Newcomb’s Problem and Relationship Rules

In my defense of egoism, I discussed Newcomb’s Problem, summarized in the Less Wrong wiki as:

a superintelligence called Omega shows you two boxes, A and B, and offers you the choice of taking only box A, or both boxes A and B. Omega has put $1,000 in box B. If Omega thinks you will take box A only, he has put $1,000,000 in it. Otherwise he has left it empty. Omega has played this game many times, and has never been wrong in his predictions about whether someone will take both boxes or not.

Classic decision theory states that you should “two-box,” i.e. take both boxes, because nothing you do at that point will change what is in the boxes. The way to “win” the game is not to take one box. The only way to win is, at the time Omega makes their decision, to convince Omega that you are going to take one box.

Omega, though, is superintelligent, as has never been wrong about a prediction. Trying to outsmart Omega is risky at best, doomed at worst. The most effective strategy is to commit, before Omega fills the boxes, to only taking one box. And the commitment must be real. You have to change something in your brain to cause you to one-box despite the fact it is ostensibly in your best interest to take both.

This dovetails nicely with my post about why we make rules. In that post, I discussed how relationship rules function as psychological barriers. When we make a commitment, we create an obligation in our minds that encourages us to stick to the commitment, even if it seems like a bad idea at the time. This is exactly the way to win Newcomb’s Problem.

So when considering relationship rules, the operative question is whether the situation that the rule addresses is Newcomblike. If it is, making the rule is a good idea. But if it isn’t, making the rule unnecessarily limits your future behavior for no good reason, which can lead to unhappiness, resentment, toxic power differentials, and shaming. Questions to ask are:

  • Do I want to be the type of person who would follow this rule?
  • Do I trust my decision-making enough to make the correct choice without this rule?
  • Even though I know now what the right choice is, do I think that I will make the wrong choice in the moment?
  • Do I have enough information to make this decision now? Could I learn more information that would change my decision?
  • Is there a compelling reason why this decision needs to be made right now?

The dangerous part about gaming Newcomb’s problem is that to work, commitments must be irrevocable. In practice, that’s not really an option, but making a strong commitment can still be disastrous if minds are changed later. Trust me. I’m a divorce lawyer. So it’s important to really examine whether the situation is Newcomblike. If it is, make the commitment; but if not, it’s time to look for another solution.

Rational Relationships: The Illusion of Transparency

The illusion of transparency is a common cognitive bias wherein people overestimate both the degree to which their internal thoughts are apparent to those around them and the degree to which they understand the internal thoughts of others.

The classic example was a 1990 Stanford study where test subjects would tap out the rhythm of a well-known song (e.g. Happy Birthday or The Star-Spangled Banner) with their finger across from another test subject, who was supposed to listen to the taps and guess the song. Before the listener guessed, the tapper was asked to predict whether the listener would be able to guess correctly. Tappers predicted that listeners would guess correctly about 50% of the time. Listeners actually guessed correctly about 3% of the time.

The disparity came from the fact that tappers couldn’t help but hear the song in their heads as they tapped the rhythm, and had an enormous amount of difficulty imagining what it was like not to know the song. Try it yourself! Tap out the rhythm to a song, and try to imagine trying to guess what song it is. It seems much easier than it actually is. Meanwhile, the listeners are just hearing a sequence of taps with no context for what they mean, and tend to have no idea what the song could possibly be.

It’s not difficult to see how this could affect our relationships. The number one piece of relationship advice that tends to be given, especially in nonmonogamous relationships, is to communicate. The reason that this advice is so popular is because of the illusion of transparency. We tend to assume that our partners know what we want and how we feel to a much greater extent than they do. Likewise, we tend to assume that we understand how our partners feel to a much greater extent than we actually do.

Like most cognitive biases, the best way to avoid the negative consequences of the illusion of transparency is simply to be aware of it and expect it. If you want something from your partner, and you think it’s obvious, say it anyway. There’s a strong chance that your partner simply wasn’t aware of what you wanted. If you think you’re giving your partner what they want, make sure to check in periodically. It’s likely that there may be an issue that you weren’t aware of that your partner thought was obvious. This can happen with big topics, such as whether to have children, and small topics, such as what to have for dinner.1this is one reason why I recommend that all people planning to be married employ a marriage planning agreement We can overlook the fact that a partner is preparing to leave or the fact that a partner is deliriously happy.

Some people find it romantic to imagine a situation where partners “just know” what each other are thinking without having to say anything. Romantic as it may be, it’s a dangerous ideal precisely because it reinforces and encourages the illusion of transparency. In the real world. it’s almost always better to say what you’re thinking, even if you think your partner already knows.

Wesley Fenza is an attorney practicing in New Jersey and Pennsylvania. His practice areas include divorce, criminal defense, and civil litigation. If you are in need of legal advice, please contact him.

   [ + ]

1. this is one reason why I recommend that all people planning to be married employ a marriage planning agreement

Political Responsibility

This past weekend, a North Carolina Republican field office was firebombed, with the words “Nazi Republicans leave town or else” and a swastika spraypainted on the walls. In response, within hours, a group of democrats raised $13,000 to pay to reopen the office. This has widely been hailed as an admirable move by the democrats for showing solidarity in the face of terrorism.
Not all commentary has been positive, though. In particular, some corners of the social justice community have been critical, for reasons mostly summed up in this article:

Last year, Texas Republicans made dramatic cuts to the Medicaid program that helps provide physical and speech therapy to severely disabled children, many of whom are in foster care. They used bad math, and didn’t think it through, and cut the program too much. In doing so, they forfeited a huge amount of free federal funding for the program. That means some 60,000 kids will have less access to the physical and speech therapy that used to help them walk, or communicate, or attend school. For some kids with severe physical disabilities, that means pain.

I’m friends with a number of Texas conservatives. I like them personally. They have an ideology that’s not mine, and part of being an adult in the world is learning how to interface with people who don’t think like you do. I write in opposition to them, but I’d be horrified if someone starting firebombing their offices. But just the same, I’d no sooner give them $100 than I would to a man who punched one of those kids on the street.

I disagree with this view. It’s arguing that, despite the abhorrence of the firebombing attack on the North Carolina GOP office, donating money to restore it goes to support an organization (the Republican Party) whose goals are to hurt the most vulnerable among us, and so donating to them is the wrong choice.
I disagree because I think one of the first priorities of any social movement, including a political party, is strong repudiation of its dangerous, radical, and/or violent followers. This wasn’t a random attack. The message spraypainted on the wall was “Nazi Republicans leave town or else.” I think it’s safe to say that this was an attack by left-wing radicals, inspired or influenced at least in some way by the democratic party.
We look down on Republicans, when violence breaks out at their rallies, for disclaiming all responsibility. We are disgusted with their cowardice when an abortion doctor is murdered, and they fail to admit that their over-the-top rhetoric was partly to blame. That, in this situation, the democrats have been better than that, have taken responsibility for repairing the damage, and have in all likelihood frustrated the aims of the attackers, is a good thing.
Yes, the money will go to an evil organization whose main goals involve doing great harm to many vulnerable people. But that’s exactly how each side views the other. Whatever choices we make here, we are in no position to complain when the other side makes the same choices. However bad and evil we view them, they view us as just as bad and evil.

One of the great harms the Republican party has done since 2001 is to change the rules of the game. Filibusters did not used to be a big problem. Presidential signing statements were not used to change the meaning of legislation. Bipartisan deals could be made so both parties could get things done, instead of the gridlock we have now. Presidents were more hesitant to designate documents “classified.” The Senate didn’t refuse to vote on Supreme Court nominees. There was a sense of fair play, that it wasn’t right to use any means necessary to stop the opposing party, especially when they had been fairly elected.

That isn’t the case anymore. Since 2001, the GOP has steadily become more and more extreme, using any trick available to prevent Democrats from governing effectively. There is some hope that this may calm down in the next legislative session, but it is speculation at best.

The easy thing to do would be to match their extremism – to declare that any means necessary are to be used to defeat this enemy – to argue, as the quoted article does, that any helping hand extended to this enemy is wrong and leaves us worse off. I can’t agree with that. I want to live in a world where we take responsibility for the extremists that are ostensibly on our side, and work to repair the damage that they do. I want to live in a world where it is not acceptable to use any means necessary to defeat the enemy. I want there to be rules to the game. I think this small gesture helps to encourage that world, so I support it.

Polite Poly

This post grew out of a conversation with my friend Heina Dadabhoy, who writes Heinous Dealings at the Orbit, a new blog network focused on social justice minded atheism. Heina has a companion blog post with their take on this issue here.

Like other unpopular groups, the poly community has developed somewhat defensively. Only a very small percentage of the world is polyamorous, so understandably, a number of the norms and ethics that are popular in the poly community developed to be as nonthreatening as possible to mainstream society. Andrea Zanin discussed this issue in her 2013 post The Problem With Polynormativity:

At its most basic, I’d say some people’s poly looks good to the mainstream, and some people’s doesn’t. The mainstream loves to think of itself as edgy, sexy and cool. The mainstream likes to co-opt whatever fresh trendy thing it can in order to convince itself that it’s doing something new and exciting, because that sells magazines, event tickets, whatever. The mainstream likes to do all this while erecting as many barriers as it can against real, fundamental value shifts that might topple the structure of How the World Works. In this case, that structure is the primacy of the couple.

The media presents a clear set of poly norms, and overwhelmingly showcases people who speak about and practice polyamory within those norms.

Zanin skillfully exposes the fact that the media tends to represent a very narrow view of polyamorous people that doesn’t reflect the overall diversity of the community. In addition to that, though, I’ve noticed that a lot of the discussion that takes place within poly communities tends to present a narrow set of values that not everyone shares, and in private conversations it’s become clear that not everyone shares those views, but that dissenters don’t always feel safe speaking up. With that in mind, I’ve come up with a set of rules that I see enforced in “polite poly society,” and why I disagree with them:

Polite Poly Rule #1: Don’t Speak Ill of Monogamy

In nearly every discussion of polyamory, poly people will trip over each other rushing to be the first person to indicate that, while we may choose to live the lifestyle we do, there is of course nothing wrong with monogamy and we support anyone’s decision to be monogamous. The position is valid, of course. There is nothing inherently wrong with sexual exclusivity, if practiced in a truly voluntary and non-coercive way. But it’s very difficult to discuss monogamy critically, even within poly communities, without facing accusations of arrogance, anti-monogamous bias, or believing in “one true way” to have relationships.

Truthfully, I do feel that the majority of the ways that monogamy is practiced throughout the world are coercive and unethical. I think that having monogamy as a cultural norm is harmful. I think that the way mainstream American culture promotes, depicts, and enforces monogamy is awful. I think that many fewer people would choose monogamy if it they felt they had a meaningful choice. And I think we ought to be able to say so without the conversation getting derailed over the (obvious) fact that it’s not impossible to be monogamous in an ethical way.

This rule is the clearest example of how poly society has evolved to be nonthreatening to mainstream society. It might as well be “don’t scare the normals.”

Polite Poly Rule #2: Don’t Enable Cheaters

In polite poly society, it is considered unethical to have sex with a person who has a monogamous partner. Despite the fact that the hypothetical “other woman” or “other man” has made no promises or commitments to either member of the relationship, the community still has no problem placing part of the ethical responsibility for avoiding cheating on the third party.

I’ve written before about the ethical issues I have with this attitude, and I’ve discussed it at length in private conversations and on social media. In public, there seems to be a strong consensus toward the idea that enabling a cheater is wrong.1There is also a more reasonable consensus – that one should be reluctant to trust a person who is willing to cheat with you, and that it’s often a bad idea to have sex with someone you can’t trust. However, the discussion is often had in moralistic terms about what’s right or wrong, or what a person should or shouldn’t do. The discussion often overlooks the fact that in other contexts, poly communities respect the idea that a person is free to have sex with whoever they want and determine for themselves how much to trust someone, and how much trust in necessary before engaging in a sexual relationship. It is only in this context (and STI risk, as discussed in Rule #3) where people feel qualified to instruct others about who they ought to be having sex with. I guarantee, if this post gets more than five comments, someone will derail with something like “well, why would you want to sleep with a cheater???” Fundamentally, I feel this is an attitude that is reliant upon the centralization and promotion of the monogamous couple as the ideal in our society.

In general, we do not hold people responsible for enabling people to break promises. We would not blame a bartender for serving someone who made a promise to his pastor not to drink anymore. If my friend promised his mother that he would spend Saturday evening with her, I’m not a jerk for inviting him to my party. If a PETA member wants to break her commitment to the group to avoid eating meat, her sister is not a jerk for cooking her a steak.

It is only in the context of a sexually exclusive couple that we feel the need to place responsibility on non-parties to help enforce an agreement. This attitude reflects the mainstream belief that monogamous commitments are so important and so valuable that we should all accept the responsibility for enforcing them. And I think the poly community should be the first to speak up against this idea. Monogamous commitments are not any more important than other commitments. I don’t accept the responsibility for enforcing them, and I don’t think we should be telling anyone else to do so. If individuals would like to accept that responsibility, that is their choice, but I don’t believe that anyone has the right to place that responsibility on someone else.

Polite Poly Rule #3: Be Extra-Super-Duper-Careful About STI’s

In poly communities, the more careful one is about STI’s, the better. High-status poly people boast about getting “full panel” STI tests every six months (which, of course, always come back negative) and insist on seeing a prospective partner’s up-to-date results before any sexual contact. In public spaces, discussions tend to center around how best to avoid STI’s and what precautions to take. It’s often assumed (or stated outright) that sex with a person who has an STI is out of the question. In private, however, many people will comment that STI’s are unfairly stigmatized, STI’s like HSV, HPV, and others are a minor inconvenience in most cases, and that actual transmission rates are very low for most infections.

I tend not to stress about STI’s. I take reasonable precautions, but I don’t insist on strict rules. I don’t freak out if there’s a chance of exposure. I generally trust my partners to make their own decisions and inform me if there’s anything to worry about. In my experience, this is how a lot of people operate, but publicly, people are often reluctant to say so.

The disconnect seems to be a reaction to the “dirty slut” stereotype. Mainstream society tends to assume that (a) anyone who has a lot of sex gets STI’s (and only people who have a lot of sex get STI’s); (b) all nonmonogamous people have a lot of sex; and therefore (c) nonmonogamous people all have STI’s. So naturally, poly people overcompensate to show that they’re not like that. The problem is that in reacting that way, we tend to validate the problematic and false mainstream assumptions noted above. When we rush to insist that we are free from STI’s, we too often insinuate that there’s something wrong or blameworthy about having STI’s. When we go out of our way to make sure everyone knows we’re very selective about sexual partners, we suggest that there’s something wrong with promiscuity. When we suggest that certain precautions are mandatory, we can’t help but exaggerate the negative effects of becoming infected, adding to STI stigma and further marginalizing people who have contracted infections.

Allowing more critical discussions of monogamy, recognizing that third parties aren’t responsible to enforce other people’s monogamous commitments, and dialing down the panic level about STI’s probably won’t help our image in mainstream society. But I do think it will improve our communities. To me, that’s the more important goal. I’d rather not sacrifice the quality and diversity of our conversations in the name of public relations.

   [ + ]

1. There is also a more reasonable consensus – that one should be reluctant to trust a person who is willing to cheat with you, and that it’s often a bad idea to have sex with someone you can’t trust. However, the discussion is often had in moralistic terms about what’s right or wrong, or what a person should or shouldn’t do. The discussion often overlooks the fact that in other contexts, poly communities respect the idea that a person is free to have sex with whoever they want and determine for themselves how much to trust someone, and how much trust in necessary before engaging in a sexual relationship. It is only in this context (and STI risk, as discussed in Rule #3) where people feel qualified to instruct others about who they ought to be having sex with. I guarantee, if this post gets more than five comments, someone will derail with something like “well, why would you want to sleep with a cheater???”

Polyamory vs. Relationship Anarchy

I have mixed feelings about Louisa Leontiades’ recent post entitled “The Mass Exodus of Polyamorous People Towards Relationship Anarchy.” My first thought is that it’s silly. Relationship anarchy and polyamory are compatible. I, and most of the other RA people I know, identify as polyamorous. Relationship anarchy simply involves forming and developing relationships without preexisting structures and coercive power dynamics. This approach does not always lead to polyamory, but it often does. I don’t know of anyone who left polyamory in favor of RA.

But reading the piece, it isn’t really about that. Louisa’s main complaint is about polynormativity. When polyamory is discussed in the media, there tends to be a heavy focus on the sexual aspects and a lack of attention regarding what separates polyamory from other forms of nonmonogamy – honesty and love. Louisa has a real point that it’s impossible to talk about polyamory publicly without sex becoming the focus of everything you say. Though I haven’t seen any evidence of this, it may be that people are rejecting the label “polyamorous” because of it.

For my own part, relationship anarchy was never an alternative to polyamory, but an augmentation. While polyamory was about having multiple loving, consensual, honest relationships, relationship anarchy was about empowering my relationships and putting consent first. However, as Louisa has, I’ve recently found the label relationship anarchist much more useful that the label polyamorous. For one, I’ve found the larger polyamory community, particularly those who claim the title “leaders,” to be incredibly disappointing, and I am cautious about associating myself with them. Second, I have very little in common with people who practice by far the most popular form of polyamory – hierarchical polyamory. As The Thinking Asexual put it:

There’s a primary romantic-sexual relationship that all other romantic and/or sexual relationships are secondary to, meaning the primary relationship gets the lion’s share of emotional energy, commitment, time, etc. Usually, it also means that the primary couple has veto power over the other satellite romantic/sexual relationships. The secondary (and even tertiary) romantic-sexual or sexual relationships will be sacrificed, diminished, damaged, etc to preserve and protect the primary romantic-sexual relationship if necessary. A secondary partner, whether sexual or romantic-sexual, has fewer rights than the primary partner by default. I’ve seen hierarchical polyamory described as “monogamists doing poly by monogamy’s rules” and I think that’s a pretty accurate description.

When I say “I’m polyamorous,” the above description is generally what people think of, and it bothers me because it’s light-years away from the way I practice relationships. In that sense, relationship anarchy is a much more useful label for me to communicate how I practice relationships and to find like-minded people.

So contra Louisa, I don’t think that there is any “mass exodus” of polyamorous people away from that label in particular, but I do think that the growing numbers of relationship anarchists may have something to do with the greater usefulness of that label vs. others. For me, identifying as a relationship anarchist much more clearly communicates my philosophy on relationships and helps me find like-minded people.

Avoiding Nice-Guy Fantasy

I’m writing an urban fantasy novel, so I’ve been thinking a lot about the genre. I’ve always been a fan of fantasy/sci-fi stories, but there are some unfortunate tropes in the genre that reflect a lot of male power fantasies. Classic stories like the Lord of the Ring, Star Wars, and most superhero comics tend to feature a powerful Leading Man who was born destined for greatness. He develops some kind of supernatural combat powers (or is just really good at fighting) which allows him to fight his way to the end boss and defeat him with the powers of goodness (but also superpowers). Often, this wins him the affection of the Female Lead, who is mostly just there to need rescuing and provide the hero with a prize. It’s pretty much the James Bond/action hero formula.

Some modern stories have been subverting these tropes, some in really excellent ways. Other stories have been subverting the specific tropes, but not really addressing the attitudes that lead to them. Recently, I’ve read a number of modern fantasy/sci-fi stories that have all shared a lot of the same elements that seem to be a reaction to the classic formula. They tend to be written by men and feature male heroes, but these are not your typical heroes. The Leading Man isn’t overly powerful or impressive, and is often weak or low-status. He’s not devastatingly handsome, but he has an understated attractiveness. Rather than use his great combat prowess, Leading Man defeats the enemy using his unique, special-snowflake mind. He may or may not have magic powers, but any powers he has appear at first glance to be useless or underpowered, though Leading Man eventually finds a clever, unexpected way to use them to defeat the evil bad guy. The bad guy is unequivocally evil. Leading Man has no real flaws, but all minor flaws are treated like a much bigger deal than they are. He constantly feels guilty about his “bad” decisions despite the fact that everything he did was the only reasonable option given the circumstances.

Unlike the classic story, the modern stories feature strong female characters. Women are never the main characters, of course, but they have substantial supporting roles, and the story always makes sure to squeak out a passing grade on the Bechdel test. In the modern fantasy novel, women are the ones with the physical prowess, able to fight, shoot, and generally kick ass. Leading Man is often saved by his female sidekick multiple times throughout the story, though he never feels emasculated or anything but grateful because he’s not a Neanderthal like those classic action heroes who spent their time saving helpless women. Female sidekick is always attractive, but in a quirky, nontraditional way, which is pointed out multiple times during the novel. Still, there is often a helpless woman who needs to be saved, but this is a different woman, and not a love interest, because this isn’t the kind of story where the hero wins a woman’s affections by saving her. That’s for those James Bond-style brutes. Still, there is often a female antagonist hassling the hero for unjustified, personal reasons (bitchy ex-wife, anyone?).

I checked in with my literary Facebook group and confirmed that this is an ongoing trend. I’ve taken to calling this “nice-guy fantasy,” because it seems to reflect the same attitudes that underly the “Nice Guy” phenomenon in pop culture. Nice Guys are a reaction to the perceived deficiencies of the “dumb jocks,” who are thought to be unworthy of the affections that they receive because of their regressive attitudes toward women. Nice Guys feel that they are more deserving of women’s affection because they avoid the worst behaviors of jocks, though in reality, their attitudes are just as sexist and unjustified, just in a different way.

In the same way, nice-guy fantasy just swaps out one set of rigid gender roles for another. Nice guy fantasy appears to be a reaction to perceived deficiencies of the classic action-hero formula and its regressive attitudes toward women and its simplistic view of heroism. Nice-guy fantasy avoids the worst tropes of the classic action-hero style writing, but merely takes that box and replaces it with another to force all of its characters into. Sophia McDougal, writing in the New Statesman, summarizes the problem:

Nowadays the princesses all know kung fu, and yet they’re still the same princesses. They’re still love interests, still the one girl in a team of five boys, and they’re all kind of the same. They march on screen, punch someone to show how they don’t take no shit, throw around a couple of one-liners or forcibly kiss someone because getting consent is for wimps, and then with ladylike discretion they back out of the narrative’s way….

What do I want instead of a Strong Female Character? I want a male:female character ratio of 1:1 instead of 3:1 on our screens. I want a wealth of complex female protagonists who can be either strong or weak or both or neither, because they are more than strength or weakness. Badass gunslingers and martial artists sure, but also interesting women who are shy and quiet and do, sometimes, put up with others’ shit because in real life there’s often no practical alternative. And besides heroines, I want to see women in as many and varied secondary and character roles as men: female sidekicks, mentors, comic relief, rivals, villains.

Nice-guy fantasy continues the action-hero trend of representing a male power fantasy, but this time it’s the fantasy a shy, geeky man who grew up resenting the Superman archetype. Rather than fantasizing about being the superspy who can beat up rooms full of people, seduce any woman, and shoot the wings off a fly, this story is a fantasy about being the underdog who rises to the challenge foisted upon him by circumstance (and, of course, his big heart). The problem is that this ends up being just as formulaic as the classic action story and just as reductive in terms of gender roles. It’s still about a Great Man Becoming Great, it’s just a nerdier, more chess club/silicon valley view of greatness rather than the classic captain-of-the-football-team view.

In writing my own story (34,000 words and counting!), I’ve tried to be conscious of this trend and avoid any sort of self-congratulatory stereotypes. It’s a fantasy story about an isolated society, so one thing I’ve done is just changed the society’s views of gender roles. Because of the way the “magic” works, women are stronger and generally more physically impressive, so the society evolved so that women are the dominant gender. However, women still carry and nurse children, so that gets taken into account.

The other thing I’ve tried to do is to have a large variety of female characters. The ratio of male:female in my is about 1:4. This is a literary device, but also an artifact of the culture in that, because men are the marginalized gender, there are more women in roles like detectives, doctors, transportation operators, and other jobs that are featured in the story. The two viewpoint characters are women, though in our society their behavior would probably be read as masculine (or, let’s be honest, “bitchy”).

It’s been a challenge, but I’m hoping it turns out well. I’m still on my first draft, and I’m planning on going back and rewriting the entire thing once I finish. This is the first novel I’ve ever attempted, so I’m sure it won’t be a masterpiece, but I’m hoping it will end up being something I can be proud of, and above all, I hope it doesn’t come across as reactionary. I’m writing the story the way I am because I think it’s interesting, and I would like to read a story like it, and I hope it doesn’t come across as merely a reaction to other fantasy tropes.

The other thing that worries me is that my characters are all kind of jerks in their own way. Not in the sense that they have minor flaws which are easily overlooked, but in the sense that they have large personality defects that will take a lifetime to improve, and will not be resolved by the end of the book (though some progress will be made). My characters are often self-absorbed, short-sighted, irrational, downright foolish, and they don’t always understand how consent works. I’m worried that someone reading my story will think these characters were intended as role models or heroes when they are actually just meant to be humans that I (and hopefully a few readers) will find interesting, but I don’t know how to make that clear without imposing contrived consequences on the characters for their flaws. My main protagonist will be learning from her mistakes, but overall, the story features far too many character flaws in numerous characters to address individually. I’m hoping that readers will understand that even the “good guy” characters aren’t intended as role models.

Man, writing fiction is difficult.

Make Sure Your Rules Have a Safe Word

image from

Image from Click for details.

My friend Rose, writing at her brand new blog Our Better Natures, makes an excellent point about the use of rules in relationships:

For these types of situations, I think that an idea from the kink and power exchange community is useful.  For any healthy power exchange, even while playing with consensual nonconsent, there is an overarching level at which someone can always opt out.  I suggest that we look at all rules and agreements as a form of role playing in this vein.  With healthy power exchange, ideally, the power dynamics are explicitly negotiated with necessary safe words in place.  Rules and agreements need to be negotiated in much the same way.  Rules and agreements are their own type of role playing because we can never fully and truly give up our ability to make decisions, set boundaries, or leave the relationship and also still maintain healthy consent.  If we take the view on consent outlined above, then there truly can be no inherent level at which anyone owes anyone else intimacy or control over their choices and emotional states.

This is a great point, and I think consensual power exchange is a great lens through which to view rulemaking in relationships. I’ve written before about how rules are a way that we psychologically manipulate our future selves into making the correct choices when we don’t trust our future selves to do so. When we involve another person in the rulemaking (that is, we make a promise or agreement to another person), we implicitly give them the authority to demand compliance with that promise. In essence, it’s a form of consensual power exchange whereby we voluntarily give up a bit of our freedom to another person or persons.

One of the most important concepts in any consensual power exchange relationship, be it a five-minute scene or a thirty-year relationship, is that consent must be ongoing and can be revoked at any time. This is an uncontroversial idea in BDSM communities, where the norm is to always have a safeword which will immediately end the scene as soon as any party want to opt out. In longer-term consensual power exchange relationships, all parties stress that the details of any power exchange agreement are entirely voluntary and open to revocation free from coercive pressure.

Relationship rules or agreements ought to be treated the same way. Ideally, all parties would be clear that anyone was free to unilaterally cancel any agreement at any time free from guilt, shame, or obligation. Sadly, people often view terminating an agreement as a hostile act or a betrayal. While the BDSM community is nearly united in support of the idea that power exchange can be revoked without penalty, the poly community lags far behind on this idea. It is remarkably commonplace to see people pressured, shamed, and coerced into abiding by agreements that no longer work for them.

As I’ve written before, sometimes terminating an agreement can result in the other party ending the relationship, and that is to be expected. The same principle that says any party can terminate an agreement at any time also mandates that any party is free to end the relationship at any time. The same principle applies in all consensual power exchange relationships.

So next time someone wishes to renegotiate or terminate an agreement, let’s take a lesson from the BDSM community and recognize that it is always their right to do so, and allow them a space free of shame, obligation, or guilt.


The Creation Museum is Horrifying

So Gina, Amber, and I are on a road trip from Jersey to Colorado and back. Today we passed through Kentucky on our way to Nashville, and we figured we had to stop at the Creation Museum. For those of you who don’t know, the Creation Museum is a project by Ken Ham, which exists to evangelize young-Earth creationism and biblical literacy. The main draw to us was that we heard that much of the museum was dedicated to the idea that Adam  and Eve coexisted with dinosaurs! We figured that we were in for some amusing scenes of biblical humans riding triceratopses, and the standard fire & brimstone about Jesus and Heaven. It started out innocuous enough:


The opening hallway was pretty much what we expected. Lots of preaching about how the Bible is the word of god, quotes about great beasts in the Bible, and about how evolution is wrong:


Grimlock, Gina's little T-Rex, was very excited to see the dinosaurs


The main exhibit area starts out similarly. There are these charming lads:


Then there is a bunch of propaganda about how important biblical literacy is, and a room featuring a family engaging in drugs, pornography, abortions, and gossip! And then, PLOT TWIST! The family’s preacher has decided that they should just leave the science to the scientists, and not worry about the age of the Earth or how people were created. No wonder the family is drowning in sin!


Then there is a room full of humans and dinosaurs! It’s just as amusing as expected, despite the fact that you are not allowed to pet the raptors.

Adam and Eve frolic in the garden of Eden, joined by deer, rabbits, squirrels, and random dinosaurs. Also, there was a pretty impressive Noah’s Ark diorama.


It’s after this room that the museum gets truly disturbing. While everything up until this point was rather silly and amusing, the remainder of the museum is a true monument to ignornance. It replicates the look and feel of a natural history museum, with large, bright photos aside “scientific explanations” about how creationism is true. Each exhibit gives what “secular scientists” say, then gives the biblical interpretation, explaining that the only reason secular scientists and Christian scientists come to different conclusions is that they start with different assumptions.


The terrifying part is that so many of their explanations sounds plausible if you don’t have a pretty sophisticated understanding of biology and ecology. How was the Grand Canyon formed? We don’t know! But there have been events where large canyons were formed in just a matter of days due to volcanic eruptions…. Why are dinosaur fossils buried so deep? Because the global flood deposited massive amounts of sediment on top of them, of course! In fact, the global flood explains a lot of the state of the Earth’s surface. How do we explain the fact that we can observe evolution in bacteria? Some convoluted explanation about how that’s just natural selection, not evolution. You see, antibiotic-resistant bacteria are actually inferior to other bacteria (all mutations are mistakes), and would die out as soon as antibiotics were removed from their environment. And therefore evolution is false.

Secular scientists say that beetles evolved a mating call? Think critically! How could female beetles evolve the response to the mating call at the same time males evolved the call? Secular scientists say that Goliath beetles evolved the ability to fly? Think critically! How could something so heavy evolve that ability? Isn’t it more likely that it was designed by an intelligent creator?


Rather than come out and say that the scientific community is wrong, Ham’s museum instead takes the often-used strategy of sowing doubt and encouraging people to make up their own minds, along with heavily suggesting that the “secular scientists” aren’t to be trusted. The last few rooms of the museum are dedicated not to promoting anything, but rather tearing down science.

It’s scary because it works. The museum is hugely successful. Innumerable parents bring innumerable children to the museum every day to be indoctrinated against human reason. While we came in expecting amusement, we left fighting off depression at the deviousness of Ham’s assault on progress. The whole museum seemed designed to worm into the heads of impressionable children (and adults) the idea that scientists know nothing, can prove nothing, and are advocating only for their own alternative faith-based worldview. The museum proceeds not by making straightforward arguments, but by pretending to approach the natural world in a scientific way. Ham’s museum presents creationism as a science, the only goal of which is to accurately explain the natural world. Disagreements with the vast majority of the scientific community are presented as simply different schools of thought rather than fundamentally different approaches toward understanding the world.

The Creation Museum scares me. It is devastatingly effective at spreading misinformation and ignorance, and it is emblematic of a widespread backlash against the march of progress, which undermines holy truths at every turn. The Creation Museum looms as the proverbial conservative, standing before the tide of history and yelling “stop.” Except rather than a single doomed figure, it is an army of soldiers for Christ, dedicated to dragging us all back into the 18th century.

Compatibility is All That Matters

Good dating advice usually has one unifying feature: it stresses that relationships should be entirely consent-based. That means that every part of a relationship is genuinely desired by all parties, and no party is coerced into engaging in any activity for the benefit of other(s). In theory, this is uncontroversial. Most people will recognize that they shouldn’t coerce dating partners into unwanted activities.

There’s a flipside, though, which is a little less intuitive. It’s the idea that any relationship practice is ethical if all parties give unqualified consent. Assuming that all parties are free from coercion and have the capacity to give meaningful consent, there is nothing that’s off-limits. A lot of bad dating advice overlooks this fact, offering prescriptive advice which assumes that people (or, more likely, all people of a single gender) want the same things. This sort of thinking tends to divide things up into “good” and “bad” behaviors, universalizing the preferences of the majority (or sometimes, just the preferences of the author).

But people are different, and they have different preferences. What’s a dealbreaker for you might be a positive for me. Something I can’t stand might be something you can’t live without. Too often, we assume that our preferences are universal, and we condemn those who don’t conform to them. The world is full of bitter exes who weren’t treated the way they liked and assume that indicates something wrong with the other party rather than just a mismatch in preference. It’s a way of disrespecting someone’s autonomy to insist that your preferences are the right way to have a relationship, and that any other preferences are wrong.

At the same time, it’s important that one’s relationships are freely chosen, which means that while nothing is off limits, one must be honest and open about what to expect, and space must be given for a graceful rejection. There are wrong ways to have a relationship, and rights that cannot be waived. However, those rights are all about making sure that consent to the relationship is freely given and undiluted. As long as we are completely honest and noncoercive about what we are looking for and what to expect, then we are free to pursue whatever relationship(s) we desire.

The important thing, then, is compatibility. Rather than conforming to a set of rules that define “good relationships,” our challenge is to write our own qualifications that define what’s good for us. Then we find people who share our preferences and draw strong boundaries with people who don’t. offers some on-point advice about drawing boundaries:

If access to your heart, your email, your phone, and your physical being lives on a scale from 1 to 10, with 10 being complete inner circle access, those who are 10’s require what Brene Brown calls “a full jar of marbles.” In other words, they need to have earned your trust. If the jar of marbles gets half full because of betrayals of trust, access needs to go down — not necessarily all the way to 1, but maybe to 5 or 6. Maybe they don’t get to call you every day or sleep in your bed or spend Christmas morning with you.

That way, if someone isn’t treating you with impeccable respect, you simply limit access without making up a story about it. No point becoming the exploding doormat. That’s not enlightened either. Your heart stays wide open. The boundaries close up though. Unconditional love, absolute freedom, conditional access.

Then it’s not someone else’s job to treat you right. It’s your  job to treat you right with appropriate boundaries that limit access based on whether or not someone is deserving of complete inner circle access.

In this way, you can allow people to be themselves and have their own relationship preferences, but you limit access to yourself only to people who share your preferences and live up to your expectations. It stops being about whether someone is a “good” or “bad” partner, and becomes about whether they are a good fit. When we focus on compatibility, we respect everyone’s autonomy while still being able to protect ourselves and follow our own path.

Atlanta Poly Weekend Harbors Abusers and Scapegoats Victims

The following is an email sent to the Relationship Equality Foundation, the organization that hosts and organizes Atlanta Poly Weekend. 


Dear Relationship Equality Foundation,

I’ve always been a big supporter of Atlanta Poly Weekend. My first year attending, a presenter cancelled at the last minute and I volunteered to step in and do my Online Dating presentation. Last year, I gave two presentations as well as put on a burlesque show. I’ve also promoted your event on my blog and in many personal interactions. I’ve done everything I can think of to support your organization because at the time it seemed like a really good cause. Unfortunately, that support has not been mutual.

Last winter, several of my wife’s ex-partners, including Shaun McGonigal, engaged in a coordinated smear campaign against me. While most organizations and individuals were able to see that this was a case of resentful exes attempting to continue their abuse post-breakup, your organization accepted their accusations uncritically, gave me no meaningful opportunity to defend myself, and never told me what I was accused of doing. When I provided extensive evidence that all public allegations were false, exaggerated, or left out important context, I was ignored.

Your organization designated Billy Holder (and old friend of Shaun McGonigal’s from his time living in Atlanta) as an investigator. Billy’s “investigation” was anything but. Billy never got my side of any of the stories that he was told. He never spoke to any of the witnesses that I identified, in person or online, despite numerous opportunities to do so. His conversation with me largely consisted of Billy expressing his anger and disappointment regarding how the Polyamory Leadership Network handled the situation. He never disclosed to me that he was investigating anything. He expressed multiple times that he was in the dark. He outright lied to me by telling me that he didn’t know the content of any of the accusations. Instead, he pretended to be my friend and reassured me that he was on my side.

During the weekend that he was in town, Billy gained and then took advantage of my trust. I consented to be in a sexual situation with him having no idea he was acting in an official capacity as an investigator . It felt (and continues to feel) disgusting because I consented under false pretenses. I feel violated. Had he been honest with me, I never would have engaged in any kind of sexual contact with him. I consider his failure to disclose his role to be a major consent breach (in addition to the appalling ethics of an investigator having sex with the target of his investigation).

Billy then turned around and used his position as a member of your board and principal organizer of Atlanta Poly Weekend to get me banned from the event, ostensibly due to the fact that I’m some kind of danger to the community.

Billy also used his influence and position of power to make sure that his friend Shaun McGonigal was able to attend, despite the fact that over the past year he and the Relationship Equality Foundation received reports that Shaun:

  • once beat his girlfriend so hard that her injuries caused her to miss three days of work
  • emotionally and verbally abused my wife Gina for over a year
  • without provocation, threatened to break my nose
  • manipulated, abused, and gaslit other former partners

Since then, Shaun also beat his wife in a fit of rage, which led to their divorce. Your organization has ignored all of these reports and allowed Billy Holder to protect his friend and scapegoat me.

It is obvious that none of this is about protecting the community or effectively dealing with abuse, and it is about Billy Holder playing favorites and the Relationship Equality Foundation allowing him to do so.

For obvious reasons, I do not wish to attend or support APW, nor will I unless significant changes are made. However, I hope you and your attendees will take the event this weekend as an opportunity to rethink how you handle this sort of thing and make some attempts to establish some actual accountability in your community. Your current system serves only to enable abuse by proxy, empower abusers, and make your community more dangerous.


For anyone attending APW this year, the only thing I’d ask is that you let the organizers know about your unhappiness with how they handle abuse complaints and request that they establish a system which provides genuine accountability while respecting the humanity of everyone involved.


UPDATE [6/6/15]: APW issued a statement on its Facebook page:

APW earnestly aims to create a safe place for our attendees, guests, presenters, staff and volunteers. We treat all reports of abuse seriously and are concerned for the people in any situation of abuse. Our first responsibility is to create a convention space that is safe for everyone. We act in good faith within our role as an event to honor the sense of safety in the community at large.
In order to support the survivors, we try to give the accusers the benefit of the doubt and the accused a reasonable opportunity to participate in the discussion. Because we support the survivors and are not against the accused, the accused can be welcomed back into the community and APW.
While we are part of the community we serve, we are not the arbitrators of personal situations and must focus on the small confines of our event. The Board of Directors reached a consensus regarding a particularly volatile situation outside of our event that was nevertheless disrupting our event, in our opinion. As our community changes, we evolve along with it and use this experience to learn and continue discussions about what creates safe environments.
Currently we are in the stage of supporting the survivors:…/the-community-response-to-abu… We are learning what it means to support accountability for the accused. It is our hope to learn this alongside the community

In addition to being vague PR-speak, this statement does not reflect any of my or my family’s interactions with APW. They have not taken our reports of Shaun McGonigle’s abuse seriously, and they have conducted zero followup with any of the multiple people who have contacted them to report his abuse. For example, when Shaun engaged in behavior at a different conference that bordered on stalking me, I reported it to several organization including APW. Their response was to mock me:

But yet, the conference leadership was not informed about the situation nor were any complaints, to our knowledge, brought against that person to the conference leadership as he remained at the conference all weekend.  We found this to be odd if you are truly scared to be at an event where he is present.

Never mind that I didn’t realize he’d been following and watching me until he blogged about it after the conference. Never mind that the conference leadership was informed immediately, and had been informed prior to the conference about Shaun. Never mind that my wife Gina fled the conference in tears on Friday night because Shaun was there, and didn’t return all weekend despite paying over a hundred dollars for a ticket. This has been typical of APW’s treatment of us, minimizing and discrediting our fears and working overtime to protect Gina’s abusive ex. APW absolutely does not take abuse complaints seriously or support victims. For them to claim otherwise is insulting and degrading to all of Shaun’s victims that have repeatedly contacted them to no avail.