this post was submitted on 23 Apr 2025
955 points (98.6% liked)
Curated Tumblr
4932 readers
304 users here now
For preserving the least toxic and most culturally relevant Tumblr heritage posts.
The best transcribed post each week will be pinned and receive a random bitmap of a trophy superimposed with the author's username and a personalized message. Here are some OCR tools to assist you in your endeavors:
-
FOSS Android Recs per u/m_f@discuss.online: 1 , 2
Don't be mean. I promise to do my best to judge that fairly.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
-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?
Yeah, this person isn't disrespectfully treating a human as they would a dog, they're just respectfully treating dogs as they would a human.
We can't get a dog's consent to engage in experiments. Continuing with this method after realizing and not talking with him about it would be intentionally ignoring consent.
It's not an experiment to react to someone's fear and trauma with kindness, even if you learned those skills through helping rehabilitate dogs. She's not doing this to try to figure out how he reacts to the stimulus of M&Ms under certain conditions, she's giving him candy when he's stressed because she knows it helps him calm down. That's just being a caring and attentive girlfriend.
Being caring also involves including their consent in the process. Idk, I'd be really upset by my partner knowingly doing this without talking to me about it. But then again I guess it could depend how they react if I found out before they just admit to it. Like if they got defensive and didn't understand why I'm upset. I'm not saying the whole thing is horrible, just hiding it.
Also depends on the person and their values, I guess. If you value someone doing that kind of emotional labor for you without you having to think about it. I'm very much used to doing the emotional labor in relationships.
Damn. I just realized maybe I'm displacing here though cuz I'm a bit jealous they’re using a method that works, whereas I'm single for a plethora of reasons.
What is the "this" you'd be upset about exactly?
That's fair. If you're used to not receiving emotional attention, then suddenly receiving it might be something so novel that you need to give it your blessing before accepting it. The relationships I've been in have generally defaulted for both parties to a sense of "I'm going to do what I think is best for you, so let me know if I'm ever wrong," rather than "Can I do this thing for you? Ok, good. How about this one?" But I've been lucky to have mutually caring relationships.
If this person has gotten used to people not having their best interests in mind, then maybe even their partner's good intentions need to be given consent just to show them that people can have good intentions. I do worry that, by being told what's happening, he'd associate candy with being stressed and get defensive whenever offered candy, but hopefully she's been doing it long enough to at least show him that it's an effective de-stressor coming from a place of love rather than manipulation.
I hope you find someone who cares for you as well. It took me a lot of time and effort to put myself out there before I found my wife, but I'm really glad I did.
Even in your description of an "emotionally attentive" relationship, they have to be aware of what you're doing for them or else how will then tell you that you're wrong? Can it only ever be wrong if the person being acted for detects it, regardless of whether they dislike it?
Hypothetical: "You've been wanting to get stronger, so I've been secretly feeding you HGH. It's what you've wanted so I was doing what I thought best to help you."
All relationships require consent. Trying to reframe "getting consent and confirmation about your partner's wants and boundaries" as some sort of "anxious pestering" or needling is incredibly strange to me. As you get to know them, you don't have to check as often as you come to understand them but they should still be aware of what you're doing.
And do you realize what you're doing here is placing yourself as the standard to debate down at other positions, while presenting your anecdotes as relationship defaults?
It's funny, your hypothetical made me realize that OP's example specifically does involve consent. Your example removed the inherent consent of the situation by making the HGH dosage a secret thing they're doing behind their partner's back.
When my wife has a hard day I'll bake her a batch of her favorite cookies because I know they'll help cheer her up. I don't need to ask consent for that because it's just a thing I'm doing on my own. She always has the option not to eat them when I offer her some if she doesn't want to, and on the rare occasion she turns me down, she knows I'll just bring them to work to share with the office. That's a normal relationship - seeing when your partner needs something from you, and offering it to them - that offering is the point where consent is asked.
Yeah, if I secretly ground up cookies and mixed them into her cereal in the morning in an attempt to force her to eat them, that would be bad. The consent comes at the offering, not at the loving act of choosing to offer it in the first place. This guy is giving consent when he takes the candy, and denying it when he chooses not to take it, just like my wife is giving consent when she takes the cookies, or denying it when she refuses them, which is always a known option.
Yeah and, in my hypothetical, the person accepted the meals, so they must have consented to consuming the HGH too. You seem obstinate in refusing to see how intent shapes consent.
Imagine a person thinks it's in their partner's "best interest" to gain weight and only ever suggests the greasiest, most fattening foods and eateries. It is still incumbent on the partner to maintain their own fitness but the intention behind the person's offers taints the offer and ignores what the partner might wish.
You're assuming intent has to be something dry and contractual. "You had a bad day? I'll make you some cookies." You expressed your intent (assuming you aren't lying to them) and presented the offer: I'm making you cookies to help alleviate your bad day. Specifically in the OP, she recoils from the idea of telling the boyfriend what she's doing and chooses to hide the intent. I said as much in another comment, if she said as little as "I've noticed peanut M&Ms cheer you up when you're sad, you want some?" then she has obtained consent and has informed him what she's doing when she randomly hands him singular M&Ms. I'd wash my hands of this debate. Her reticience does not paint as rosy a picture as that.
Trying to whitewash the situation because "it doesn't seem to be negative" and "she's trying to help" doesn't negate that hiding things is a terrible precedent to set.
Well, wait, are you assuming she's not already saying “I’ve noticed peanut M&Ms cheer you up when you’re sad, you want some?” because I have been. The thing she's been "hiding" is the concept that she's training him like a dog, which as I said in my original comment isn't true; she learned the skills from training dogs, but they are skills that offer the same love and respect you would give a human.
Her friend focused on the fact that she treats dogs and humans the same, thought that meant she was disrespectfully training her boyfriend like one might train a dog, and believed that she was hiding this secret training from her boyfriend, which is just an incorrect assessment of the situation.
So yeah, she could tell her boyfriend that she's treating him like she would a dog, which technically would be the most honest thing to say, but I think it would just lead to him forming a negative association with what is ultimately a caring act, the same way her friend sees it. It's enough to just stick to "I'm giving you candy because you're stressed" rather than "I'm giving you treats in the way that I would give a dog treats."
I am not assuming she made a plain offer.
I admit my inferences are predicated on the context that she is applying dog training but it is entirely core to the discussion. Her quote says not "some [M&Ms]", but "one". She's doling them a singlular M&M at specific instances. Again like trainers do when they're priming a reward for an animal after they perform the right action. And her self-defense is based on the idea that humans aren't that different from dogs and the boyfriend isn't aware of her actions, instead of anything normal like "he said he's glad I'm helping him" or "he's shown he's appreciative that I'm helping distract him from stress".
I'm getting the picture she's more doing "hey , here's an M&M" when she's training then anything resembling a clear mention of a helpful motive.
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