Ross defends the notion that viewing hard porn is somewhat equivalent to adultery. Julian Sanchez dissents. I want to know this: if you watch the porn together, are you both cheating? Or are you swinging?
On a related note, the debate for some reason strongly reminds me of this:
Ross defends the notion that viewing hard porn is somewhat equivalent to adultery.
Yes, but he does a horrid job of it and his readers tear him to shreds. If I'm going to gawk at a fight, can't it at least be a reasonably even match?
I mean, lying is also on a continum with having an affair, but that's no cause to confuse the two.
Poster lampwick aptly sums up problem with the assertion
Thank you. Couldn't have put it better.
What movie is this exactly? Oddly, this is the only scene of the movie I've ever seen before, and the last time I saw it was on a Sunday morning before I went to church a few years ago. It's exactly my brand of humour, but I find it strange that both of my exposures to it have been tenuously connected with religious/moral contexts...
Oh, it's just "hard porn?" Playboy, OK. Anything more, the scarlet letter is applied.
If the phrase "using porn" means spilling one's seed w/o the wife being in the room/house/hotel, what difference does it make if it's the Victoria's Secret catalog or [Fill in some disgusting but so stupid it's funny, in a sick way, magazine title here.]
Does Ross think that Onanism is a sin, period? If one is married & uses one's imagination only while on a business trip, say, does that qualify?
This is getting disgusting, I'm leaving.
Seth - It's Monty Python's Meaning of Life. And if you think the religious/moral association is strange now, just wait until you see the rest of it.
Interestingly enough sexual morality counsel has always been mocked, ignored, and wailed at. That the wicked take the truth to be hard was something not said recently.
It may hurt your feelings but porn is immoral. You may not consider it so, and I'm not denying your ability to choose and decide for yourself.
But that doesn't change what it is.
Perhaps I missed it somewhere in the other comments (I only scanned them), but what strikes me as an answer so obvious as to render the "problem" meaningless: isn't what constitutes cheating directly tied to the standards and agreed-upon expectations of the other party?
Case 1: Neither party cares what the other does sexually with a 3rd party, perhaps under the condition that some degree of protection is used, etc.
You don't use a condom - you're cheating.
Case 2: The relationship is such that the other party becomes jealous when their partner simply has lunch alone with a member of the opposite sex, and they both agree upon a rule prohibiting this.
You have lunch with an opposite-gendered friend and lie about it - you're cheating.
While the former is something I probably wouldn't be able to stomach in a long term relationship, the latter is something I wouldn't tolerate for a hot minute - but this frankly doesn't matter beyond the actions of my girlfriend, who thankfully doesn't get her sexual marching orders from Fox News personnel.
I've seen both of the above sorts of relationships function well enough, depending upon the partners establishing the "rules" so to speak.
Cheating is entirely context dependent. Please someone argue with this, because to me it seems so obvious that I can't even understand why this is a controversy. Obviously I'm missing something.
I would say it's closer to swinging. If your partner is okay with you looking at porn, then it's not cheating. For that matter, if your partner is okay with you having sex with another person, it's not cheating.
In fact, regarding the debate between Ross Douthat and Julian Sanchez, every couple has a different agreement regarding sexual exclusivity. Whether porn is on the same moral continuum as adultery, and to what extent, depends on the nature of that agreement.
While the former is something I probably wouldn't be able to stomach in a long term relationship, the latter is something I wouldn't tolerate for a hot minute - but this frankly doesn't matter beyond the actions of my girlfriend, who thankfully doesn't get her sexual marching orders from Fox News personnel.
Hopefully, she doesn't get them from anything on the Fox Network, either.
Hmm...in regards to the topic and Ryan W.'s leading comment, I read through a large portion of the comments and nowhere did I see Ross getting "torn to shreds". What I did see was Ross arguing from something like an internal-motivations persepective, while most of his interlocutors appear to have a pureley external-consequentialist framework for evaluating restraints upon human behavior.
In long form: The goal of mankind from time immemorial has been to gratify the various sensual pleasures to the maximum extent possible while suffering consequences to the minimum extent possible. Obviously, hardcore material seems a neat fit for these ends, and a purist version of libertarianism would have no comment on the matter since, superficially nobody seems to be harming another person.
The goal of many moral systems, the Judeo-Christian moral ethos in particular, has been to show that actions whether public or private all arise from an internalized root principle. If the internalized principle bends itself toward sexual licentiousness, then the kind of license that is taken is a secondary concern to the attitudes and intentions that produced it, as well as the effect on shaping that person's future attitudes, intentions, and actions.
In short, whatever you feed the most, grows the most, and eventually expresses itself more openly. Seeds make trees, and the longer they grow, the more firmly the roots form, and the harder it is to conceal or completely remove out the tree if it starts looking ugly, threatening the house, or tangling itself in the power lines. Cut it down, poison the stump, grind it out of the earth and backfill...and yet you can still get a ring of toadstools in the lawn years later. Thus, be careful what you plant and tend.
Unfortunately, some Christians have given a very false impression of what this means by either becoming publicly tangled in behaviors themselves, or venting against certain practices to the point of railing and ascetism -- basically falling right back into the legal framework of the Old Testament, i.e., the half of the Bible that proves how mankind is unable to be righteous by his own efforts. The claim drawn from that in the other half is that since mankind is corrupted an impure root principle, he needs grace that can transform and sustain.
Obviously, an external-consequentialist will be severely ruffled by that idea, since it implies a personal accountability for actions beyond the mere consequentialist justifications that can be made for them.
Oh you didn't know? Ross was a member of the first graduating class at Harvard then, in a freak gasoline fight accident, teleported to the 21st century. Its great fun watching him adjust to all our social norms!
Ross only says that viewing porn is "on the moral continuum" at which the extreme end is adultery. I don't think it's too far fetched. The evil created by adultery is the jealousy and betrayal of the partner who was faithful. I know a lot of people who feel jealous and/or betrayed if their partner views porn or goes to strip clubs.
Some of you people out there are married to spouses who are jealous of pornography??! You poor souls... I guess I have one more reason to count myself lucky.
It seems as if the majority of commentors argue that watching porn is cheating if there's an element of deception. What if someone shares his secret porn-watching with his wife, who prefers that he not do it? If he continues to do so without secrecy, is it still cheating?
Others may argue that it is still cheating because the wife disapproves and is thus outside her expectations for the relationship. However, this seems like a slippery slope. Habitually leaving the toilet seat up and clothes on the floor are probably not part of her expectations either.
I feel as though there must be both deception and an active third party to be considered cheating. Actors in a video do not qualify as an active third party any more than the Victoria's Secret catalouge mentioned in an earlier comment. Equating porn to cheating would be like equating watching The Sopranos to an involvement in organized crime. Like we tell our kids: "It's just a movie, it's not real."
"I want to know this: if you watch the porn together, are you both cheating? Or are you swinging?"
Maybe you are both enjoying having a good time.
While I mostly agree with Julian about this, I think that "insane" is way too strong and defensive a word to describe the "porn = quasi-adultery" position. It sounds like nobody better get between Julian and his pornography, although I believe I already had enough incentive not to do that.
Douchehat and Dirty Sanchez should get a room and stop cupping each other in public.
Libertarians like porn because it's the closest they'll get to sex with non-ugly people.
The human mind is a wonderful tool to rationalize. It's what has enabled us to be sitting here typing via the internet, and what also enables us to construct whatever moral universe we prefer using justifications.
Thus we have Zach suggesting that porn can't be -some form- of cheating because every wife disapproves of a husband lifting up a toilet seat, and therefore, anything a wife disapproves of can not be called cheating.
How about this. If you lust after someone else in a sexual manner you are demonstrating some form of cheating. I am not saying it is on the same plane as physically going out and having an affair.
Marriage contains a vow of complete fidelity, which refers to the observance of promises, especially of sexual faithfulness.
Are you being faithful with your sexuality if you watch porn against your spouse's wishes, or if you do it with begrudging, "I'd rather not argue about this cause you'll win anyway" acceptence? Joint watching would not apply here, but I'd suggest that perhaps if you're joint watching, what is the purpose of the watching? To be aroused by someone else other than you spouse sexually? Some people may be fine with that, and it's ok, but it seems a little odd in the context of marriage, fidelity, faithfulness, I only have eyes for you and all that.
Marriage contains a vow of complete fidelity, which refers to the observance of promises, especially of sexual faithfulness.
And if you do not have it off with anyone else, you have kept your word.
I wonder what the Victorians would have thought of this thread.
Marriage contains a vow of complete fidelity, which refers to the observance of promises, especially of sexual faithfulness.
Some people may be fine with that, and it's ok, but it seems a little odd in the context of marriage, fidelity, faithfulness, I only have eyes for you and all that.
There are fewer more foolhardy things to do than assuming that everyone's conceptions of marriage is the same as yours.
One thing that every woman eventually needs to figure out is that essentially all men masturbate, pretty much from the time they are capable of it until the time they are not. It doesn't have anything to do with you, or your relationship. It's us. There are obviously exceptions, but without diligent search you are unlikely to find one as a partner, and frankly most of the exceptions come with serious baggage anyway. In my perfect universe, this sort of thing should be taught in eighth-grade health classes, thus saving much confusion later.
In this wired age, pornography of literally any description can be acquired at essentially zero cost, well, you do the math...
Marriage contains a vow of complete fidelity, which refers to the observance of promises, especially of sexual faithfulness.
Some people may be fine with that, and it's ok, but it seems a little odd in the context of marriage, fidelity, faithfulness, I only have eyes for you and all that.
There are fewer more foolhardy things to do than assuming that everyone's conceptions of marriage is the same as yours.
One thing that every woman eventually needs to figure out is that essentially all men masturbate, pretty much from the time they are capable of it until the time they are not. It doesn't have anything to do with you, or your relationship. It's us. There are obviously exceptions, but without diligent search you are unlikely to find one as a partner, and frankly most of the exceptions come with serious baggage anyway. In my perfect universe, this sort of thing should be taught in eighth-grade health classes, thus saving much confusion later.
In this wired age, pornography of literally any description can be acquired at essentially zero cost, well, you do the math...
Oh you didn't know? Ross was a member of the first graduating class at Harvard then, in a freak gasoline fight accident, teleported to the 21st century. Its great fun watching him adjust to all our social norms!
In some societies, a person who had spent the majority of their time on earth harrassing others for having differing views would, in fact, be roasted and eaten. There would be at least two possible rationalizations for that:
1. It is socially normal, by that tribe's reckoning, to eat people.
2. Your nutritional value exceeds the sum of all your other contributions to the tribe.
What's your position on that? Are "social norms" the end defition of all things, or should other factors enter the equation?
In some societies, a person who had spent the majority of their time on earth harrassing others for having differing views would, in fact, be roasted and eaten.
Fortunately, the great engines of commerce have brought us enough surplus that such people can simply be given blogs instead. This is more efficient than eating them, or indeed more recent accomodation of giving them tenure.
If a person has an orgasm in their sleep while dreaming about someone else is this also adultery? It seems that Ross is just engaging in some semantic stretching of the science is a religion variety, that just ends up being a category error.
If a person has an orgasm in their sleep while dreaming about someone else is this also adultery?
Having a little trouble distinguishing between voluntary and involuntary acts, are we?
Nope. Just a problem with stretching definitions until they lose meaning. It was meant to be an absurd example, but I would bet there are those willing to take up the argument.
"But I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lust has already committed adultery with her in his heart."
That seems to pretty much sum up pornography to me.
aMouseforallSeasons @3:00 AM:
For a post so late at night, some really good observations in there.
faxohes wqhfgzm mdjos kxodu zfseo yqwmetdxj xavtzl