You must log in or register to comment.
-Listens to what he means when he is speaking -Pays attention to his nonverbal cues about his emotional state -Respects his boundaries and only assists him in expanding them, not demanding he do so -Rewards him for engaging in new healthy behaviours that he finds uncomfortable
Fellas, is it being an asshole for checks notes engaging with your partner?
I think the concern would be generating a Pavlovian response to her presence instead of genuine desire to be with her, but I don’t even know what that really means because our animal brains aren’t rational. There isn’t a such thing as “genuine” in this context because it’s all based on emotions. Should you not have sex with your partner because it can make them feel attached, for example?
Just hit it from the back so they don’t get attached
Sure, positive associations can be fabricated but it’s not as simple as the pavlovian response observed in dogs.
I don’t think they’re all that different tbh
If THAT is what counts as “being treated like a dog”, woof woof!
🦴
People forget that humans are just animals (that can sometimes reason and talk). I still stand that dog training guides make better parenting books than many parenting books. At least up till around 3 years old.
The extension of this to adults is more challenging. Intent matters. This could be used abusively VERY easily. That is not happening here, however. With great power, comes great responsibility.
It’s also worth noting that, if you use this, plan out how you will explain it later. A panicked, “oh shit, (s)he caught on!” will look bad, no matter what. A calm, thoughtful, positive explanation, delivered with confidence will likely get a lot more acceptance.
A: “Ok, what’s with the M&Ms?”
B: “You’ve noticed then. :)”
A: “…”
B: “I noticed chocolate made you happy. I also noticed you were trying to overcome some negative habits. I decided to help. Whenever you put effort in, I rewarded it with a bit of chocolate. It makes you happy, and helps you lock a good habit in better.”
A: “… You’ve been conditioning me?!?”
B: “Yes, don’t you like the improvement?”
A “… yes, but I’m not sure I should…”
B: “M&M?”
You could also be even more cautious: “I noticed that they cheer you up, so I try to have them on hand for when you’re feeling down.” No mention of conditioning, wholesome, hard to argue against.
Intent matters, and methods matter. But I think what the friend is missing is that the methods aren’t bad; op is using methods developed from scientific analysis of abused animals with the intent to ethically care for them. Coming back to intent, she clearly wants to help this guy who her training is identifying as having some kind of background of abuse. The methods might be a little crude in the sense that they were developed for animals and not for people (who are animals, but animals with several distinct qualities from other animals, like the ability to communicate complex ideas), and there are different, more well-adapted methods for people, but they’re only crude in comparison to those modern human-focused methods. They’re still quite effective, and I would still consider them ethical for use on humans when paired with an altruistic intent, which she seems to be conveying. As long as she still views the guy as fully a person, a peer, then I see nothing wrong here.
The only vaguely concerning bit I see here is the penultimate sentence. Evading consent is sketchy, but I’m not a behavioral psychologist and thus have no working knowledge on how that would impact his “treatment”.
I think that’s what stuck for me. Manipulation takes many forms, not all look evil. She should take these observations and talk to him about it, instead of using them as tools to treat his feelings.
Talk about what, though?
“Hello, I would like to give you peanuts sometimes when you’re sad. Do you accept these terms?”
What is he consenting to that he’s not already aware of?
Speaking of pavlovian conditioning, the reason I don’t like casinos, loot boxes in video games, gacha mechanics, etc., is not that I think those people haven’t consented to their money being taken from them. I just don’t think those are good institutions. Or practices. Whichever word applies. They take more than they give, and I don’t think that’s fair.
You’re grossly misrepresenting what this is. She got desserts and noted him as food motivated. That’s insulting. He only got happy because there was food for him to eat, really? No discussion of why he was sad before, just get him snacks and move on? Maybe talk to him and ask why he seemed upset before desert instead of just giving him a snack and hoping it’s better.
The woman here is trying to change his mood or behavior through dog training techniques instead of figuring out why he feels or acts a certain way. Is he aware that she is literally treating him like a dog? It comes across as her caring about his behavior in the moment more than his overall mental health.
He only got happy because there was food for him to eat, really?
I don’t know about you, but I love dessert.
instead of figuring out why he feels or acts a certain way.
So, 1, this doesn’t answer my question about what it is he hasn’t consented to.
2, how is it you know she’s not interested in his life story?
I don’t know about you, but I love dessert.
Fair, but if I’m upset because I might lose my job or my mom is sick then that doesn’t address any of those.
So, 1, this doesn’t answer my question about what it is he hasn’t consented to.
Ok let’s answer that. Did she say “I’m going to treat you like a dog” and him agree? Did she say, “I’m giving you an m&m ever time you open up to encourage it” I doubt it and she never mentioned it. She simply does this as a manipulation technique without ever discussing “hey, I think we need to talk about you being comfortable being vulnerable.”
2, how is it you know she’s not interested in his life story?
Well she had the chance to say she actually talked about and addressed the problems upsetting him, but she never mentioned that at all. Just dog training strategies she uses on him without him being aware.
Did she say “I’m going to treat you like a dog” and him agree?
And what does this mean, exactly? You get the extra muffin she baked or something? You get to cuddle a lot?
Did she say, “I’m giving you an m&m ever time you open up to encourage it”
She probably didn’t say that, no, but I assume he can see this, like, with his eyes. If he doesn’t want m&m’s, why take them?
Well she had the chance to say …
So, she hasn’t told you via this tweet, therefore, ergo, concordantly, vice ve, she has never cared or asked about, like, his childhood or his mom.
Yeah I think that’s pretty gross. This person stated that the person they are dating is emotionally unavailable and has potentially been abused as a child. But because they find them pretty, they decided to manipulate a person like they manipulate animals for selfish purposes. (Both are bad!) Their partner probably needs therapy not to be emotionally manipulated by their partner.
Have a M&M
