fallacy. Learn how logic works.
‘The “already guaranteed” was in reference to my other girlfriends (who are already sleeping with me), not the LA date.’
Ah, misread that. Oh well, keep plugging away brah – I’m sure you’ll end up with another fine bird to go with the others. 🙂
And it’s not as if you’re doing so bad anyways. Wouldn’t want your condom bill, tho. lol.
You know you can get condoms for free, right?
If you need to.
Condoms aren’t actually that expensive.
I wandered over here from Pharangula.
This is reminding me of an issue I had on a women’s conception support group. One lady’s partner had suggested they try swinging and she wanted some thoughts. Everyone told her that she shouldn’t put up with it and he doesn’t respect her and can’t possibly be serious about a baby because he wants to waste his precious time and semen somewhere else. (Note that a very common discussion is that men often don’t want to have sex at exactly the right time, even if they’re serious about conception. The acceptable advice is lacy underwear and scented candles). I am polyamourous, but in a strict primary/secondary way, so I talked about my personal experience and how having sex with others can actually revitalise your intimate relations, so he’s more likely to want to have sex at appropriate times. My comments were removed for being “offensive” and “off topic”. Because sex is apparently not involved in conception unless it follows the standard narrative. And my life is offensive and can be deleted… because everyone should feel safe and accepted. Ahem.
Your date sounds awesome. As an ex-Christian I could probably listen to you fascinated for hours. Unfortunately I’m on the wrong side of the Pacific.
I think it’s pretty notable that almost all the negative comments here appear to be written by men, while the comments from women tend to be positive or neutral.
Ash: I’ll fuck ya!
Richard: That sounds a bit too reductive.
Okay, yeah, that got a legit laugh-out-loud from me. Classy understatement. 🙂
Good luck with this Richard. Curious to see how it turns out.
Dr. Carrier,
Long time, no comment — but good on you mate! I see nothing wrong with what you’re doing, and I hope it all works out.
Geez, mate. The number of logical fallacies and absolute twattery I’m seeing on here from the usual “trollific” bunch makes me not only endorse your and JJ Lowder’s reasoning course, but makes me think it — as in a logical fallacies course, and how the fuck to reason — should be, at least in Australia, part of our national curriculum.
Lol, free thought blog, yet there is censorship. The irony.
If a publisher does not agree to publish your useless tracts, they are not censoring you. They are censuring you.
Free speech means I don’t have to publish things that contain no evidence, no argument, only abuse and lies.
Actual arguments, with evidence, without vacuous abuse, get published here.
If you want to read shit that isn’t an actual argument, is based on no presented evidence, or is just an attempt at vacuous ad hominem abuse, go somewhere else for your entertainment.
This blog, has standards.
(Hence, see previous comment.)
[Stock trolling remark deleted—RC]
Have you heard of the proverb “you don’t shit where you eat” ?
Ok, we get it! You don’t apply to that, you are different, but i don’t think it’s fair to censor trolls since you took the risk of makin’ your private life public. You should take the good, the bad and the ugly like the open minded polyamorous man you are. I don’t label myself as a Nazi and expect society to respond positive to me because i consider that being a Nazi is a good thing and everyone should be a Nazi.
There is no logical connection between your premise and your conclusion.
Free speech means I can publish whatever the fuck I want on my blog.
Trolls, have no such right, neither legally, nor morally.
This is my house. On my property, you have to follow my rules. Everything else is a waste of my and everyone else’s time. (See previous comment.)
As to your Nazi comment, that’s not even intelligible. Nor is your weird shitting comment intelligible as an analogy to anything here.
Hi Richard, just to let you know Thunderf00t did a video on you about your sex life. If you can respond, that would be some great fun. Thanks.
I no longer care what that lunatic says.