So there's no room in your definition of pornography for homosexual porn? At all? Wow.
quote:I didn't say your wife is an insecure twit, I said she that she isn't enough for you.
And you know what? When I need my car repaired, I take it to someone other than my wife. Does that mean she "isn't enough" for me?
The purpose of my wife is not to sexually gratify me, any more than it is her purpose to fix my car. I didn't marry her for sexual gratification or car repair. That is not to say, of course, that she doesn't do a fine job of either -- but rather that the extent to which I consider those duties exclusively her responsibility should not be taken as an estimate of her value to me.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Rolo, I think you are seriously underestimating women...or maybe just misunderstanding marriage. I'm not sure, but your entire diatribe rang entirely false to me, so I'm not even going to bother quoting bits of it.
Here's what's important:
The extent to which I feel valued by my husband has to do with how well he responds to my needs.
I believe my husband feels the same way.
Here's my big problem with this entire line of thinking. Who are you to tell me what works and does not work in my marriage? I'll tell my husband when I feel like he's not valuing me. I have, in fact, very recently, because he's spending too much time at work and it's driving me up the wall.
quote:Now to day-dreaming, its wrong on all accounts, because you CHOSE it, you WANTED it, and you were obviously ENJOYING it.
I fail to see how choice, desire, and enjoyment make something wrong. The other day I wanted chocolate. I chose to eat it. And I enjoyed it.
Posts: 2392 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Again, my view of homosexuality has nothing to do with my view with pornography. This is a discussion of pornography (which yes, does include homosexual pornography) but my post had to do with heterosexual pornography, which I stated.
You're absolutely right, your wife has many different values, (i can see how you would view my opinion as that, my mistake) those could include fixing a car. Her sexual value (i don't like it but i'll use it, if you have a better term please suggest it) is not enough to satiate you because you seek out others besides her, her value is not decreased, only her value to you is. If she was your only outlet for sexual desires wouldn't she be far more important IN THAT AREA? Having one well inside a city makes it far more valuable to the inhabitants than if they had twenty wells. That isn't her only purpose, but obviously you admire her for it and are ready to defend her. But being human you of course find her sexually attractive, and that outlet is one of her purposes, just like (typically) the man works to provide food for the family, it isn't his only purpose but it is a purpose nonetheless. The same can be reversed, women are attracted to men, and therefore a man fulfills a woman's sexual desire. It's not his only purpose, but a purpose nonetheless. I want to clarify that I'm not saying a woman's purpose is to satisfy a man. That sounds like I'm saying that you would marry a woman just for that purpose (which is wrong), but sex is usually associated with marriage. Which is what I was discussing. A woman sexually satisfies a man, and a man sexually satisfies a woman. There are homosexual relationships, but I won't get into those.
Posts: 9 | Registered: Aug 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:If she was your only outlet for sexual desires wouldn't she be far more important IN THAT AREA?
Sure. And if she were my only outlet for fresh water, she'd be far more important in that area.
But a scenario in which I am dependent upon my wife for my well-being is not healthy; it's dependency. I am perfectly capable of loving and remaining faithful to my wife without needing to make myself dependent on her for survival.
quote:There are homosexual relationships, but I won't get into those.
*shrug* Your loss, from what I hear. j/k
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:I fail to see how choice, desire, and enjoyment make something wrong. The other day I wanted chocolate. I chose to eat it. And I enjoyed it.
I was talking specifically with day-dreaming, liking something is fine, its when it causes problems in your life that it becomes an issue. Maybe you like chocolate more than him? Like you said: "he's spending too much time at work and it's driving me up the wall." he was doing something that got in the way of your marriage, which is wrong, to a point. If he's going to lose his job unless he stays at work, then it might be best that he stay there, but if he's doing it for fun (hey, it could happen) then it would be wrong. Thats getting into a very specific line of thinking, which I would say: leave it up to you two to discuss. I don't know, I don't know the facts.
quote:The extent to which I feel valued by my husband has to do with how well he responds to my needs.
That sounds reasonable to me. I don't want to get into specifics here, but, lets pretend your husband did look at pornography (not detrimental and obsessive) would it not make you feel a little less? Not even a little? To me it would seem you aren't enough for him, because he needs more then you.
Posts: 9 | Registered: Aug 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
Looking beyond several fallacious lines of reasoning, there are two basic premises in Rolo's post that I strongly disagree with.
Re pornography,
quote:Please don't forget we are talking about real people here!
Well, I'm not talking about real people when I talk about porn, any more than when I talk about other types of content. Jenna Jameson is a porn actress, Daniel Radcliffe is an actor. She is not any of the roles she played, any more than he is Harry Potter.
Re marriage,
quote:But do you want her in the way you agreed to only want your wife when you married her? If you do, then you are cheating
Why are you making such far-reaching assumptions about what people commit to when they get married? Agreeing to never again desire anyone else is not something the majority of people would feel comfortable doing, I reckon. In fact, I would be almost as terrified if someone promised me that as I'd be if they promised me to stop breathing.
quote:I've done horrible things in my dreams I would never do
Hmmm. I don't think I have, ever. Make of that what you will.
quote:I don't expect perfection, I just expect you be continually trying to better yourself.
Sounds like a nice sentiment. Except for the fact that you seem to expect everyone to better themselves according to your standards, which makes it a bit scary.
Posts: 96 | Registered: Jun 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:To me it would seem you aren't enough for him, because he needs more then you.
Are you married? Do you feel like your love for your wife is lessened every time you get your own glass of milk?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Rolo Bio: lets pretend your husband did look at pornography (not detrimental and obsessive) would it not make you feel a little less? Not even a little? To me it would seem you aren't enough for him, because he needs more then you.
I don't know how to answer that, since my husband is not drawn to pornography. However, *I* am drawn to fantasies and daydreaming. I read them and write my own. I spent the first 4 years of my marriage sure I was doing something wrong when I daydreamed and do you know what happened? I felt absolutely no sexual desire whatsoever -- for my husband or anyone else. Lately I've been allowing myself that outlet and let's just say things have improved for us.
I've asked my husband how he feels about the fact that I fantasize and he says that while he doesn't understand it, he can't argue with results.
I'd like to think I would feel the same way if my husband needed an outlet like that. Of course, there is a big difference between occasionally looking at pornography and being addicted to it.
All your lines of thinking about pornography, daydreaming, and the like make the cardinal mistake of assuming that everyone is precisely the SAME. That we all think, feel, and react to stimuli in the same manner. This is patently untrue.
Posts: 2392 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Why are you making such far-reaching assumptions about what people commit to when they get married? Agreeing to never again desire anyone else is not something the majority of people would feel comfortable doing, I reckon. In fact, I would be almost as terrified if someone promised me that as I'd be if they promised me to stop breathing.
You'd be terrified if your husband/wife said they would only have sex with you?
quote:Hmmm. I don't think I have, ever. Make of that what you will.
I had to kill my dog once (in a dream), does that make me want to murder my dog? I've died in my dreams, does that make me suicidal?
quote:Sounds like a nice sentiment. Except for the fact that you seem to expect everyone to better themselves according to your standards, which makes it a bit scary.
Is it so wrong to hope everyone would improve themselves? This thread sort of turned into a view on marriage/pornography, so I posted mine. It doesn't apply to everyone, and I don't expect it to, I've gotten used to the idea that people will disagree, how else have we created a world like ours? If we all thought the same, we'd be no where.
Posts: 9 | Registered: Aug 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: I didn't marry her for sexual gratification or car repair.
Boy did you get shafted. When I get married, car repair skills will be second on the list behind the willingness to watch, nay, the enthusiastic participation in, reruns of Quantum Leap.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Christine: he says that while he doesn't understand it, he can't argue with results.
Awww, I think that's sweet.
quote:All [Rolo's] lines of thinking about pornography, daydreaming, and the like make the cardinal mistake of assuming that everyone is precisely the SAME. That we all think, feel, and react to stimuli in the same manner.
No, that's not it. The way I understand him, he doesn't claim that submitting to the outlined morality won't make some people unhappy, merely that it would be wrong for those people to let themselves be guided by what does make them happy.
---
quote:Originally posted by Rolo Bio: You'd be terrified if your husband/wife said they would only have sex with you?
No, that I could probably live with. There are two aspects about a vow to curtail something like sexual desire that I consider problematic. Firstly, giving up something for someone else's sake has the potential to lead to resentment. People should be sexually exclusive because they want to be, not because it is expected of them by their partner or the community. Secondly, more importantly, I would never want someone I'm in love with to promise to fundamentally change some facet of themselves unless there's something harmful about that facet. I'm in love with the person as they are, I can't be sure if I'll be in love with whoever they become if they succeed in making the change. This is why so many young marriages fail - the couple firmly believes that they can honestly promise to love each other for the rest of their lives, without realizing that both of them will change significantly within a few years.
quote:I had to kill my dog once (in a dream), does that make me want to murder my dog? I've died in my dreams, does that make me suicidal?
Those aren't examples of what you said, though - "horrible things I would never do".
quote:Is it so wrong to hope everyone would improve themselves?
No, it's a nice sentiment. That I share.
quote:If we all thought the same, we'd be no where.
Allright, we certainly agree on that. I'm usually careful about distinguishing between objective and subjective statements in my own posts and tend to get peeved when other people are less so. No offence meant. Posts: 96 | Registered: Jun 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Those aren't examples of what you said, though - "horrible things I would never do".
Horrible was too strong a word, I've never raped or murdered someone, though I have killed. A robber came to my house and was about to stab me, what else was I supposed to do? In my mind, having to kill him is horrible, but it was necessary.
quote:No, that's not it. The way I understand him, he doesn't claim that submitting to the outlined morality won't make some people unhappy, merely that it would be wrong for those people to let themselves be guided by what does make them happy.
Nicely put. Humans are born to make themselves happy, babies cry to get what they want, and later in life we realize that we have to pull our own weight and work with other people. If we all did whatever made us happy then people would rape constantly to make themselves happy at that moment, kill their boss in a moments of frustration, etc.
Its the same thing with pornography, its a way to make yourself happy without thinking about the effects it would have on your wife.
Posts: 9 | Registered: Aug 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
For the sake of rolo im going to say that although aggressive i have to agree with what he has said.
Porn is in fact degrading towards women. Even through jenna jameson (sorry for spelling im not into porn) is a porn actress but that doesn't mean that she is just a porn actress. She is in fact a women. She used to be a little girl. she used to be a little baby in a crib. Although it is completely her choice to be in porn and use that to make money that doesn't change the choice you are making to have a sexual experience with someone who is not your wife. You are choosing to open then screen, put that movie in, go to that website, and you are choosing to Sexually releive your self while viewing another women.
Now lets say your walking down the street and you see someone of the opposite sex changing in there front yard. take a seat and watch the entire "show" When you get home would you go to your wife and say "Honey as i was walking i saw someone changing. they got completely naked, ill be right back im going to finish it off in the bathroom" I highly doubt she would be happy. In fact i know that my wife would flip her lid.
In the same sense i don't think that any of you would be happy to inform your spouse of every time you viewed someone else as a sexual potential, that would make trips to wal-mart or the mall very uncomfortable. When you say your marriage vows do you not include that you will "cherish and love" them "untill death do you part" I think that a great way to cherish and love your spouse is to be exclusive to them. to let them know that they "are the only boy/girl" for you. and that you would never leave them. and that you would never desire someone else in the way you desire them. is that not what were doing by getting married. Telling the world and your love that you will be with them forever and that you only want to be with the. I think that if you have intentions on viewing porn you should but up front with everyone on your wedding day saying "to love and to cherish you and jenna, and that hot blonde chick from hotblondchick.com and all the girls from playboy"
Deep down inside of every person desires exclusive love. especially a girl. I know out of the girls i have talked to with there husbands who have viewed porn or do view porn, that they feel as if there husbands are sharing there love and there marriage right with every other girl they masturbate to.
bottom line is that by viewing, imagining, wanting, seeking, taking, sexual pleasure from someone other then your spouse is wrong. you are sharing something meant for your spouse. This even applies to pre-married people. Sexual acts period should only be shared with your wife. not with your computer not with your tv not with magazines but with your beautiful wife, handsome husband, which you have chosen. Why would you desire someone other then your spouse why would you choose to do the act to yourself rather then having a sexual experience with your lover?
In closing i want to as to ask. Who out there will honestly say they would rather masturbate to an image rather then have sex with your spouse?
Posts: 3 | Registered: Aug 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:I think that a great way to cherish and love your spouse is to be exclusive to them. to let them know that they "are the only boy/girl" for you. and that you would never leave them. and that you would never desire someone else in the way you desire them.
Heh. Are you married?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:I'm going to call B.S. on the "killed a robber" bit.
Ok, what did I dream? I seem to have forgotten. Please don't presume to read my mind from however far away you are.
quote:Heh. Are you married?
for you:
quote:In fact i know that my wife would flip her lid.
quote:bottom line is that by viewing, imagining, wanting, seeking, taking, sexual pleasure from someone other then your spouse is wrong. you are sharing something meant for your spouse. This even applies to pre-married people. Sexual acts period should only be shared with your wife. not with your computer not with your tv not with magazines but with your beautiful wife, handsome husband, which you have chosen. Why would you desire someone other then your spouse why would you choose to do the act to yourself rather then having a sexual experience with your lover?
Well said.
Posts: 9 | Registered: Aug 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:No, that's not it. The way I understand him, he doesn't claim that submitting to the outlined morality won't make some people unhappy, merely that it would be wrong for those people to let themselves be guided by what does make them happy.
Nicely put. Humans are born to make themselves happy, babies cry to get what they want, and later in life we realize that we have to pull our own weight and work with other people. If we all did whatever made us happy then people would rape constantly to make themselves happy at that moment, kill their boss in a moments of frustration, etc.
You want to rape people all the time? Eek!
Most of the men I know prefer willing women.
I'm not so sure about the boss thing...my husband's boss....sigh. All right, I'll restrain myself.
But the reason that I restrain myself is because things like rape and murder infringe upon someone else's rights. That is why they are deeply immoral. And in truth, because they are so deeply immoral, because we understand how terribly wrong they are from such an early age, it would not make me happy to kill anyone, not even my husband's boss. Moments of anger do not usually lead to death and destruction. If they do, you need anger management classes. And even then, I doubt very much the actions would make you happy.
quote:Its the same thing with pornography, its a way to make yourself happy without thinking about the effects it would have on your wife.
So what makes it immoral, the fact that it makes you happy, the fact that you aren't thinking about the effects it may have on your wife, or the actual effects if may or may not have on your wife?
I'm asking because whether or not it makes you happy seems somewhat irrelevant. Failing to think of how something would effect your wife is insensitive, but I'm reluctant to call it immoral.
As for the last -- any actual effect it may have on your wife -- let's say, for argument's sake, that your use of porn causes your wife to feel bad. Then one of two things is true. Either you got involve din a bad marriage without fully understanding what each of you needed and expected from the relationship. That is rash and naive, but not immoral.
Alternately, you made this fundamental change after the marriage, in full knowledge that your wife would find it unacceptable, in which case you have broken your marriage agreement and have, in fact, behaved in an immoral manner.
So summing up, I would only agree that porn is immoral if you and your spouse went into the marriage relationship in full agreement that such a thing was unacceptable and then you reneged.
In other words, marriages are negotiated.
Posts: 2392 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
That post was talking about doing whatever makes you happy. If we were reduced to doing what made us happy, then we would be reduced to our base desires: survive, reproduce, eat, etc. And if someone else's desire is competing with your survival/reproduction (base animal desires here, no conscience) what do animals do? Fight! Kill! Dog eat dog! Its you or them.
What I said isn't what I currently want to do, its what the base animal self I WOULD be if I just did what made my happy, which is what animals do, basically.
quote:In other words, marriages are negotiated.
I've never heard a girl who was excited to sign a prenup. What girl would like put on a mask of her husbands favorite porn star? They might as well. Basically: "the fact that you aren't thinking about the effects it may have on your wife" is a good summary. What does marriage mean to you? It seems pretty vague and a pointless ceremony if you aren't planning on monogamy... sounds like a tax write off to me. Or a "I'll love you as long as you're still young and hot" agreement.
Posts: 9 | Registered: Aug 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Uchiha2: Now lets say your walking down the street and you see someone of the opposite sex changing in there front yard. take a seat and watch the entire "show" When you get home would you go to your wife and say "Honey as i was walking i saw someone changing. they got completely naked, ill be right back im going to finish it off in the bathroom" I highly doubt she would be happy. In fact i know that my wife would flip her lid.
You kind of make sex sound like going to the bathroom. I hope you don't speak this way to your wife.
Seriously, though...why is he going off to masturbate? Did I refuse to help him out? If so, then sure. I have no problem with masturbation.
quote: In the same sense i don't think that any of you would be happy to inform your spouse of every time you viewed someone else as a sexual potential, that would make trips to wal-mart or the mall very uncomfortable.
This part I agree with. There is such a thing as too much honesty. I don't expect my husband not to think it, but I would prefer that he not go around telling me about every beautiful woman he sees.
quote:When you say your marriage vows do you not include that you will "cherish and love" them "untill death do you part" I think that a great way to cherish and love your spouse is to be exclusive to them. to let them know that they "are the only boy/girl" for you. and that you would never leave them. and that you would never desire someone else in the way you desire them.
I agree with you until the last part, and then I'm just confused. What do you mean by "desire someone else in the way you desire them?" Because even if my husband were to look at pictures of naked women, I am certain he would not desire them the way he desired me.
quote:is that not what were doing by getting married. Telling the world and your love that you will be with them forever and that you only want to be with the. I think that if you have intentions on viewing porn you should but up front with everyone on your wedding day saying "to love and to cherish you and jenna, and that hot blonde chick from hotblondchick.com and all the girls from playboy"
Well, I think if you have intentions of viewing porn that you should be up front with your SPOUSE, but the rest of that is nonsense. "Love and cherish" is not something you do to a woman in a playboy magazine.
quote:bottom line is that by viewing, imagining, wanting, seeking, taking, sexual pleasure from someone other then your spouse is wrong. you are sharing something meant for your spouse. This even applies to pre-married people. Sexual acts period should only be shared with your wife. not with your computer not with your tv not with magazines but with your beautiful wife, handsome husband, which you have chosen. Why would you desire someone other then your spouse why would you choose to do the act to yourself rather then having a sexual experience with your lover?
Wow. This is just messed up. Are you seriously suggesting that we shouldn't even THINK about sex before we get married?
You also have an odd view of masturbation. Self-exploration and masturbation can ENHANCE the sexual experience with your spouse and lover. This is especially true for women. Draw a bath, spend some time with yourself, figure out where you like to be touched and how, and then share it with your partner. It's not as if sex is all natural and instinctive. It takes practice and communication and how can you communicate anything if you don't know what you want?
Posts: 2392 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
I've never heard a girl who was excited to sign a prenup. What girl would like put on a mask of her husbands favorite porn star? They might as well. Basically: "the fact that you aren't thinking about the effects it may have on your wife" is a good summary. What does marriage mean to you? It seems pretty vague and a pointless ceremony if you aren't planning on monogamy... sounds like a tax write off to me. Or a "I'll love you as long as you're still young and hot" agreement.
I think you purposefully misunderstood what I said. This has nothing to do with my post. And "negotiate" in this context has nothing to do with a prenup or signing a contract. For goodness sake, didn't you talk to your wife before you got married and decided what was ok and what wasn't?
Posts: 2392 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Christine i completely agree with self exploration and enhancing my sex life with my wife. i personally think it is one thing about our sex life that we are open with (among every other aspect) to share with each other what is good and what is not good. i also think that sharing that experience of self gratification is a fine thing to do with your spouse. what i am saying is self gratification while viewing another person is wrong. i know from experience that while looking at someone else i am using there body to help me.
self gratification itself isn't wrong its the intentions of the heart that are the issue. that sharing that with someone (other then yourself other then your spouse) is wrong. to give your tv that desire is wrong.
My view is completely based on sharing your sexual desires with someone other then your spouse. not the act of masturbation but the act of masturbation while wanting someone else. Sorry to be redundant but i feel as if i need to clarify every thing i say to the furthest degree is necessary.
Once again i want to ask, are YOU ok with your SPOUSE sharing his sexual desire with SOMEONE other then you. in the act of masturbation while viewing a form of media? Does this not seem like he is seeking that "release/desire" with someone/something else?
Posts: 3 | Registered: Aug 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Its the same thing with pornography, its a way to make yourself happy without thinking about the effects it would have on your wife.
I'm late pointing this out since others have already responded, but there are two mistaken assumptions here: 1) That any married man who uses pornography is doing it without considering how it affects his wife. 2) Every wife would have a problem with it.
I think that many wives DO feel exactly as you've described when their husbands use porn. That he doesn't value her, that she isn't "enough" for him, that he betrays and insults her with his actions.
But what if she doesn't care, because otherwise he is meeting her needs? Or what if it's an entirely minor irritant like not separating the laundry the right way? What if she likes it and joins in?
As long as one isn't obsessed and neglectful, both spouses could easily agree that porn is OK. It's only a betrayal if it is breaking a promise. It's only demeaning if someone feels demeaned. These aren't rigid characteristics of all humans.
[It is probably even true that relationships exist where preoccupation and distance might be preferable for both, as a side note.]
[There's a ton of cultural and even biological inertia around monogamy and fidelity - which is a good thing - and I think mass media pornography has thrown a wrench in. Here's something that seems similar to promiscuity, in a way, but without significant downsides of actual physical promiscuity - no developing extramarital emotional bonds, no disease or pregnancy. It seems to me that the harm done is proportional to the degree to which individuals are convinced that looking at porn is tantamount to adultery. Though I know it sounds trite, and probably self serving, I think it's harmful to the degree that people treat it like it's a big deal. I think we're fooled into reacting to it as if it's the same as adultery, triggering responses that were developed over time to protect institutional monogamy, when it really doesn't pose the same threat if we don't act like it does. Not that I expect people to turn off their reactions like a light switch, but I think it's worth really examining how and why pornography use has been detrimental to relationships, which is very much in the mind of the beholder.]
Posts: 4287 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ok, I see what you mean. And I can accept the difference between masturbating while thinking of your wife and doing so while thinking of others.
quote:Originally posted by Uchiha2: Once again i want to ask, are YOU ok with your SPOUSE sharing his sexual desire with SOMEONE other then you. in the act of masturbation while viewing a form of media? Does this not seem like he is seeking that "release/desire" with someone/something else?
I am not ok with my husband having sex with another woman. I am not ok with him flirting with or making passes at another woman. However, he is free to look at pictures and get whatever pleasure he wishes from this encounter. I have no problem with it. It does not seem at all unfaithful to me. I do not expect him never to desire another woman. This was not at all implicit in our marriage vows. What I do expect is that if he desires another woman, he not act on this desire. He has promised to be faithful to and monogamous with me. If he is not getting what he needs from me and is being tempted by other women, then I expect him to tell me so we can work it out. The moment another real woman gets between us, we are done.
But images of women? Daydreams of women? No. It doesn't bother me. I see a clear distinction. I can respect that others don't, which is why I say marriages are negotiated. You and your wife decide what is ok and what isn't and if it works for you, then more power to you.
Posts: 2392 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:If we were reduced to doing what made us happy, then we would be reduced to our base desires: survive, reproduce, eat, etc.
I'm not sure this necessarily follows. Even if we're reduced to doing only what makes us happy, we might still postpone pleasure for the promise of greater pleasure, or to avoid displeasure. If tomatoes make me happy, but gardening does not, I might still plant some tomatoes in order to be happy later.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Christine i am passing my entire argument on the intentions of the heart. the intentions of your husband when he looks at another woman. I know for me and most of my guy friends when you view another woman you are lusting after her and desiring her body. you are wanting to have sex with them and you are trying to emulate that sensation you would get from having sex with them. On the purest nature he is having sex with himself while viewing another person. would you be ok if your husband sat in on a sexual encounter between some other people?
I think that on a basic level masturbating while viewing porn is the same as having sex with the person you are viewing.
Posts: 3 | Registered: Aug 2009
| IP: Logged |
I think it comes down to two basic points of view. All of us seem to agree that it is immoral to break faith with one's partner. My reason for thinking this is that it is a very hurtful thing to do, I guess others may have additional, more philosophical reasons. Where we differ is what constitutes breaking faith. To me (and Christine is saying the same thing), it depends entirely on what each relationship is specifically based on. All it takes to make a relationship faithful and successful are general virtues such as honesty and trust. In this view, the morality of a specific sexual behaviour is entirely (within the usual limits, obviously) context-dependent. Others seem to judge sexual behaviours on a more absolute scale. Some things are right, others are wrong. Some of the wrong things are wrong not because they cause harm or unhappiness, but in themselves. I imagine this point of view is motivated by some engrained value system, religious or otherwise.
From where I'm standing, attempting to bolster these convictions by rational arguments is impossible and unnecessary. You're not going to convince anyone who bases their understanding of morality on not causing harm that something like porn is always wrong, because there is no way you will be able to demonstrate that it is always harmful. It's just not true. What you need to do is convince them to accept your underlying value system, and that's just not going to be accomplished on an internet discussion board.
quote:Originally posted by scifibum: There's a ton of cultural and even biological inertia around monogamy and fidelity - which is a good thing - and I think mass media pornography has thrown a wrench in.
Ah, a new line of reasoning, this is more like it. Why would there be biological inertia? Other primates aren't monogamous, as a rule. Removing civilizing norms, I'd expect the dominant pattern to be alpha males with small harems and subordinate males with greatly reduced chances at procreation. Cultural inertia is certainly a major factor, though one could argue that the classic western tradition is more about the appearance than about the essence of fidelity. "The affair" and "the mistress" are very much part of our cultural heritage, demonstrated by the fact that they are often almost as ritualized as the supposedly monogamous martial relationship.
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: Even if we're reduced to doing only what makes us happy, we might still postpone pleasure for the promise of greater pleasure, or to avoid displeasure. If tomatoes make me happy, but gardening does not, I might still plant some tomatoes in order to be happy later.
Exactly. The pleasure principle is morally neutral, but that doesn't mean it must lead to immoral behaviour. I have a conscience, so I need peace of mind to be happy. Punishments are designed to reduce happiness, so avoiding them by not breaking the law is usually the path of maximum happiness. Even among other higher mammals, guided entirely by the pleasure principle and instinctual behaviour patterns, violence within the species at a level that would constitute murder or rape among humans is very much the exception, not the rule. It just doesn't pay, the aggressor is too likely to get injured in the process.
Posts: 96 | Registered: Jun 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
kassyopeia summed it up nicely, but I just want to tackle one thing:
quote:Originally posted by Uchiha2: I think that on a basic level masturbating while viewing porn is the same as having sex with the person you are viewing.
There is a real and tangible difference between having sex in your mind, and having it in real life. Pregnancy and disease come instantly to mind.
Posts: 2392 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:I think that on a basic level masturbating while viewing porn is the same as having sex with the person you are viewing.
That must come as something of a surprise to both the person viewing the pornography and the person performing the pornography.
There may of course be some similarities between strongly imagining a specific thing and doing that specific thing, but they're not the same. Similarity doesn't equal sameness.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by scifibum: There's a ton of cultural and even biological inertia around monogamy and fidelity - which is a good thing - and I think mass media pornography has thrown a wrench in.
Ah, a new line of reasoning, this is more like it. Why would there be biological inertia? Other primates aren't monogamous, as a rule. Removing civilizing norms, I'd expect the dominant pattern to be alpha males with small harems and subordinate males with greatly reduced chances at procreation. Cultural inertia is certainly a major factor, though one could argue that the classic western tradition is more about the appearance than about the essence of fidelity. "The affair" and "the mistress" are very much part of our cultural heritage, demonstrated by the fact that they are often almost as ritualized as the supposedly monogamous martial relationship.
I can't strongly defend it, but I think that it's likely that our tendency to civilization has genetic/biological aspects, and that the norms of society that are most common are potentially bred into our populations. In other words, over time social systems and reproduction might work together to encourage the persistence of inherited traits that are most compatible with stable civilizations.
Of course, since the psyche doesn't emerge fully formed from the womb, it could be that the emotional rewards of stable relationships aren't really genetic at all, but just a product of the way we actually socialize each new human.
This is all just idle speculation. I'm sure there's good information on this topic that I'm not aware of. (You've already noted some holes.)
I'm still of the mind that pornography use can tend to trigger responses that probably inhere to adultery-that-violates-norms, and that the novelty of realistic and widespread pornography means that in general, we haven't developed a separate response for something that is actually different from adultery. I think the idea that porn = cheating is a default reaction because we weren't prepared for another way to think about it. [I'm aware that porn wasn't invented in the 20th century or even A.D., but it's certainly become a LOT more effectual in the last few decades.]
Posts: 4287 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:In other words, over time social systems and reproduction might work together to encourage the persistence of inherited traits that are most compatible with stable civilizations.
Of course, since the psyche doesn't emerge fully formed from the womb, it could be that the emotional rewards of stable relationships aren't really genetic at all, but just a product of the way we actually socialize each new human.
This has a very Card-ian ring to it, if you don't mind my saying so. I imagine he would say that since a) the traditional nuclear family is the ideal child-rearing environment, b) ideal child rearing conditions both maximize population growth and perpetuate community values, and c) population growth is the primary metric of success for a civilization, it follows that successful civilizations will always have a value system that cherishes traditional families.
But this covers only half the issue - it links an emphasis on monogamy to civilization fitness. The other half is to link that emphasis to personal inclinations, because only at that level do genetics come into play. In other words, if we accept for the moment that monogamy results in an advantage for the civilization, what is it that results in monogamy? After all, it runs contrary to a very basic instinct for at least the male half of the population. The one thing I'm quite sure of is that it's not one single factor, because none of them seem to stand by themselves. Until a few decades ago (readily available contraceptives), infidelity directly lead to more offspring. So it can't be primarily genetic. Lust is a strong incentive, and punishments for infidelity are comparatively mild. Also, infidelity is more common among the rich and famous than among the masses, unless Hollywood and the tabloids have been totally lying to us. So it can't be primarily about social sanctions. Maybe it's about delayed gratification, about the deliberate sacrifice of fleeting pleasures in the middle years in order to enjoy the comfort of a stable relationship in old age? Maybe I'm being altogether too cynical, and most people really let themselves be guided by the values the community suggests to them.
quote:I'm aware that porn wasn't invented in the 20th century or even A.D., but it's certainly become a LOT more effectual in the last few decades.
You mean the I Modi don't really do it for you, ey? The trend is bound to continue, full-immersion virtual reality isn't all that far away.
Posts: 96 | Registered: Jun 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:So, comparing pornography to a MASSIVE harem (which it is, minus the physical part of a harem). The value of your wife compared to your pornography collection is now laughingly worthless. And thats exactly how she will see herself, because she's absolutley right, her value shot down to physical use (sexually speaking).
The logic you infer on the part of women here does indeed make them sound like insecure twits whose 'value' must be upheld by exclusivity.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:The logic you infer on the part of women here does indeed make them sound like insecure twits whose 'value' must be upheld by exclusivity.
As frankly absurd as I think Rolo's speaking for the entirety of women and men is, if you accept the conclusions given as fact as, well, facts (big stretch, I know), your characterization doesn't hold up, Samprimary.
Because if pornography is actually a harem (somehow minus, y'know, the actual harem component of a harem), and if a given man makes use of that harem-of-the-mind...well, that given man has a very finite amount of time in his life. Time being spent with his mind-harem is not (or at least, not likely) being spent with his wife. If the mind-harem did not exist, the chance that he would spend that time with his wife either in sexual pursuits or playing scrabble or some fun blend of the two would increase. Assuming this given man values his wife due in part to those pursuits, she wouldn't be an insecure twit necessarily to feel less valued by sharing space with the mind-harem.
It's not the last part that doesn't make sense, Samprimary, it's the ten link in the chain that come before.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
So from what I gather, the line people seem to draw (who are 'pro-pornography' if you will) is that men/women are allowed to wander in their minds as much as they want (within socially acceptable 'genres'). The only time a spouse would be disloyal is if they physically had sex with someone/s. They can imagine whoever/whenever doing whatever (again, within socially acceptable 'genres') and are allowed to act upon those imaginings with their own bodies. In short: Mind ok, anothers body bad. Does that draw the line well?
(Non-acceptable genres would be situations that would remove another's willingness during the 'imagining'.)
[ August 11, 2009, 08:10 AM: Message edited by: Rolo Bio ]
Posts: 9 | Registered: Aug 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think it's a small simplification -- but, yes, I think we can extend to people the absolute privacy of their skulls.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
So, what about a couple that decides to rent a porno together, watches and then enjoy some quality bonding time? How about a gay man (or woman) who takes the same option as OSC gay characters and marries to fulfill genetic destiny (or whatever the justification was)? The gay guy is never going to be thinking of the woman lustfully, so if he views porn to get him ready for activities with the wife, is that immoral? Or how about someone whose spouse is medically unable to have sex for an extended period of time?
Posts: 2223 | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
As Tom said, it is a simplification but basically, yes. I just have one nit:
quote:Originally posted by Rolo Bio: The only time a spouse would be disloyal is if they physically had sex with someone/s.
The only time a spouse is disloyal is if they break faith with their spouse. And this is what we keep trying to say, that it DEPENDS upon the relationship. You are free to decide that it's not ok to think about another woman. I think it's strange, but ti's not my marriage.
In my marriage, for example, my husband could break faith long before he had sexual intercourse with someone else. We're not ok with with touching, kissing, or even light flirtations with a member of the opposite sex. Flirtation is a behavior designed to attract and potentially form a relationship with another human being and as such, is not appropriate from a married man or woman. Fantasies are one thing, but any serious move toward stepping out of the marriage is not all right. And in fact, if those fantasies ever became true temptations involving a real live person, I would want to know, I would want to know why, and I would want to work it out. I would be upset, but at that point we could still heal whatever is broken. Once actual sexual intercourse takes place, we're done.
Posts: 2392 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:The only time a spouse would be disloyal is if they physically had sex with someone/s.
I can't speak for the others, but I really mean what I say. I simply believe people should mean their wedding vows. When they break them, they are being disloyal. But what those vows encompass is entirely up to each case. If the couple is eccentric and vows to wear matching outfits every day, wearing something else is disloyal. If the couple has a very liberal understanding of sexuality and doesn't vow to be exclusive, casual sex with others may not be disloyal.
To put it in rather formal terms: Loyalty always needs a referent who determines its scope. In a marriage, that is the spouse. Not any outside observer.
quote:(Non-acceptable genres would be situations that would remove another's willingness during the 'imagining'.)
To be honest, I don't really know. I can see a case for considering indulging in daydreams that the partner would find morally repulsive to be disloyal, if one considers a mutual acceptance of each other's fundamental values to be an implicit part of any wedding vow. Seems an ethical borderline case to me. Christine may have a more fully formed opinion here.
Posts: 96 | Registered: Jun 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:So from what I gather, the line people seem to draw (who are 'pro-pornography' if you will) is that men/women are allowed to wander in their minds as much as they want (within socially acceptable 'genres'). The only time a spouse would be disloyal is if they physically had sex with someone/s. They can imagine whoever/whenever doing whatever (again, within socially acceptable 'genres') and are allowed to act upon those imaginings with their own bodies. In short: Mind ok, anothers body bad. Does that draw the line well?
(Non-acceptable genres would be situations that would remove another's willingness during the 'imagining'.)
First off, 'pro-pornography' is akin to a pro-lifer saying that a pro-choicer ought to be called 'anti-life'. Not as bad a thing to say, but the method of imputing associations is similar, or at least that's how it reads to me.
Second, for some folks yes, that is the line. But not for everyone disagreeing with you on this matter, certainly not.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Dude, if I could do what would make me happy I'd drink earl grey tea, read books, eat cookies and listen to music all the time and watch Pixar movies, not rape and kill people. Fact is, animals actually are capable of working together, even outside of each other's species. They can cooperate, treat each other with compassion, adopt each other's babies. Not every animal is out there killing and eating its own species to survive, there's more to survival than that.
Also, could folks stop saying that all men are more visual than women and all women are less interested in sex than men? I don't think that's totally true, because everyone is different. I have mixed feelings about porn. Straight porn is kind of icky to me for some reason. Maybe because they tend to have sex in ways I would not want to have sex in? I don't think I'd want to be in the woman's position. Gay porn with two men is interesting, but there's never enough kissing and romantic stuff like that. Plus porn folks KNOW people are watching them too... Ok, that is TMI, but fact is, I reckon it depends... It's folks' business if they want to look at it.
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:I think that on a basic level masturbating while viewing porn is the same as having sex with the person you are viewing.
On the same basic level that watching an action movie makes you want to be James Bond, sure.
Doesn't mean you immediately go out and shoot somebody.
Edited to ask, because I'm curious: When you read fiction or watch a movie that is powerfully romantic, and you get caught up in those feelings right along with the protagonists -- you feel their love, you cry at their tragedies, you rejoice at their triumphs -- are you being unfaithful to your spouse because those feelings rightfully belong to him or her?
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Hmm... I know this is kind of going back to the very beginning of the thread, but...
Since no one has commented on the religious side of things, I figured I would. Disclaimer: I'm not a representative of any particular church (much less all of them), so don't assume my opinions/beliefs are shared by all. Also, I'm not trying to make you believe as I do. Just explaining my viewpoint. (FYI, I belong to the LDS church, as does OSC.)
A great many things are considered "bad" because of their spiritual effect on oneself or others. Even if there is no immediate or recognizable consequence, there can be an impact on spirituality that is extremely difficult to measure.
At any given time, we are always being effected by what's around us. Music affects mood, as do colors, scents, etc. How messy or clean a room is, how bright it is, everything can effect us in different ways. The Spirit also effects us. It's pretty easy to identify a strong odor in the room, but most people have a hard time identifying whether or not the Spirit is around.
Ever try to do those MagicEye puzzles? Some people just naturally can see the image, but lots of folks have to learn how. If you've never learned how to identify the Spirit, you won't consciously notice it's presence or lack thereof. Even with practice, the Spirit is far more subtle than any MagicEye puzzle I've ever seen, and consequently harder to notice. But there are lots of things we don't consciously notice that still effect us; concentrations of CO2 are an example (we may notice CO2's effects, but not until it does affect us, and even then someone who doesn't understand CO2 will have no idea what's going on, nor how to remedy the issue).
I know this is a long intro to my actual point, but the background was necessary. The point is, some things, like viewing pornography, may not be bad because of physical harm to our bodies. But that doesn't mean they don't harm us spiritually. And without knowing what to look for, and because it happens slowly over time, it's hard to tell that you've been "spiritually damaged" (not a perfect phrase, but you all understand it's intended meaning).
There is nothing wrong with the human body. There's nothing wrong with sex. But God decreed ways to use our bodies, and ways we shouldn't. Viewing pornography will hurt a person spiritually, whether they are aware of it or not. For most of the world, they don't care and/or don't believe this assessment. Hence why nobody's trying to make it illegal. But for those who do view it as harmful, we of course discourage it, just as we discourage name-calling among children or dozens of other things that aren't illegal, yet still can be harmful.
I suppose there are people who say "pornography is bad because God said so". I can't say I entirely disagree with that point of view, but it's never a bad thing to have your own reasons for your behavior. I for one have noticed the differences in how I feel on a spiritual level when I see suggestive images. I'm still attracted to pornography, but I choose not to view it not only because my church/God says not to, but also because I can't feel the Spirit when I look at anything like that.
I don't feel this is suppression of my natural desires any more than choosing not to punch my annoying boss. I view both as a bad idea, and decide how to respond. My choosing one way or another doesn't point to suppression, but the wonderful fact that we as humans are capable of overriding desires we don't approve of in an effort to live in society, or get along with others, or even change our own personalities.
And if you don't believe that's possible, you should have talked to me a few years back... man, did I have anger management issues! But through consistent effort, I changed my perception of events and my responses, moving away from that aspect of my personality, changing it to be something else. I don't even have to think about it anymore, and it definitely has improved my life, not hurt it.
Posts: 2 | Registered: Aug 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:A great many things are considered "bad" because of their spiritual effect on oneself or others. Even if there is no immediate or recognizable consequence, there can be an impact on spirituality that is extremely difficult to measure.
Could you be a little more specific about what you're referring to here? Is this spiritual damage something purely metaphysical, or is that something that could at least in principle be measured in a careful sociological study, e.g. if one were to compare a culture that embraces porn with one that strongly rejects it?
Posts: 96 | Registered: Jun 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
It's like tracking down what makes a person gain weight; is it fat? Is it sugar? Carbs? All three? There are so many factors, it's hard to pin point.
Theoretically, "spiritually healthy" individuals would be happy, irregardless of their financial or other circumstances. Similarly, "spiritually injured" individuals would be unhappy, again irregardless of their circumstances.
If you were to take extremes, a very "spiritually damaged" person would probably say they are completely unhappy with their life. They are not satisfied, they don't have any answers to anything and feel like they are missing something. To a lesser extent, just about everybody feels like this some of the time; it's part of being human. But the same symptoms can come about through clinical depression; it would be hard to figure out the cause of the symptoms.
I can't think of a single way to do a conclusive study; every effect of being "spiritually injured" or "spiritually healthy" can also come about through other means (or be explained by other means, depending on your point of view). The closest I can think of would be to take past, powerful societies (like Ancient Rome), and observe the state of such a nation over time as their morals relaxed. It's well-known that Romans started out more... conservative, shall we say, than they ended up. But how would you prove that's what ended their empire? I suppose you could compare and correlate your findings with other similar situations, but even then that's pretty weak evidence.
Really, the only way I can say it is there at all is because of my personal experience with it over years and years. Hence it is hard to quantify, measure, explain, or prove. Religion by it's very nature is hard to explain and impossible to prove; that's the fundamental difference between it and science.
I'll ask around, maybe somebody has a nifty idea I haven't thought of. For now though, there's not much else I could say. Other than to repeat my earlier thoughts that those who do have experience with the Spirit, and when it isn't in their lives, would know what I mean, much the same as those who have tasted salt know exactly what it is, but would find it hard to explain to a person who has never had anything salty before.
And to mention that this is why attempts to debate religion with science don't work well; apples and oranges. Both real, both good, but they don't come from the same tree.
Posts: 2 | Registered: Aug 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Theoretically, "spiritually healthy" individuals would be happy, irregardless of their financial or other circumstances. Similarly, "spiritually injured" individuals would be unhappy, again irregardless of their circumstances.
Thanks, that's very clear.
quote:The closest I can think of would be to take past, powerful societies (like Ancient Rome), and observe the state of such a nation over time as their morals relaxed. It's well-known that Romans started out more... conservative, shall we say, than they ended up.
Ah, no, I don't think you can draw any valid conclusions from that sort of historical precedent with regards to what we are discussing. That decadence generally leads to loose sexual morals and to a weakened society in the military sense is fairly obvious. But that neither means that loose sexual morals are always a sign of decadence, nor should one assume that the pure-and-strong romans were, on the whole, happier than the decadent-and-weak ones.
quote:Religion by it's very nature is hard to explain and impossible to prove; that's the fundamental difference between it and science.
Strictly speaking, science is impossible to prove, and most people consider it hard to explain, so that may not be the best way of putting it. Posts: 96 | Registered: Jun 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Uchiha2: I think that on a basic level masturbating while viewing porn is the same as having sex with the person you are viewing.
Just out of sheer curiosity, would you feel the same way about hentai?
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Uchiha2: I think that on a basic level masturbating while viewing porn is the same as having sex with the person you are viewing.
This is great news. This means I'm much more sexually experienced than I thought I was.
Posts: 1080 | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
j/k
![[Taunt]](graemlins/taunt.gif)
