Scott Alexander analyzes SSC survey data on sexual roles, finding strong gender and orientation influences, but no connection to self-sabotaging behaviors or altruism. Longer summary

Scott Alexander analyzes survey data on sexual roles (dominance, submission, sadism, and masochism) from the SSC survey. He initially hypothesizes a connection between sexual masochism and self-sabotaging behaviors but finds no evidence for this. The analysis reveals that BDSM preferences are heavily gendered and influenced by sexual orientation. Among straight cis men, factors like good social skills, high risk-taking, ambition, and conservative political values correlate with a preference for dominance. Submissive men reported lower sex drive and fewer relationships. The post also briefly touches on sadism vs. masochism, noting similar patterns to dominance vs. submission. Two mildly interesting findings are mentioned: men with OCD are less likely to be sadists, and men who grew up poor reported higher rates of sexual sadism. The data showed no connection between sexual roles and prosocial behaviors like charitable giving. Shorter summary

Scott critiques the misuse of consent-based arguments to justify bans, arguing that they often disguise sacred values and can lead to more harm than good. Longer summary

This post critiques the misuse of consent-based arguments to justify banning practices. Scott starts with a satirical proposal to ban healthcare to prevent non-consensual treatment, then extends this to banning non-Democrat candidates to prevent accidental voting. He argues that these 'fake consensualism' arguments are often used to disguise sacred values as neutral principles. The post explains that while consent is important, banning practices entirely based on the possibility of non-consent often leads to more harm than good. Scott concludes by calling for a higher burden of proof for such arguments and suggesting that Basic Income Guarantee would be a better way to ensure genuine consent. Shorter summary