Posted under pseudonym for reasons I’d rather not get into. If it’s relevant, I’m pretty involved in EA. I’ve been to several EAGs and I do direct work.
tldr I think many more people in the community should consider refraining from sleeping around within the community. I especially think people should consider refraining from sleeping around within EA if they have two or more of the following traits- high status in EA, a man who sleeps with women, and socially clumsy.
I think the community would be a more welcoming place, with less sexual misconduct and less other sexually unwelcome behaviour, if more EAs chose to personally refrain from sleeping around within EA or attempting to do so. Most functional institutions outside of EA, from companies to friend groups to extended families[1], have developed norms against sleeping around within the group. We obviously don’t want to simply unquestionably accept all of society’s norms,[2] but I think in this case those norms address real problems.
I worry that as a group, EAs run a risk of discarding valuable cultural practices that don’t immediately make sense in a first principles way, and that this tendency can have particularly high costs where sex is involved (Owen more or less admitted this was a factor in his behaviour in his statement/apology: “I was leaning into my own view-at-the-time about what good conduct looked like, and interested in experimenting to find ways to build a better culture than society-at-large has”).
Regarding sleeping around within a tight-knit community, I think this behaviour has risks whether the pursuer is successful or not. Failed attempts at sleeping with someone[3] can very often lead to awkwardness or uncomfortability. In EA, where employment and funding may be front of mind, this uncomfortability may be increased a lot, and there may be no way for the person who was pursued to realistically avoid the pursuer in the future if they want to without major career repercussions. Successful attempts at sleeping around can obviously also cause all sorts of drama, either shortly after or down the road.
Personal factors that may increase risks
I think within EA, the risks of harm are increased greatly if the pursuer has any of the following three traits:
- High status within EA- this can create bad power dynamics and awkward social pressure. First, people generally don’t like pissing off high status people within their social circles as there may be social repercussions to doing so.[4] Second, high status people within EA often control funding and employment decisions. Even if the pursuer isn’t in such a position now, they might wind up in one in the future. Third, high status EAs often talk to other high status EAs, so an unjustified bad reputation can spread to other figures in the movement who control funding or employment. Fourth, many EAs consider the community to be their one best shot at living the kind of ethical life they want,[5] raising the stakes a bunch. Fifth, the moralising[6] aspect of EA may make some people find it more uncomfortable to rebuff a high status EA.
- A man pursuing a woman (such as a heterosexual man or a bi-/pansexual man pursuing a woman)- this factor can sometimes be an elephant that people dance around in discussions, but I’ll just address it head on. On average men are more assertive, aggressive, and physically intimidating than women. On average women are more perceptive about subtle social cues and find it more awkward when those subtle social cues are ignored. My sense is these factors are pretty robust across cultures, but I don’t think it matters for this discussion what the cause of these average differences are. Add to all that, the EA community has a large gender imbalance, meaning there’s effectively a large multiplier on any unwelcome sexual advances coming from men and towards women.
- Socially clumsy- awkward advances are obviously more likely to lead to the other person feeling uncomfortable or disrespected. Poor ability to read social signals is also more likely to lead to further or more extreme unwanted behaviour. Even if this never reaches the line of assault or harassment proper, it can still be very uncomfortable.
For anyone who has at least 2 of the above traits (such as a heterosexual man who is high status in EA or is socially clumsy), I would strongly recommend considering refraining from sleeping around in the movement. (Edited to add: I personally consider myself to have two of these traits, so this advice would apply to me.)
While these factors exist somewhat on a spectrum, I think many EAs will underestimate how much factor 1 applies to them personally. Rampant imposter syndrome likely causes many EAs to underestimate their status in the movement. If you have basically any direct job, note that many people within the community will assume you’re somewhat high status, even if you don’t feel that way.
What I mean by sleeping around
As this post is a call for people to voluntarily consider adopting certain personal behaviours, I’m not sure having an explicit definition is needed. Having said that, I would generally consider all of the following hypothetical examples involving Bob and Alice sleeping together to be behaviour in line with Bob sleeping around. Assume for all examples that both Bob and Alice are EAs:
- Bob and Alice have a one night stand
- Bob and Alice are friends with benefits
- Bob is casually dating multiple people, including Alice, and he doesn’t consider his relationship with Alice to be particularly special
- Bob is dating Alice and no one else, but he doesn’t consider it a serious relationship AND he thinks it's very unlikely their relationship will develop into a serious relationship
- Bob is polyamorous with multiple people, including Alice, AND Alice is not his primary
On the other hand, I generally would NOT consider the following to be examples of Bob sleeping around within EA (again, for all examples assume both Bob and Alice are in EA and that the examples involve them sleeping with each other):
- Bob and Alice are in a monogamous, monogamish, or open relationship
- Bob is polyamorous with multiple people, including Alice, AND Alice is his primary (and none of the other people Bob is polyamorous with is an EA)
- Bob and Alice are dating casually AND Bob considers his relationship with Alice to be special and thinks there’s a realistic chance the relationship could develop into a serious relationship (either 1. or 2. above)
Of course, I recognize this isn’t all black and white. And of course the risks here increase the more extreme behaviour someone engages in, so I think someone could decrease risks by decreasing degree of behaviour.
And for clarity’s sake, nothing in this post should be taken as a criticism of promiscuity in general or of any relationship styles in general. If any EA decides to have a bunch of one night stands or threesomes or non-primary polyamorous relationships or whatever else with lots of different people outside the community,[7] I think that’s 100% fine and does not raise the sorts of concerns that sleeping around in EA does.
- ^
This is true even when there’s no blood relation and the connection is weak. Would you have a casual hookup with your cousin’s wife's sister? My guess is probably not, and if you did you’d probably recognize that this could cause a lot of harm to the family, maybe even causing a lasting rift. On the other hand, if you had met her separately without realising the connection and started to seriously date, I think people generally would find that acceptable.
- ^
Historic stigmatisation of LGBT people and relationships is one example of why not
- ^
For clarity, I’m talking about cases where you pursue someone sexually and they rebuff your advances. I’m not referring to sexual assault/attempted rape, which is obviously a much more serious issue.
- ^
If your response is “I would never get pissed at someone for rebuffing my advances” then they don’t know that. It’s very common for someone to act all nice while pursuing someone and then become very angry after it’s clear that sex won’t happen. Also, even if you won’t outwardly express irritation for being rebuffed, I think you probably generally do feel at least somewhat irritated when you’re rebuffed. It is a perfectly normal human emotion to feel irritated when you learn that you won’t get something that you want and which you thought you might get. Even if you hide this irritation, it could still sour your opinion of the other person and may lead to you badmouthing them (even if unintentional). And again, even if you never would do that, the other person doesn’t know that. The person you’re pursuing isn’t stupid, they know all this is a risk if they rebuff you.
- ^
This is its own can of worms, but seems true for a significant enough portion of EA that, at least for the time being, we should factor this into our decisions.
- ^
I don’t mean this in a bad way, but I can’t think of a similar word with a more neutral or positive tone
- ^
I recognize the barrier between “is an EA” and “is not an EA” isn’t always super clear. I think for pursuing people who are EA-adjacent, the concerns raised here apply somewhat but in a weakened form. But the vast majority of people in the world are clearly not EA and not EA-adjacent.
My personal reaction: I know you are scared and emotional, I am too. This post however, crossed my boundary.
I'm a woman, I'm in my late 20s and I'm going to do what you call sleeping around in the community if it's consensual from both sides. Obviously, I'm going to do my absolute best to be mature in my behaviors and choices in every way. I also believe that as the community we should do better job in protecting people from unwanted sexual behavior and abuse. But I will not be a part of community which treats conscious and consensual behavior of adult people as their business, because it hell smells like purity culture for me. And it won't do the job in protecting anybody.
I'm super stressed by this statement.
I may be reading you overly literally, but I think you're saying that we should not as a community, strongly discourage, say, grantmakers from sleeping with grantees. As long as its consensual and they're thoughtful about the power dynamics it's just their decision, right? But this ignores issues like:
Other grantees would then feel pressured to sleep with grantmakers, leading to bad interactions (even ones where all the signals that the grantmaker receives are that the grantee wants this).
The funders behind the grantmaker may reasonably worry that the grantmaker's judgement is clouded by their otherwise positive views towards this grantee or that there was quid pro quo.
People may choose to become grantmakers with poor intentions because a norm of "it's ok to sleep with grantees" is very vulnerable to abuse.
If you think we should draw lines excluding this, however, and I hope you do, then we should be thinking about what lines we want as a community, not insisting that we refuse to be bound by any lines.
I'd feel a lot more comfortable about this post if it were "EAs having ~casual relationships with other EAs is a good thing generally but here's how we can limit the worse spillover effects" than like, "please be less horny"
I'm not saying that age/power/money/any other differences should be ignored when it comes to consent. I believe we should, as a general rule in the community, discourage grantmakers sleeping with grantees. This post, however, doesn't stop there, at least to my understanding. And this is what I disagree with.
If you think we should discourage grantmakers from sleeping with grantees but no further, what about managers and reports, highly senior and junior staff at an org who don't share a management chain, senior researchers and junior researchers in the same field, or community builders and people just joining the community? -- Possibly you were trying to say this with your first sentence; not sure?
What I'm trying to get at here is that determining what sorts of interactions the community should discourage is complex, and asserting strong generic dating rights makes it harder to muddle out.
Yes, I was saying it in my first sentence. Everything which goes beyond that is crossing personal boundaries (at least of mine). This post in my opinion doesn't talk about the examples you've mentioned above. It talks about two people who have no professional connection, but happen to be EA, at least to my understanding.
Is my position clear to you now? If not, please let me know, I'll try to explain it better.
Thanks! I understand your view a lot better than I did initially!
I don't think I'm scared and I don't think I'm particularly emotional about this issue. I do think that if more people in the community followed the points in this piece then the community as a whole would be more functional and more welcoming (though I admit there are some people who would find it less welcoming). My feelings on this issue are not recent, and I've been feeling this way since long before the TIME's article, though recent revelations regarding Owen are what tipped me over into actually writing a post about this.
I basically agree with Jeff's points here and here.
I understand that these are very personal issues, which is why my suggestion was for people to “consider avoiding” certain behaviours (factoring in potential negative second order effects they may not be focused on) instead of saying people should simply “avoid” these behaviours or that we should ban them outright. I notice your comment focuses on consent and abuse, so that makes me think you might think I’m placing “sleeping around” in a similar category to things like sexual assault. I absolutely do not think this (if I did, I would not have suggested that it’s fine for people to sleep around as m... (read more)
Thanks for the honesty of expressing something vulnerable.
In this situation, under this post, and given your voting pool, it is not half as vulnerable as it could be if I was a man, especially a "socially not skilled" one (often = non - neurotypical) . So I could pretty easily write it, as in this particular position I felt in a position of power.
uh, not quite a guy but I credit the more sexually relaxed parts of the community for solving ~most of my "socially inept around this" problems in a way I think is not easily replaceable, so I'm personally also pretty defensive about this
So honestly I meant the boundaries triggering thing.
But yes, you can make that argument much more cheaply than me.
It's a shame we use such clear language in this forum. I think "than my cowardly ass" would have been much funnier.
yeah I had a "excuse me but I will continue to be an asshole libertine" reaction to this
Yup, I understand that it was most probably the intention, but this post doesn't do a good job stressing it enough in my opinion. It says that those are people who should consider not doing that in particular, but it's not directed only to them.
Plus, even if this post is directed only towards "not socially skilled men in a high position of power" asking them not to sleep around violates the same boundary- not mine, but it's still against my values. Consensual relationship between adult people, as long as one of them is not a supervisor/senior/grant-maker of another, is none of community's business, unless we are in church.
But isn't this sort of relationship exactly the one that OCB had with an anonymous woman which people one thread over are saying they're feeling shocked, betrayed and undermined by?
There's no suggestion that there was a violation of consent, only that there was an exchange between two friends who had a very frank relationship, and that OCB said something rather crude (for which he apologised). He at the time wasn't a supervisor/grant-maker of the woman in question.
I think this post is missing how many really positive relationships started with something casual, and how much the 'plausible deniability' of a casual start can remove pressure. If you turn flirting with someone from an "I'm open to seeing where this goes" into "I think you might the the one" that's a high bar. Which means despite the definition of 'sleeping around' you're using looking like it wouldn't reduce the number of EA marriages and primary relationships I expect it would. Since a lot of EAs in those relationships (hi!) are very happy with them (hi!), this is a cost worth explicitly weighing.
(Writing this despite mostly agreeing with the post and having upvoted it. And also as someone who's done very little dating and thought I was going to marry everyone I dated.)
I think there was a slight breakdown in communication and you're imagining I'm proposing more restriction than I am. Flirting can still have plausible deniability as it could be interpreted as any of “they’re just engaging in friendly banter”, “they’re flirting as flirting, but just for a spark”, “they’re feeling out whether or not they’re interested in me”, “they’re somewhat interested in me, but that could change”, “they’re secretly in love with me”, etc. If everyone in EA were to avoid sleeping around in the sense I’m using it, I think the only interpretation that would be taken away would be “they want to have sex with me but don’t want anything serious”.
I also think EAs can follow this and still casually date other EAs from the perspective of being open to seeing where it goes, though that might mean taking things a little slower physically. Personally, if I were to date someone outside of EA, I might have sex with them on the first or second date (thought process “I’m attracted to them so why not”), but if I were to date someone in EA I’d probably wait until something like the fourth or fifth date (thought process “oh wow, I’m excited by this person and I think there’s a... (read more)
I'm not Jeff, but this example made me think you were calling for avoiding all but the most serious / "the one"-type relationships:
Avoiding this would prevent a lot of really good (and serious!) relationships in this community. Many secondary relationships are serious and strong and long-lasting, and some primary relationships start out as secondary relationships. Conflating "secondary relationships" with "sleeping around" seems really mistaken to me.
It's difficult to judge, but I doubt this would reduce healthy and compatable marriages and primary relationships. People who like each other within EA will still naturally spend time together. They will still become friends, and those friendships will still grow into more than platonic friendships. I don't see how the recommendations above would stop that?
Perhaps there might be a (potentially healthy) time delay that would kick in before those positive romantic relationships got started but I doubt many potentially wonderful relationships would be stymied if we followed the OPs thoughts. Perhaps the cost of lost relationships would be very minor or even negligible.
Perhaps this is just the hopeless romantic inside of me coming out tho...
I think you might be thinking about the typical case instead of the marginal case?
Would it leave most of the benefit? If men (the gender who, at this point in time, initiates the most) stop initiating, I imagine a number of good relationships will not be born at all.
As has been discussed quite commonly elsewhere on this topic, the goal of the effective altruism movement is to improve the world. Not to make effective altruists happy or get them laid/married etc.
Yes relationships can be good and help build social ties, but OP clearly isn’t saying people shouldn’t date at all, just that they shouldn’t casually date. I think a trade off of less relationships on the margin for less sexual harassment assault and more women In EA is a fine trade off to make.
On top of this it’s not healthy to have your entire social support system within EA, and this will help prevent that too.
I feel frustrated. Sign.
I think those who like this idea are suggesting a huge and powerful norm. And my pretty huge and pretty powerful norm is being rejected because it would be "awkward and uncomfortable". I think that misses the point that the original norm is even worse. Again, I sense that a poll of women in EA might reveal that even if we only consider their preferences they aren't pro "non-neurotypical and high status men in the community cannot have casual sex". But that's a guess I could be wrong.
I also think there should be particular care when it comes to newcomers to the movement. I think there should be a strong norm against regular members hitting on/asking out new members before they have enough time to settle into the community.
I'm betting there have been many people who showed up once or twice to an EA event, got hit on a bunch of times, and immediately left the movement in annoyance.
I feel like there's some implicit claim that only a subset of people (socially awkward men?) aren't romantically perceptive, but my understanding is that basically everyone is bad at this and if you are going to flirt with someone you should expect that you are probably unable to tell whether they want it.[1]
An example paper largely chosen at random says:
I.e. people reciprocate flirting essentially independent of whether they are actually attracted to the other person, and the other person is essentially unable to distinguish "real" from "fake" flirting.
Furthermore, that paper had two "independent, trained raters" who watched recordings and marked if the person involved was flirting. These raters had interrater reliability of α=.68 which isn't terrible, but isn't amazing either.[2]
tl;dr: my guess is that most people should 1) not assume that they can reliably identify flirting and 2) even if they can, should not assume that they can ... (read more)
Surprised at the amount of upvotes on the main post, versus the highly upvoted comments talking about being scared, judged, frustrated, etc.
Personally I agree strongly with this post and think it’s a more than reasonable proposal. Also, just seems like common sense. I’d imagine there are quite a few people who feel similarly based on the vote count.
It seems that an extremely large proportion of EAF users are die hard proponents of casual sex and polyamory, which makes this conversation fraught. I’ll also be honest - I get the sense than many defenders of these non-traditional norms within the EA community argue from a stance of emotion and don’t really engage with the idea that promoting polyamory could massively reduce our overall utility as a movement.
Using language and framing like “what if you replace poly with gay” or “personally this makes me feel…” is not compatible with calculating the utility of a norm in EA. As stated elsewhere our goal is to better the world, not make ourselves happy or help EAs find life partners.
I understand this is a deeply personal topic but I would appreciate someone laying out a strong case for why polyamory and casual sex in the EA community actually leads to higher utility overall.
[This comment has been heavily edited since it got a response]
[So, I'm responding to a comment asking for the utility case about casual sex and poly. But I realized I focused exclusively on consensual casual sex within the community because that is the only piece I view as possibly worth engaging with, and it is what the post is about. I don't have notable-feelings about in-company relations or COI relations so I wouldn't go out of my way to defend them, and I do NOT think anti-poly-feelings hold water so I'm not wasting my time on that. There is no reason to feel the need to defend polyamory on ethical grounds. It's as ethical as monogamy, period. That said, I will push back on the lumping together of poly and casual sex in the first place. In my mind, the people who have the most casual sex historically have been like... college kids and people between relationships. These are both groups who will probably end up in monogamous relationships for life. I really don't get why people conflate casual sex and poly. Casual sex and open relationships? Sure, that's kind of their thing. Casual sex and single people (both mono and poly)? Sure, that's how a lot of modern dating gets started ... (read more)
So as a poly/poly-adjacent EA of many years I'll start by saying I strong upvoted your post and that insofar as a vision for a better tomorrow is concerned, your comment was poetry to my ears. I am very much aligned. Beautiful stuff.
However, this little nugget just keeps coming back to me and it irks me:
"On the other hand, we do poly and flexible sexual connections and those of us who are engaged in those things will even try and help you figure out if it's for you. Poly is fun. Sex is fun. Play and curiosity are fun. These are some of the major fun things our community does have going for it when comes to hedonism [and utopian way of life, over the rest of society.]"
I think you're making the poly-part of the community sound way more accessible than it actually is. You possibly have a blindspot here because you don't know what it is like to be on the outside trying to get in (?).
So here's the thing. If poly for you in the community is this fantastically amazing, then it is a tragedy of a vastly worse degree than many EAs might even realize that they can't be part of it.
I'm reminded of some study I read about years ago that showed that the mental health of people in third world coun... (read more)
Strongly agree with you on everything you wrote.
Fun-fact: even though I've been in multi-year poly relationships even I don't know if poly is right for me. I nominally identify as polyskeptic. This loosely means I believe more people than not are trying to be poly without realising that poly is sub-optimal for reaching their goals (whatever their goals are). I acknowledge I might be projecting here, because my dating life really only "took off" the way I wanted after I stopped trying to be poly and was nothing else other than "single."
That said, I do also have some empirical backing for my belief: I've spoken or know of at least 2-3 long-time poly EAs (i.e. poly for most of their dating life) that have since gone mono. I think the interesting thing was one of them saying they were shocked by how much more fulfilling mono was than they expected it would be given "poly-metaphysics" is what they strongly subscribed to before.
Which also speaks to a broader point: if you're poly you're interesting and get invited to speak on the Clearer Thinking podcasts etc etc. You gain status just due to your private relationship preference in EA, or such is my perception. Nobody cares if you're mono.
But, this is getting to a point where I need to go to work and I'd like to talk with you over video chat instead to continue - perhaps on EA Gather.town to make it public. DM'd you :)
You're using the word sexually liberal / open-minded /interesting interchangeably. Catholic nuns can be interesting, monogamous people can be open minded. Private sexual preferences have nothing to do with interestingness or open minded ness.
I am not just talking about professional relationships. I'm also talking about what the community should value. Treating women differently as higher/lower status based on their sexuality is simply wrong. A lot of people are intentionally monogamous ( like me). Assig... (read more)
To push back on this slightly, I do think the [replace poly with gay] intuition pump works though I think I'll talk about [replace poly with Christian] so as to use a less contentious example. Imagine we found out that Christian EAs might be worse? Would we ask for a community-wide norm against them? I think the idea makes me pretty queasy.
My norm here is that to infringe upon people's liberty, you need to be much more certain than other kinds of proposals, perhaps that the benefits 5 - 10x the harms.
I am not sure of that in this case, and I don't think anyone other than @HaydenW has attempted a quantification of this. I don't think we know what women in EA want, let alone EAs in general.
And likewise I think I could make a utility case, that we are trying to think clearly about things and that we are going to run into culture war concerns eventually and that we should learn to think well about them. I'm open to being wrong her, but while "politics is the mindkiller" if you get big enough, you need to engage with politics and at that point, having engaged positively with mindkilling topics might be positive.
All this said I'm pretty open to the idea that we should insitute such a norm (against kinds of casual sex) but I think we should be much more confident than we are and I'd like to see some number and what a representative sample of EAs/possible EAs think.
Is anyone suggesting a "community-wide norm against" any particular group of people?
The original post's recommendation has a disparate impact on different groups, which is relevant but not the same as a group-targeted norm.
Strongly agree
Like you say it seems like many people draw a line when it comes to utility between parts of our life that can seem deeply personal (relationships), and aspects of our life that seem less personal (What job I should do, where I should give my money, what cause is best). Perhaps this is a reasonable distinction and we should be drawing that line, but I would like to see it better articulated rather than assumed.
I appreciated @Nathan Young's comment above which perhaps articulates some of this difficulty. "I feel sad/judged/ frustrated reading this, though that's not to say it's wrong."
i feel like the "what if you replace poly with gay" thing is saying, like
empirically something (some kind of instinctual conservatism towards sexual norms) caused people to say the same things about gay people.
so something like instinctual-conservatism-towards-sexual-norms when it's ~adults doing consensual things is a heuristic that failed in the past and is probably not reliable
if you want to interfere with my private life to that extent there's a very strong burden of proof upon you
also happier EAs are EAs that are better at doing EA work, generally speaking
I feel sad/judged/ frustrated reading this, though that's not to say it's wrong.
Some thoughts
adding things if I think of them
I strongly disagree with this. I've dated ~ 10 people in my life. I have also been sexually assaulted (not by someone in the community). I would quickly and without hesitation take a trade to experience 1 rape like the one I experienced (non-violent) in return to keep any of my happy relationships I've had in my life (about half of which I think wouldn't have formed absent what the author is calling "sleeping around"). For my best relationship (which initially formed via "sleeping around" and I don't think could easily have done so otherwise, and is now the love of my life), I would trade dozens of rape, easily, for the joy and love my partner brings me.
For sexual harassment, the ratio is even more skewed (obviously). Maybe I'm unusual, but this doesn't feel personally like a hard trade at all on the current margin.
tbh I suspect that "stuck in a long term abusive relationship" is a more important tail risk than sexual assault and "sleeping around" helps people defend against it (by developing reasonable expectations of what relationships should be like)
I feel by those numbers EAs shouldn't be dating each other at all?
And possibly with those numbers humans shouldn't be dating in general, ignoring EA?
yeah
I mean, empirically women do choose to go on dates, so I'm going to trust the revealed preferences here...
Surely it makes more sense to compare the upside-- someone forming a long lasting and loving relationship.
Maybe that's extreme, but taking a balance of outcomes I doubt it would be 1/100.
Also strange that you chose to say 1/100 and also 100x as many people-- surely if you have high confidence in those numbers then that would balance out by definition? Or is the somewhere where you think this sort of scale insensitivity is valid?
HaydenW, thank you.
Firstly, for trying to be a good feminist - I honestly think you should get points for trying.
Secondly, for making it plain how ridiculous these arguments are. I've seen a lot of reasoning on this forum recently that goes:
more sex = more harassment & assault therefore polyamory and "sleeping around" and friends with benefits and any other form of sexual relationship I think I can get away with policing in 2023 = bad (...but obviously sex before marriage and serial monogamy and any other form of serious, "proper" sexual relationship especially marriage - you know, the ones that actually count because they don't just make people happy they're just good you know? = good)
Convenient how the numbers keep working out only in favour of socially sanctioned forms of relationship.
"Sex is between one person and one other person when both people are working towards marriage and not having sex with other people in between" is a lot better than "Sex can only happen within marriage which is between one man and one woman for life," but there's still some way to go.
What is EA coming to when I feel even more slut-shamed here than I do with my family lol.
The irony is that it seems to mostly be coming from the political left.
It's certainly true that "Failed attempts at sleeping with someone can often lead to awkwardness or uncomfortability." However, this is also true of successful attempts. "No attempts" isn't a reasonable solution.
If there is a taboo the EA community would benefit from breaking it's the notion that something being awkward/uncomfortable is evidence, in and of itself, that something that has transpired is bad, or someone did something wrong. Well intentioned people acting in good faith can often lead to awkward situations even when nobody did anything explicitly wrong.
There's obviously a continuum of behaviors from very benign to potentially very serious, it's very difficult to escape nuance in these cases. Life isn't always so simple.
I am opposed to any norm that asks different behavior of men than women.
Some EA parties (including some EA Global afterparties) involve cuddle puddles or hot tubs. The post made me wonder if that is also problematic. I've never heard anyone say that but some people might feel pressure to comply in order to fit in and possibly make important connections. It also probably increases the probability of various problems like touching without consent. Such things might also repulse some new commers from EA, especially after all the scandals. Perhaps people should consider whether such things are appropriate for a given gathering a bit more?
Since some people here have shared their personal relevant experience and mine has been different to any of the ones I’ve read, I thought I’d share mine.
I have been in EA as a local group organizer and on-again-off-again student for 7 years. I’ve been to 5 in person conferences and many adjacent social events (after parties etc.) I’m a young woman, and am pretty used to attention from guys. Before creating a dating doc I had been asked out by EA guys four times. Three were very nice and respectful, and were in no position of social or professional status over me. One was in a position of social status and pressured me into making out after I had already turned him down—I certainly doubt he was the kind who would have refrained from doing this if there were a norm against sleeping around in EA, since he was a real Transgressor of Norms. (he’s since lost his status and demoted himself to EA-adjacent, in part because of other harassment allegations).
After I created a dating doc I was approached by someone who I had long admired greatly and who I absolutely considered high status. This was for the purpose of perhaps forming a serious relationship which certainly could not have been po... (read more)
I've felt quite saddened and distressed by this post. I deeply agree that it is right and beneficial to be more careful, restrained and generally err on the side of caution in romancing/dating, when there are work or power imbalance considerations.
But at the same time (in section "What I mean by sleeping around"), this post presents views that are in line with contemporary mainstream norms of sex-negativity and soft poliphobia . To quote the post itself:
And I think presenting romancing/sex as something negative or potentially negative, unless it happens in a monogamous and serious relationship (or in setting intentioned for leading to one) is unfortunately similar way of stigmatisation.
I'm sorry you feel that way. For clarity's sake, I don't think sex is "bad", but instead that it is often "messy", and that there are costs with messiness within the community. I think at the very least, more people should consider the potential messiness here in their personal decisions. And while I think there can be large messiness involved in being polyamorous with multiple people from within the same tight-knight community, I don't think the post is as harsh towards polyamory/nonmonogamy as your comment suggests.
tbh I'm not exactly sure you ... understand poly culture here?
like it feels like you have primary relationships filed under "serious" relationships and secondary relationships filed under "unserious" which like ... doesn't really get it imo
for me "good friends and people who i'd like to be friends with" is pretty closely correlated with "people i'd go out of my way to hook up with" and it feels like you have decided that a for me is an normal human way to show affection is off limits or inadvisable?
i think there's a third thing that's kind of reasonable to object to which is guys in EA hitting on women in EA for no more reason than that they are women in EA, which is fair enough.
Is it true that other successful institutions generally have norms against dating within them? (I don't want to use the term "sleeping around", which feels derogatory in this particular context). My company only prohibits dating people in your chain of command, and I am certainly aware of relationships within the company that have not caused any objections or issues that I know of. Though my company is tens of thousands of people, with thousands in my building, so maybe it doesn't qualify as tight-nit. I also haven't perceived any of my friend groups as having a norm against dating. Family seems obviously different, because there is that incest norm, and that impossibility of stepping away on the off chance that things go really badly. Though again, maybe you have a family with different dynamics - to the best of my knowledge, I've never met a cousin's spouse's anything. Anyway, point is, I don't think it's actually true that the rest of society operates this way.
Varies by context and institution. In my experience, I don't perceive any norms against "serious dating" of people of roughly equal rank, but a lot of casual sex with officemates would cause some people to question your judgment. Activities with someone outside of the legal department (I'm a lawyer) wouldn't raise any norm issues unless the other person was very senior.
You think that dating a coworker or whatever without sleeping with them is less likely to cause problems than the reverse? That does not ring true to me at all. It does ring of Christian purity culture, which I would not have expected to encounter in EA.
Thank you for posting this Patrick Sue Domin. I agree wholeheartedly that at the very least, sleeping around in the community under the circumstances stated should be seen as something that is outside of a norm and therefore necessary to do only with great caution. I’m a woman who has in the past enjoyed sleeping around and would have potentially been saddened to have slightly fewer options in the EA community (my own initiation notwithstanding). However, I think it’s important to note that I think that this loss is worth it to alleviate some of the discomfort that women can feel in this community, which applies even more to younger and more vulnerable women than me.
I also want to note the importance of age, which wasn’t discussed explicitly in the post. If you have more than a 6 year age gap (depending on your age group of course) or are in different stages of life (undergrads and college graduates come to mind) then you are in a position of power over that person. When I was in my early 20s and younger, I had several interactions with people where I didn’t realize that they were hitting on me because they seemed like kind, reasonable people and the power differential was ve... (read more)
Wanted to comment that, as a woman quite involved in EA, I relate to your post. I didn't initially find being hit on that demoralizing, but as time progressed I've been feeling more and more like many men in EA are simplifying a good chunk of my existence to my appearance, and this has severely harmed my view of myself. I have consciously stepped back from the community so I can remind myself that my value is not in my sexual appeal, and build my self-esteem back up. Ironically, in some ways, being involved in the community (as opposed to holding EA ideals from afar) has made me less focused on impact and more focused on sexuality. I still find the community valuable and want to continue engaging in it, but I can also absolutely see why many women would completely cut themselves off after the experiences I have had.
Thanks for your perspective! I agree with OP that unfortunately many people similar to yourself either engage shallowly with EA or bounce off after they realize they’re being hit on a bunch. I’ve talked to a couple of people in my personal life who have expressed that exact issue when I tried to get them to join our local group.
I’m surprised by the amount of people in the forum who basically react “too bad” to this idea. I hope we can get better and find a happy medium for people.
Note that aggressively seeking a serious monogamous relationship within EA is also problematic. For example, it might be a bad idea to ask out every other EA woman you had a nice 30 minute conversation with (e.g., see this comment).
I feel like there's an implicit prediction of something like [communities with intelligent people which have lots of causal sex are going to be worse at dealing with sexual assualt/harrassment] and I kind of want to note my reaction being 'given my personal experience i dont really believe this and all else equal I would feel safer in such communities'
like, if i had to point to an exact mechanism:
- you only really have so many dumb mistakes to make and I would prefer it if, unlike Owen, people could get these out of their system while young and not yet in leadership positions.
-there's a benefit of like, better gossip networks and more accumulated wisdom that could be passed on to the next generation, so they can make fewer dumb mistakes.
but mostly I'm going off empirical experience
I'll agree that there are tough problems around seniority (maybe err on the side of, the less senior person should initiate) and gender balance (this seems hard to me, although I think poly-within-the-community helps on the margin?)
I don't have many strong opinions on this topic, but one I do have and think should be standard practice is recusing oneself from decisions involving current or former romantic partners.
That means not being involved in hiring processes and grantmaking decisions involving them, and not giving them references without noting the conflict of interest. This is very standard in professional organisations for good reason.
I would like a proper poll of EAs and what they want here. In particular how they trade off sexual freedom and being harmed. I am very uncertain what this poll would show.
Agree. I would also want a poll of EA-adjacent people of their view of EA here or people who went to one EA meetup and never came back, if it could be done, since I think the community right now may have a selection effect inflating support for sleeping around.
One set says: OCB overstepped the mark severely, he should have known better, I am devastated, this is a huge problem that needs to be solved promptly at a community level. We need to kill our darlings, like polyamory and sleeping around in the community as a norm.
Another set says: I refuse to accept any sort of restriction on who I flirt with/sleep with/date in the EA community, even a restriction that would have prevented OCB from having a flirty relationship with the woman in question.
(I could be reading it all wrong; tell me what you see.)
I think you're misstating what the post actually says, but
seems wrong. The one poll shows overwhelming support for the recommendation.
I think the side that doesn't want to give up sleeping around is being louder in the comments but if you look at agreevotes of the more prominent comments on each side, the side that's agreeing with this post is seeing much more support than the side that's against it.
I upvoted the post because I like that it tries to tackle power dynamics and sources of problems related to sex, which the community clearly has.
That said, I don't actually agree. I don't think policing people's relationship choices (including casual ones) is necessary - or productive - for preventing harassment etc.
Perhaps the most important point is that out of the sample of comments I've read so far, most were written by men - and I'm much more interested to hear what women in EA think here.
Poll - Agreevote to agree
Do you agree with this recommendation?
"For anyone who has at least 2 of the above traits (such as a heterosexual man who is high status in EA or is socially clumsy), I would strongly recommend considering refraining from sleeping around in the movement."
Feels like that depends on the person. I imagine for some it might reduce by like 20x filor others almost none.
I know this is quite a cold way to talk about something so intimate but it feels relevant. I feel scared doing it though
Realistically, I think many EAs have a much easier time sleeping around in EA than outside of EA. Unfortunately, this is probably particularly true for people that are high status in EA or socially clumsy.
I feel happy you wrote this.
I worry that this is not very incentive compatible however. It would presumably create strong incentives for men to identify as only EA-adjacent, not work for EA orgs, not publicly donate to effective charities, so as to exempt themselves from the rule.
It also seems like it could worsen selection pressures. If more well behaved males abide by such a rule, this would make things easier for less moral guys by reducing competition.
https://slate.com/culture/1996/07/more-sex-is-safer-sex.html
Traditionally this incentive issue has been partially solved by stigmatizing those who violate the norm, but that doesn't work as well if the violators are not part of the community. The other part of the traditional solution is the stigmatization of women who accept such approaches, because each one who does so imposes negative externalities on other women by encouraging cadish behavior.
Yes, although historically groups like villages, churches and ethnic groups have been keen to encourage members to date and marry each other.
I agree with you here. I didn’t realize how dearly people held the ability to sleep around within the community. I do worry that this setup creates bad incentives where people who want casual sex are far more highly motivated to go out to in person events, which means a disproportionate number of any local groups may have quite a few people seeking casual sex.
This is a very bad state of affairs for trying to grow the movement, especially if we want more “normal” people or women.
Being able to have the kind of valuable interpersonal connections that are good for me (i.e. poly relationships) is just more important to me than EA is. It's just one of my hobbies, and I'm not interested in subordinating my life to norms within them interfere with good parts of my life. EA does select for people who are unusually value-aligned with me along some axes, which is important to me romantically, but if it becomes less accepting of poly / more conventionally conservative, I'll be less aligned with the resulting community and will likely leave and focus on other interests.
I feel like I want to comment, for people that know me, that this wasn't me (same first name, the auhtor's description could probably be me, it's the type of thing I'd say (this isn't me necessarily endorsing the post)).
That only holds if these people aren't going to sexually harass anyway. Buy if they are just having sex outside EA instead then the harms have just been shifted and the question is more about people wanting to be a part of the movement.
What would your suggestion to minimise harms but maximise benefits be. And it seems worth considering even quite onerous things because I imagine the people in Austin might be willing to sacrifice a lot.
What about a way that people can opt in to bring hit on.
Many things that would be problems between EAs would not be with other people you might hook up with. Especially, the ability to recommend people for EA jobs or funding is irrelevant to almost everyone in the world but very important to many EAs.
I wrote some thoughts on this + the whole related conversation here: https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/4towuFeBfbGn8hJGs/amber-dawn-s-shortform?commentId=bHmWcHYnQkaGWjbcQ
I wrote some thoughts on this + the whole related conversation here: https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/4towuFeBfbGn8hJGs/amber-dawn-s-shortform?commentId=bHmWcHYnQkaGWjbcQ