Yeah, the entire piece feels like Madlibs for analogies, where one totally disregards the emotional aspect of the substitutions.

I think this is a piece by rationalists for rationalists that escaped the niche it was supposed to remain in.

There was a very interesting video? Article? About how the reason Twitter is so hostile is because it blends people who do not have shared contexts, so ideas are taken out or context and land poorly. This feels like that.

It gets weirder:

  Intimacy is great, but you’re fooling yourself if you think that doing
  slimy pushups against each other is the optimal way to produce it. It
  may (sadly) be one of the best ways in practice, given what nature has
  left us with, but that’s very different from saying “yes, this is
  definitely how a good designer would have designed this system from
  the ground up.”

  A literal actual majority of the people I’ve talked to about this
  genuinely claim to believe that yep, this is the right way for
  intimacy and pleasure to be created, it’s ideal, no actually better
  system could exist, any major changes would be worse.

  And they are deeply confused. You are deeply confused, insofar as you
  are (probably) a part of that majority.

And:

  I’m quite fond of orgasms, as it happens. I wouldn’t write them out of
  the universe. I just wish they incentivized me to do something that I
  straightforwardly want to do, rather than incentivizing me to:

  - Sit alone tediously massaging a body part, instead of doing anything
    actually interesting

  - Try to convince some other cool and interesting person to drop all
    of their cool and interesting activities to do some slimy pushups
    with me

And much more.

https://medium.com/@ThingMaker/on-puberty-identity-and-sex-6...