You must log in or # to comment.
This is probably a me thing, but if I were to catch on to someone doing this I might start wondering at some hidden intent behind everything they do
This. ^
Most of the time, you can’t tell the persons intentions from that position. I hope for the guy’s sake the woman is genuine about helping him. Though her method is fucked.
I mean, it doesn’t say that she forces him to eat it from her hand or anything.
If THAT is what counts as “being treated like a dog”, woof woof!
Someone who always has a snack for me if I’m feeling down?? Sign me the fuck up!
-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?
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.
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?
Someone wouldn’t like watching House M.D. if this is making them feel immoral.
House Trains His Protégé | House M.D…
(if you don’t want to see the whole thing here’s s timestamp for the more relevant portion)
That’s just basic psychology more or less. These are just the thoughts you shouldn’t say ouloud perhaps. You can often compare things because there’s similarities, but the nature of the things being compared may make it offensive.
It’s more like “training dogs has given me an understanding of basic psychology which came really handy in my relationships” than “I’m training my bf like a dog”.
Many people apparently loving this, I see it as a red flag. She’s manipulative and I’d second guess every action she’d take from the day I noticed it
Edit: funny that people are down voting this, I guess they want to be manipulated by their partners.
Take it from someone who divorced a manipulative partner, it’s not cool them all the time lying pushing and manipulating you to be the way they want you to be.
This reads like you didn’t even read the post, and you’re projecting your negative experience with your ex onto it for some reason. Yeah, abuse isn’t cool, but that’s not what this is.
I did read the post and yes, I have neen in abusive situations before. There is a reason why its an AITA question and yes, she is the asshole.
Just because apparently loads of people have a slave fetish here doesn’t mean that it’s not manipulative.
The point is that just because it’s manipulative, that doesn’t make it abuse.
It’s odd, sweet, I think. She’s doing her best in the way she knows best
Me, reading title: “WTF?!? That’s messed up!”
Me, after reading the post: “I’m so fucking jealous.”
This is literally how I want to be treated.
I mean this simply gets into the ethics of manipulation. Ultimately, it comes down to choosing happiness.
sounds like they treat their partner better than most people do, honestly.
Hey if it works out works. She is an asshole for not using proper grammar and punctuation though.
The way she contextualises it is a bit odd, but the actual thing isn’t that bad. It’s just accommodating him, being aware of his particulars, and helping him over his issues. The gift of a single M&M is unusual, but giving your partner something nice isn’t strange. People do similar things all the time in relationships, it’s just not thought of as training.
Biggest issue is her framing it that way, because people might either get the wrong idea, or give the wrong idea. Saying she’s training him like a dog gives the idea of a lead, like with an actual dog.
Yeah, I’ve seen a lot of people react like the treats are indignifying, as if positive and negative reinforcement only happen in a lab or something.
Yeah, the single m&m is a little weird but how is it really different than seeing someone in a bag mood and telling them a joke or something to lift their spirits?
Pretty sure it’s the lack of consent of the intent that is undignified. Just like many woman prefer to not have their date pay for their meal because it sets the implication that they have to pay via other ways and they didn’t consent to this.
Okay, I asked somebody else, maybe you can help.
Consent to what? What is he supposed to be consenting to? That she thinks thoughts in her head? M&M’s are not actually magic, he does not have to be any happier if he doesn’t want to.
Like, let’s look at another act of subtle coercion: the advertising industry. An ad agency’s entire job is to either directly or indirectly prime and condition you into believing certain things about whatever it is they’re selling.
Maybe they want you to believe it’s a good product. Maybe they want you to believe that Apple is “clean” and “cool” and “for creatives.” Maybe they want you to believe that protesters are crazed lunatics throwing firebombs and flipping cars all the time.
And, while this is deliberate manipulation, I’ve never heard anybody talk about how they didn’t consent to it. If a salesman is trying to coerce you into something, your consent is the contract you sign.
And likewise, I don’t see how this guy isn’t consenting to M&M’s making him happier when they either did or did not do that in the first place.
Insert “it should’ve been me” meme here.
