How come LessWrong never embraced prostate orgasms?

Name
Email
Subject
Comment *
File	Select/drop/paste files here
* = required field	[▶ Show post options & limits] Confused? See the FAQ.

Embed	(replaces files and can be used instead)
Oekaki	Show oekaki applet (replaces files and can be used instead)
Options	Do not bump (you can also write sage in the email field) Spoiler images (this replaces the thumbnails of your images with question marks)
Password	(For file and post deletion.)
Allowed file types:jpg, jpeg, gif, png, webm, mp4, pdf, pdf Max filesize is 16 MB. Max image dimensions are 15000 x 15000. You may upload 5 per post.

File: e1faf6df3cbf8f9⋯.jpg (37.19 KB, 600x523, 600:523, 600xNxProstateExamDiagramN.jpg)

How come LessWrong never embraced prostate orgasms? Anonymous 08/19/17 (Sat) 15:02:42 No.6575

It appears as if there is widespread adulation for prostate orgasms, but I don't think there has been a single mention in the history of lesswrong (or the surrounding communities). Lesswrong has embraced a lot of outside of the box things such as poly relationships, or dedicating significant resources to preventing unfriendly AI.

Do you think that prostate orgasms are something that should be embraced? Can you think of why they have been ignored by the rationalist community?

Anonymous 08/19/17 (Sat) 15:02:54 No.6576

;)

Anonymous 08/19/17 (Sat) 15:03:06 No.6577

Rationally, while the benefits to the individual practitioners might be great, the status hit to the community would be enormous.

"Rationalism? Oh yeah they're the guys who write 10,000 word blog posts about how to scientifically fuck themselves up the ass!"

If I was Yudkowsky and I'd discovered this and thought it was great, I'd keep it to myself. Too much risk of detracting from more important goals. Polyamory is weird and alternative and a few inferential steps away for most people, prostate stimulation immediately pattern-matches and is easy to attack.

I feel the same way about the My Little Pony stuff.

Anonymous 08/19/17 (Sat) 15:03:19 No.6578

>>6577

So we should write the modern kama sutra instead, how to have the best sex possible, long full body orgasms etc what drugs to use how to properly exercise, how much fapping is optimal etc. Would be crazy publicity, much status if we can discover how to have really great sex even if everybody is ugly as fuck.

So who is going to suck some cock in the name of science? EAs should finance this whole thing.

Anonymous 08/19/17 (Sat) 15:03:29 No.6579

>>6578

u just got memed

Anonymous 08/19/17 (Sat) 15:04:01 No.6580

nigga thats gay

Anonymous 08/19/17 (Sat) 15:04:18 No.6581

>>6580

How is this kind or necessary?

Anonymous 08/19/17 (Sat) 15:04:40 No.6582

File: 44728b8dc4c760f⋯.png (31.41 KB, 677x315, 677:315, this is the kind of gratui.png)

File: d0916d0ff66f6d8⋯.png (31.22 KB, 677x315, 677:315, this is the kind of gratui.png)

>>6575

>>6577

Copypasting from elsewhere does not a good imageboard post make.

Anyhow, the real reason is that you don't need magical rationalist powers to do this. You need magical rationality powers to engage in polyamory, but you don't need anyone's permission to embrace prostate orgasms. This is also why S&M is not a rationalism thing, despite it being EY's fetish.

Just in case you were wondering.

Anonymous 08/19/17 (Sat) 15:04:57 No.6583

>>6582

>good

Anonymous 08/19/17 (Sat) 15:05:14 No.6584

>>6582

>the real reason is that you don't need magical rationalist powers to do this. You need magical rationality powers to engage in polyamory

What do you mean by magic powers? Do you mean because polyamory is more visible to others? How do these powers help to practice polyamory?

Anonymous 08/19/17 (Sat) 15:05:30 No.6585

>>6584

Polyamory is inhuman, and you have to twist your mind up in knots to get yourself to accept it. "It takes someone very smart to be so stupid". Whereas prostate orgasms naturally feel pretty good.

Anonymous 08/19/17 (Sat) 15:05:41 No.6586

>>6585

wat.

Anonymous 08/19/17 (Sat) 15:05:56 No.6587

>>6586

http://lesswrong.com/lw/79x/polyhacking/

Anonymous 08/19/17 (Sat) 15:06:18 No.6588

>>6581

Ha, I knew you wouldn't ask how it was true!

Anonymous 08/19/17 (Sat) 15:06:28 No.6589

File: 643911477736554⋯.png (236.54 KB, 501x300, 167:100, 4s4o1aw6.png)

>>6587

>This is a post about applied luminosity in action.

Anonymous 08/19/17 (Sat) 15:06:58 No.6590

>>6587

that doesn't look anything like twisting your mind in knots, or particularly inhuman, and anyway being poly is normal? like just bc alicorn was default mono doesn't mean everybody is?

How come LessWrong never embraced knotting? Anonymous 08/19/17 (Sat) 15:07:10 No.6591

File: 7d91c92d26eb20c⋯.jpg (37.38 KB, 395x410, 79:82, male-anatomy.jpg)

>>6590

It appears as if there is widespread adulation for knotting, but I don't think there has been a single mention in the history of lesswrong (or the surrounding communities). Lesswrong has embraced a lot of outside of the box things such as Roko's Basilisk, or dedicating significant resources to torturing people to prevent risks to ocular comfort.

Do you think that knotting is something that should be embraced? Can you thing of why it has been ignored by the rationalist community?

Anonymous 08/19/17 (Sat) 15:07:38 No.6592

>>6591

wait, humans can do knotting? omg, this is great news, we have to tell the a/b/o fandom

Anonymous 08/19/17 (Sat) 15:07:56 No.6593

>>6584

Openness, checking your assumptions, talking things through in a productive way. Things not everyone will do, that rationalists aught to be capable of.

Like, the very first step is often saying to a partner in a monogamous relationship, "I would like if we could see other people but not in a bad way"

So, a normal person, on being asked that question, will immediately decide "Oh. This is a really underhanded way to ask to break up. If this is how they think they've probably already been cheating on me."

They do not even try to question those assumptions or understand what is really going on in your head. If you disagree they'll assume you're lying.

Rationalists aught to be better than that.

Anonymous 08/19/17 (Sat) 15:08:10 No.6594

>>6578

Doubleplusyes, any organization oriented towards optimizing collective utility should be seen as extremely serious about sex.

Anonymous 08/19/17 (Sat) 15:08:40 No.6595

>>6582

>S&M is not a rationalism thing

how so? i'm a sadist you're a masochist, shouldnt we obviously get together? what could be more rational!?!

Anonymous 08/19/17 (Sat) 15:09:03 No.6596

File: e135f05fecfe41d⋯.png (58.11 KB, 433x625, 433:625, common interest.png)

effective altruism

Anonymous 08/19/17 (Sat) 15:09:18 No.6597

>>6585

If being able to love more than one person is inhuman, fuck humanity what's it worth anyway?

Anonymous 08/19/17 (Sat) 15:09:31 No.6598

>>6597

Polycucks can't even love one person, let alone more than one.

If you don't care that some other dude is plowing your woman, it means that you don't love her.

Anonymous 08/19/17 (Sat) 15:09:56 No.6599

File: f4ee6434daed4cf⋯.jpg (39.44 KB, 680x680, 1:1, children this is bait.jpg)

>>6598

Unsubstantiated claims and the word cuck… I hope you enjoy looking at this image I hand-picked for you :-)

>>6584

I'm >>6582, but >>6593 did a pretty good job explaining. I'd like to expand upon it a little:

Not only do you have to be able to examine and reject your latent pro-monogamy belief that you got from society, you need to create a community where having done this is the cultural norm (where else would you get people to join your harem?). Furthermore, this involves changing group dynamics to reduce jealously and friction, so it's a valuable shared value for the community. Thus, it's a fitting thing to bring up in the context of a rationalist community. S&M and prostate orgasms can be practiced without said community, and so are not mentioned.

>>6591

LW didn't embrace Roko's Basilisk.

>>6595

Because I'm a sadist as well, so it wouldn't work out.