Porn and Adultery (II)

So, a question for Will Wilkinson et al (and judging by the commentary, there's a lot of al out there): If your wife/monogamous partner sought regular sexual gratification through watching prostitutes have sex with one another, you would have no grounds on which to feel jealous or perturbed? No grounds for feeling that they were being in some sense unfaithful? Really?

My point here, to be clear, is not that regularly watching hard-core pornography is exactly the same thing as committing adultery. My point is rather that there's a consistent continuum here - as opposed to the sort of inconsistent continuum that Will accuses me of mustering - that links the varying ways that a person who's committed to sexual monogamy can find sexual gratification outside of marriage. And I think that regular consumption of hard-core pornography is closer to the actual adultery end of the continuum (insofar as it involves actual-existing other people and actual physical acts) that it is to the "occasionally entertaining sexual thoughts about that cute girl on the subway" end of the continuum, and as such it's not "insane" to see morally meaningful similarities between porn-watching and cheating on your spouse.

Comments

1) I agree with you that the two have meaningful similarities in a moral continuum.

2) I disagree that the two should be explicitly evaluated in the context of a moral continuum.

The reason for point #2 is that adultery is an interpersonal act with outcomes that affect two (or more!) individuals directly, and any number of individuals indirectly. It should be viewed in this manner.

Consumption of pornagraphy, on the other had, has no objective outcomes related to an individual besides the consumer. Adultery does (see: Fatal Attraction). There is a much more humanistic component to the process of breaking your marriage vows to consummate love with another person, versus regularly consuming porn. I realize that you make this disctinction, but it needs to be emphasized that adultery is not merely a morality issue, but a legal one as well.

Posted by mattc | June 19, 2008 3:46 PM

where does watching a Jessica Alba movie fall along your continuum, Ross? What about not averting my eyes from the beer ads with dripping wet, half-naked chicks on the subway?

I get the "continuum" concept, but what's the point? You seem to be arguing for your preference about where the line of immorality should be on that continuum. There's plenty of people who would argue for advancing the line towards Jessica Alba movies, and plenty advocating the reverse.

This argument seems to be heading for everyone declaring exactly how blatant they prefer their porn to be packaged, whether its Debbie Does Dallas or Into the Blue.

Posted by matthewcc | June 19, 2008 4:01 PM

If you click on the foxnews link in Ross's previous post, you'll immediately notice that the pornography expert is a fetching blonde late 20/early 30-something woman giving the camera a come-and-fuck-me look whilst nibbling provacatively on a pair of glasses and flashing a good bit of cleavage.

I love how Fox News preaches prudery while flashing naughtiness.

Posted by Immoralist | June 19, 2008 4:03 PM

Ross seems unable to properly frame a question. One needs no GROUNDS whatsoever to feel jealous or perturbed; what Ross (apparently) means to ask is, Would one have JUSTIFICATION to feel jealous or perturbed. The answer remains no. As for the continuum: feeling jealous or perturbed frequently leads to murder; are the jealous or perturbed therefore murders? The obviousness of the answer illuminates the flatulence of the proposition.

Posted by Miande | June 19, 2008 4:07 PM

I love how passionately men on these threads have been defending their use of pornography.

I don't agree with Ross on politics, and I'm not a prude by any means, but I've come to be against pornography not only for the reasons that Ross expounds on (and yes, there is a link) but also a number of others:

1) Watching too much porn tends to make guys perform worse in bed. I have only anecdotal evidence for this but there seems to be a direct connection.

2) Women don't like it. We claim we do, but secretly, it makes us feel bad about ourselves and our desirability.

Personally, when I meet a guy who watches a lot of porn, I feel about him the same way I feel about a guy who spends all his free time playing video games -- there's nothing WRONG with him, per se, but that's nothing that I would want.

Posted by C.Michol | June 19, 2008 4:19 PM

Thanks Ross, for fielding this subject, seems you've angered all the people who like their massages with happy endings.

Miande - thanks for the pedantic incoherence.

I know, I know, Ross is a Luddite, and, like, soooo 20th Century, dude. He's also on to something.

That I, as a married man, still see Jessica Alba as hot is human. To seek gratification outside of marriage, be it through pron, or "harmless" platonic relationships, no matter how well rationalized and "minor," is wrong. Just because Ross hasn't defined the exact line doesn't mean it doesn't exist or isn't important.

And, to use pop psych, it also doesn't mean you porn freaks aren't in unhappy relationships.

Posted by Ferrell | June 19, 2008 4:20 PM

Ross seems unable to properly frame a question. One needs no GROUNDS whatsoever to feel jealous or perturbed; what Ross (apparently) means to ask is, Would one have JUSTIFICATION to feel jealous or perturbed.

An excellent instance of the "sure, normal humans all feel that way. what ever made you think 'libertarians' are human?" droid logic of the libertine set on the net. I know some of you people, I work with some of you. But geez, you're all sort of crazy, even when you're very smart.

Posted by The Marquis of Carabas | June 19, 2008 4:21 PM

I don't think it's wise to be too judgemental of other people's sins, but I would make two points.

A)Prostitution has moral, legal and medical issues; you're running a very big health risk to yourself and your spouse if you're indulging in it.

B)Nobody involved in pornography, or prostitution obviously, ever wanted to be involved. There is a huge element of exploitation, of people coerced through desperation on account of a host of reasons, e.g., drugs, domestic violence, etc. So patronizing either is not really entirely victimless.

Posted by anonymous | June 19, 2008 4:21 PM

Ross, you know as well as anyone that silly utilitarians like Will Wilkinson view sex as just another physical activity like taking a dump. So obviously jerking off to hardcore pornography to them is not really that big of a deal, and it's why they are OK with people screwing a horse (as long as it doesn't hurt the horse). It's also why he's able to write a post calling Catholic natural law theorists "silly." That's great, Will, but of course, calling something silly and false does not actually demonstrate that it is those things. But do you really expect a whole lot of intellectual rigor coming from a guy who thinks he's demonstrated that free will exists by saying "go on, pick your nose" or something asinine like that? Oh, Will, when will you utilitarians and your chicken coops (I mean crystal palaces), ever learn?

Posted by Philip Marlowe | June 19, 2008 4:24 PM

Miande, no. Ross's original post was not itself a moral argument, but an empirical prediction about other people's actual reactions.

Will's position is that there's sex with other people (meaning physically touching them), and then there's everything else, and that only the religiously-addled don't draw a strong line between the two. So Will's position, as a predictive matter and as a moral conclusion, is that most non-religiously-addled people would have nothing against their partner's paying prostitutes to have sex with each other in their partner's presence, and that they are right to draw the line where they do. I don't think the line Will draws is particularly defensible. I don't think the "touching someone not your spouse/partner" line Will proposes will hold--it doesn't take much imagination (and I know there's plenty) to come up with scenarios in which even someone who otherwise agrees with Will would think a line has been crossed. But putting that to one side, the question is really empirical. And I'm sorry to say that the internet-poster demographic may be an unrepresentative and unreliable sampling of the actual range of opinion on the question. Maybe we should ask a few women, for example.

Posted by Thomas | June 19, 2008 4:25 PM

Anonymous makes excellent points about these so-called victimless hobbies of prostitution and pornography. Everyone should print out the post, wad it up, and throw it at a nearby libertarian.

Posted by Ferrell | June 19, 2008 4:27 PM

I would also like to co-sign on this point from anonymous:

"B)Nobody involved in pornography, or prostitution obviously, ever wanted to be involved. There is a huge element of exploitation, of people coerced through desperation on account of a host of reasons, e.g., drugs, domestic violence, etc. So patronizing either is not really entirely victimless."

Because it's an important one, and also, the dehumanization of the sexual act that porn encourages leads to the dehumanization not just of the viewed but the viewer. We have to learn how to appreciate each other as whole human beings.

Posted by C.Michol | June 19, 2008 4:30 PM

Ross, I certainly see the continuum between paying to watch pros and watching porn. But the move from watching to sex is the categorical discontinuity that takes watching porn off the continuum to adultery.

Additionally, you seem to be saying that paying to watch prostitutes is to porn what watching a play is to watching a movie. But paying to watch pros is more like financing and producing a play and then watching it. The production is a manifestation of your will in a way that porn is not. A better live analogue to porn would be paying to watch a sex show. It was happening anyway and you just tuned in. The extra step involved in staging a production seems an important source of discontinuity.

Of course, I don't think there's anything wrong with sex work, or with patronizing prostitutes. Whether patronizing a prostitute while married constitutes a betrayal akin to an affair depends on the understanding spouses have with one another.

Posted by Will Wilkinson | June 19, 2008 4:31 PM

My wife watches pornography when I'm not there and I don't mind. If she were to pay to watch two people having sex when I wasn't there, I would feel cheated.

I think the distinction is, when watching two people have sex in person, she is directly participating in a sexual act with others; ie they see her watching, she sees them seeing her watching, etc. etc. She has engaged with those other people in a sexual way.

When she watches porn, it's just her and her computer. I don't get jealous of the computer.

If my wife were to use a pair of binoculars to spy on two people having sex in the building across the street, I would be shocked and think she's a total creep, but I wouldn't feel cheated.

Posted by Dave | June 19, 2008 4:44 PM

I think Will's latest post gets us to the agree to disagree stage. I'll agree w/ Will that Ross is making a jump from watching porn to adultery, and I think it's an important point for Ross to make, just not one that men want to hear. The central question is whether the person watching porn is, in some sense, unfaithful in his heart, or whether it is just like watching a play.

Anyways, thanks Will and Ross for the discussion.

Posted by Ferrell | June 19, 2008 4:47 PM

Ross,

Without weighing in on the larger disagreement, I want to make the narrow point that a cheated upon spouse is upset by the physical and emotional act of their partner -- hence the classic defensive statement of the caught cheater, "It didn't mean anything -- it was just physical." He is trying to claim that though he's guilty of the physical cheating, he isn't guilty of the emotional cheating, making his transgression less bad.

Now consider the person watching hardcore pornography. It's a lot more believable when he tells you, "It didn't mean anything -- it was just physical."

And it's a lot less physical than actual intercourse, of course.

Again, I don't want to weigh in on whether this difference is one of kind or degree, but I think it helps explain why some of your interlocutors reflexively view hardcore porn consumption as dramatically different in some undefined way or other from adultery.

Posted by Conor Friedersdorf | June 19, 2008 4:52 PM

Marlowe: "you know as well as anyone that silly utilitarians like Will Wilkinson view sex as just another physical activity like taking a dump. So obviously jerking off to hardcore pornography to them is not really that big of a deal, and it's why they are OK with people screwing a horse (as long as it doesn't hurt the horse). It's also why he's able to write a post calling Catholic natural law theorists 'silly.'"

1) I am not a utilitarian.
2) Every activity is a physical activity.
3) Different forms of sexual activity have different emotional and moral dimensions, and I don't think any of them is emotionally or morally similar to defecation. (Some of them, however, do involve the gastrointestinal system.)
4) I believe that wanting to have sex with a horse is likely a sign of a psychological problem, but maybe not. In any case, I don't see the point of laws against having sex with horses -- as long as you don't hurt the horse!
5) Perhaps Catholic natural law theory is not "silly" simply because it has a long history and a bunch of stuffy adherents, but it is false in a way intellectually mature people easily grasp. Man has no telos.

Posted by Will Wilkinson | June 19, 2008 4:57 PM

Will--You keep pushing on the "we're not touching each other so it's not "sex"" line. Do you think that line will hold? The line doesn't seem promising to me--I can't imagine it being actually persuasive with a partner or spouse.

I'm also a bit amused by your distinction based on whether one is the capital behind the scene or just a paying customer for the scene. I like a little more Hayek and a little less Rand in my capitalism, but my tastes are kinky.

Finally, I appreciate Will's statement that he doesn't see anything wrong with paying prostitutes for sex. But he apparently does seem something wrong with "having affairs"--but surely the harm there too is entirely contextual and depends on the understanding of the parties, etc. etc. Will, you can be so uptight.

Posted by Thomas | June 19, 2008 5:05 PM

If there isn't anything intrisnically _wrong_ with using pornography, then why is there anything _wrong_ with bestiality? It seems to me that pornography has much in common with bestiality in that both constitute a following away from the essential nature of the idealized context of the act of coition, to an even greater degree than having an affair. An adulterous affair at least involves another person and at best can include some of the affection and feeling of a real relationship. This doesn't make it any less a betrayal of one's partner but it makes it less of a departure from the true nature of the sexual act. Pornography, like bestiality, is not just the misuse of sexual love in a wrong context, but is a corruption and perversion of the act itself.

Posted by Hector | June 19, 2008 5:06 PM

it is false in a way intellectually mature people easily grasp. Man has no telos.

I had a feeling this would quickly reach the Smullyan "that's what YOU say" point of assertion of incompatible axioms.

Posted by The Marquis of Carabas | June 19, 2008 5:14 PM

I've gotta take issue with anoymous and all the people seconding and thirding this comment:

"B)Nobody involved in pornography, or prostitution obviously, ever wanted to be involved. There is a huge element of exploitation, of people coerced through desperation on account of a host of reasons, e.g., drugs, domestic violence, etc. So patronizing either is not really entirely victimless."

Uhm. I took part in a few porn movies (more than one, less than a handful). Got a little pin money for one that barely covered my expenses for the others. I did it because I wanted to. No other reason. And I enjoyed myself.

I know that my positive experience doesn't mean that there is no exploitation. I'm sure exploitation is a factor for most who have a "career" in the industry? But in what industry *isn't* that true of the low-level employees (which is what the people in front of the porn camera are)?

Posted by Maxx | June 19, 2008 5:15 PM

I used to think that Ross was merely a middlebrow scold. Given this set of posts, the posts on Roe, the posts on philandering Republicans, I've realized that Ross is a lowbrow hypocritical scold. Amazing stuff.

Posted by SavageView | June 19, 2008 5:16 PM

Maxx, my opinion is just based on being a writer with friends in low places in New York and L.A. But in my experience, show me a girl(and there may be gender differences for men) involved in pornography, or stripping, or prostitution, and I'll show you someone who's been sexually abused. All the bravado about being in control of their destiny disappears after a few drinks, and you start to hear incredibly depressing stories about runnning away from home, etc. And the ones that aren't so screwed up that they'll be lucky to stay alive or out of jail, are all saving up to get out of the business. I grant the rare exception paying off grad school debts, researching a screenplay, or living with Hugh Hefner.

Posted by anonymous | June 19, 2008 5:24 PM

C Michol follows his applause of anonymous with:

"Because it's an important one, and also, the dehumanization of the sexual act that porn encourages leads to the dehumanization not just of the viewed but the viewer. We have to learn how to appreciate each other as whole human beings."

This is just silly. No one appreciates every person they encounter as a whole human being. I don't care about the private longings of the woman in the tollbooth who took my change today, nor about the sibling rivalry of the boy who bagged my groceries. Even though I love the voice and dry wit of the host of the local morning NPR show, I don't value him as a whole human being, nor would it be appropriate. It's not porn, but the fact that most of the people we meet over the course of a month are walk-on players in our lives, as we are in theirs, that prevents us from appreciating one another as whole human beings.

That said, I think entertaining sexual thoughts about real people around you--people you could actually potentially have a conversation with and perhaps even have sex with--is a far greater betrayal to a monogamous relationship than watching a porn video of people you'll never meet.

Posted by Maxx | June 19, 2008 5:26 PM

Pornography, like bestiality, is not just the misuse of sexual love in a wrong context, but is a corruption and perversion of the act itself.

both constitute a following away from the essential nature of the idealized context of the act of coition, to an even greater degree than having an affair.

Using pornography seems to come quite naturally to a great majority of the young men who stumble upon it, Hector. Bestiality is a distinctly minority taste in comparison. So your appeal to some vision of natural law here seems completely independent of how actual human beings actually behave. It's a heavy world God has created here -- shouldn't sensing, thinking beings make some realistic concessions to its gravity?

Masturbation, after all, (sometimes through pornography, often through imagination, sometimes through both), is just so damn common -- seemingly almost universal for males.

Now, I'm not entirely convinced masturbation is entirely morally harmless -- perhaps it's "sinful" in some way, a use of sexual energy in unproductive ways, short of our creator's ideal design for sex. But how is it in the same category as bestiality in any but the broadest sense? Yes, both may be sins and falling aways -- but so are white lies and serial murder.

(Yes, pornography often, if not always, involves exploitation of some sort, which complicates the issue greatly. Sigh.)

Posted by Ban Johnson | June 19, 2008 5:31 PM

"All the bravado about being in control of their destiny disappears after a few drinks, and you start to hear incredibly depressing stories about runnning away from home, etc. And the ones that aren't so screwed up that they'll be lucky to stay alive or out of jail, are all saving up to get out of the business."

Then it would seem the answer is to remove the illegality of prostitution and extralegal status of pornography that consign them to employment-of-last-resort options for many. There's nothing inherent in the work that makes these professions this way, it's only the legal and economic externalities that create this sort of no-win situation for many.

Posted by Maxx | June 19, 2008 5:37 PM

Ross,
Interpreting porn consumption in moral rather than emotional terms seems to obscure the dangers it may pose for a relationship as well as the benefits it can offer to inhibited people in or out of a relationship. When it essentially competes with or even substitutes for physical and emotional intimacy, porn would make most partners understandably jealous and wondering about what was missing in their connection, and why the other person was relying so much on an impersonal outlet. As a private or shared aid to imagination and expressiveness for partners who want to be close but are overly prone to self-restraint, it can further intimacy considerably.

You really should acknowledge both halves of this equation. Because to refrain from exploring somewhat frightening feelings of sexual curiosity and neediness through a safely impersonal medium like porn can be as deadening and disloyal to a relationship as it would be to rely on that medium to the neglect of the other person.

Maxx ... well-said.

Posted by jason | June 19, 2008 5:45 PM

There's nothing inherent in the work that makes these professions this way, it's only the legal and economic externalities that create this sort of no-win situation for many.

So there's nothing inherently sad or pathetic in giving away the most intimate acts of one's body to strangers or co-workers for money?

So, in some libertarian utopia that has demolished such negative externalities, would parents be wrong somehow to be disappointed if their daughter chose sex-worker as a profession?

Sometimes it does seem as if libertarians have let some pure form of reason block out every other instinct, intuition, and sympathy. Doing so is a useful exercise, I suppose, but doing so habitually makes for some pretty weird human beings with some pretty cold opinions.

Posted by Ban Johnson | June 19, 2008 5:47 PM

This whole introduction of prostitutes nonsense seems needlessly convoluted. What exactly is this adding to clarify the heart of this moral problem? Don't you basically just want to ask those that view porn guilt free whether they would be jealous if their partner also viewed porn guilt free?

I have a feeling most would not.

Posted by Ed | June 19, 2008 5:54 PM

What interests me here is the dog that hasn't barked. Two consecutive posts about morality, monogamy and pornography, with Ross taking a traditional religious/conservative position, and no comments from MoeLarryAndJesus? We need--urgently--to determine if one of Mr. Jesus' many online enemies has done him in.

Posted by Sherlock Holmes | June 19, 2008 5:55 PM

"So, in some libertarian utopia that has demolished such negative externalities, would parents be wrong somehow to be disappointed if their daughter chose sex-worker as a profession?"

There's nothing more inherently sad about getting paid for performing intimate acts than there is for the memoirist getting paid for publishing her most inimate thoughts and feelings.

My parents were disappointed that I went into publishing rather than medicine or the law. Legalizing prostitution and making pornography at least as respectable and well-regulated as other forms of filmmaking will do nothing to affect the outlines or rationality of parental approval or disappointment.

Posted by Maxx | June 19, 2008 5:55 PM

Again, Ross' hypotheticals seem to be quite the stretch.

Would I be bothered if my partner paid to see prostitutes have sex with one another?

Yes. That seems like an awful lot of money to waste on something that can be had more cheaply.

Would I feel *jealous*? No more so than when she says she thinks celebrity X is smoking hot.

Now, if that was the *only* way she achieved sexual gratification -- in other words, at the expense of our sex life -- there might be a problem, but I don't think that's what we're discussing. I certainly don't care that she periodically masturbates, nor am I particularly concerned about the contents of her mind while she's doing it (I'm certain that I'm not the only person who stars in the theater of her mind).

I understand that Ross and folks with a similar moral sensibility have a hard time understanding this, but so long as I'm the primary source of her sexual gratification and so long as she isn't having actual sex with other people, I'm just not especially bothered by the notion of her stimulating herself on the side a bit with images or thoughts of other people, not least because I know for a fact that I'm no Adonis.

That's why the continuum argument seems so thin to me. It tries to draw parallels without considering circumstances.

Does Ross object to couples watching hard-core porn together? Does Ross object to people fantasizing while they masturbate? Does he object to fantasizing about other people while having sex with one's partner?

In my opinion, none of these things, in and of themselves, are remotely approximate to adultry, nor are any of them necessarily unhealthy. I'll freely conceed that sexual fantasizing (with or without visual aids) can become problemating for some people, but I think that's more of a psychological issue than a moral issue.

I respect the fact that Ross does think that there's a moral dimension at play here, but he's not going to convince me of that moral argument simply by trying to say that there are certain simularities between fantasy and adultry.

Whether or not Ross appreciates it, I think that there really is a fundamental difference in kind between enjoying sexual imagry and engaging in actual intercourse.

Posted by Andrew Lias | June 19, 2008 5:56 PM

Assuming that there is some moral continuum that includes both adultery and pornography, the moral transgression must be deriving some sort of erotic pleasure in a way that would constitute a betrayal of marital fidelity. The question then is one of contract between spouses and whether marital fidelity precludes erotic arousal from pornography or any source other than the spouse and just what behaviors are permissible.

This of course leaves aside the unrelated question of whether the sex trade industries are corrupt morally or otherwise.

Posted by Not cheatin, just beatin. | June 19, 2008 6:13 PM

If your wife/monogamous partner sought regular sexual gratification through watching prostitutes have sex with one another, you would have no grounds on which to feel jealous or perturbed?

...never thought i'd imagine kerry howely in that context. now have i cheated???

Posted by razib | June 19, 2008 6:37 PM

If your wife/monogamous partner sought regular sexual gratification through watching prostitutes have sex with one another, you would have no grounds on which to feel jealous or perturbed? No grounds for feeling that they were being in some sense unfaithful? Really?

As others have touched on, I would be perturbed in the sense that this would indicate that she was not satisfied in some way with our sex life together, NOT in the sense that I'd be jealous or angry over a perceived form of infidelity. In fact, on some level I think I'd feel somewhat relieved that she was seeking gratification just from watching videos or some other voyeuristic erotica. After all, she could easily choose to start sleeping around or just leave me entirely and seek satisfaction with someone else. The fact that she hadn't would indicate that she was committed to our relationship.

But this is something of a moot point, because if my gal was into porn, I'd just watch it with her.

Posted by Jeff | June 19, 2008 6:46 PM

If you watch porn, you are a sick person. End of conversation.

Posted by Tom | June 19, 2008 7:01 PM

Re: It's a heavy world God has created here -- shouldn't sensing, thinking beings make some realistic concessions to its gravity?

Ban Johnson,

You raise a good point. Of course it's a heavy world, and I fully acknowledge that it's impossible to lead a sinless life. That's why we are in need of a Mediator, and of salvation by grace. As Luther said "Sin boldly, repent more boldly." That doesn't mean however that we should accept things like jerking off or adultery, rather it means that we should try to avoid them, acknowledge that they will happen because of our human frailty, and we should seek forgiveness for them when they do.

Posted by Hector | June 19, 2008 7:02 PM

It sounds a little like Ross is trying to have it both ways here. When it's a matter of prostitution, sex is so unique that it's off the normal moral continuum, if you will, and cannot be treated like any other transaction.

Yet now sex, as in sex between two people, is being confused with masturbation.

Isn't a big part of reason why sex (again, two people) is so different is that that's where babies come from. Hence the sex act is bound up with human mortality and limitations and has all kinds of meaning -- whether you like it or not, whether causual or not -- about who one is and, as a result, profound emotional, spiritual, and physical ramifications (you might have a baby, you might get attached, etc.).

How can you confuse that with masturbation, even if you throw in pornography? Is that act pregnant with the possiblity of reproduction, does it tells us deep things about our origin and our ultimate end, does it inspire possessiveness and sexual jealousy for the girls in the girlie magazine?

Put side by side like that, you can see why masturbation is for most people, unless one is overly attached to it, usually a matter for giggles and not the feelings of shock and betrayal caused by adultery.

Posted by rex | June 19, 2008 7:32 PM

The first time I smoked a cigarette I coughed like crazy. The first time I saw porn I felt ashamed. In both cases, those first instincts were telling.

Also, several years ago Will Wilkinson's mom and I got busy in a Burger King bathroom. I said "I can't believe we're doing this!" She said "It's okay; my son thinks that man has no telos."

Posted by Joe Magarac | June 19, 2008 8:45 PM

I think it’s generally useless to judge the act of one partner of a couple watching pornography outside the context of the relationship. For one couple it's an act that adulterates their union, for another it's a way maintaining an uneasy homeostasis upon which they coexists (could they reach another level?), and yet for another, it may be an act that energizes their passion. From my perspective adultery is an act that violates the covenant (explicit or implicit) that the couple has agreed upon. What ALWAYS worries me are those who, looking from the outside, believe they know what is right and intervene. It is their objectification, usually born out of a moral absolute, that hardens positions and leads to war (domestic or otherwise).

Posted by steve | June 19, 2008 10:39 PM

Steve, is that meant to be a criticism of Ross, or of Julian? I mean, only one of them said that those who disagreed were crazy.

Posted by Thomas | June 19, 2008 11:06 PM

Oh well, I am an intellectually immature person. I never realized that my life has obviously no telos. This is too bad, because that's the one thing I really would like, even more than sex.

(The last sentence is a ripoff from Plato, by the way: "truth is the only thing that can interest us even more than women")

Posted by Carlo | June 19, 2008 11:33 PM

Thanks for reading the comments, Ross.

Also, my bedrock principle that all allusions to "The Humpty Dance" are to be encouraged is sorely tested by Magarac's personal insult.

Posted by Elvis Elvisberg | June 19, 2008 11:33 PM

My point is rather that there's a consistent continuum here

I see apples and oranges.

For one thing, there isn't any potential for sane physical contact between a man or woman and a magazine or television set. There can be no reciprocation. The porn viewer never meets the person on the page or screen. The same cannot be said for a situation in which a man or woman habitually hires two prostitutes and secludes his or herself alone with them for a period of time.

The difference between viewing porn and committing adultery is the difference between reading the Count of Monte Cristo and actually getting one's self convicted of Treason. Hiring prostitutes to perform sex acts (on each other) would be like voluntarily spending all free time at a prison, which doesn't make one a criminal, but is certainly suspicious and strange.

You'd be much better off comparing porn viewing to something like drinking alcohol than adultery or this weird prostitute hypothetical. Alcohol can be a problem for some people, but in most situations, for most people, in moderation, it's probably harmless.

would have no grounds on which to feel jealous or perturbed

Sure, but the issue with adultery is betrayal of a contractual (or sacred if you prefer) agreement, not jealousy or perturbation. One could feel jealous because one's spouse is aging better than one's self. One could feel perturbed because one's spouse is not. That doesn't equate better or worse genetics with the commission of adultery.

Besides, the impression I get from married friends is that jealousy and perturbation is, basically, all that marriage is, infidelity or not.

Posted by Shinyk | June 20, 2008 3:53 AM

Matt,

I usually think your insight is bright....but here you must just have nothing else to talk about.

Your theory is basically: A is a step away from B; and B is a step from C; and C is a step from D; so A is a lot like D.

Under this theory 4 degrees is squashed into one without even considering the cumulative effect.

Wow, I could go from Ginger Lynn Allen to Kevin Bacon without even going through Apollo 13, Kevin Ellis or Devils Rejects. Well thats only 2 degrees of Mr. Bacon, but you get the point.

Posted by Tom | June 20, 2008 4:19 AM

"2) Women don't like it. We claim we do, but secretly, it makes us feel bad about ourselves and our desirability."

This is likely an age thing. A female friend of mine from college was into watching gay porn. Another friend of mine from college, an observant Muslim woman, invented our year's version of the pornathon drinking game.

The main problem with bestiality is one of consent. How does an animal who cannot speak voice consent?

Posted by Reality Man | June 20, 2008 6:35 AM

Joe Magarac,

You raise a good point. Our body is sometimes wiser than our reason, and sometimes rebels against those things that it was not designed for. Our natural instinct is to feel ashamed and embarrassed when we see pornography, and that should tell us something.

Pornography is by the way "unnatural" in a much more literal and obvious sense than other sexual sins. Simply put, our minds and souls were not designed (by God, evolution, nature, or what have you) to deal with images of other people f---ing each other, or to deal with large quantities of images of naked women whom we do not know. Until the late twentieth century these were things that a normal person would go through his entire life without seeing.

In the same way that deer were not designed by evolution to deal with fast cars. Deer and cars do not mix well, and neither do our souls and porn. Pornography warps our minds and souls, whether it be in an abvious way or in a subtle one.

Posted by Hector | June 20, 2008 6:41 AM

Reality Man,

It's pretty depressing to see that not only do some of today's young men use porn themselves, they also find it necessary to corrupt women into doing the same. Pornography is even more a rebellion against women's essential nature than it is against men's. A healthy and normal womam despises pornography. But then again, we all know that the ultimate pleasure of evil is the corruption of the innocent.

Posted by Hector | June 20, 2008 6:46 AM

I'm always both impressed by the range and depth of comments posted on here, and surprised that most people seem to take you at your word when you frequently come of the mount to proclaim.

Why exactly they should, given that when morality connects with reality (i.e. the moment a stand means something), your principles go out of the window.

It's clear in your archive. You are a Janus - when facing the past or the abstract, you can be balanced and reasoned and moral; yet the face which faces the present and reality is consistently hard-nosed, partisan and mercenary.

And yet, somehow these two faces never seem to realise they are the same person and are contradicting each other consistently.

I wonder if it is a scam on your readers, or perhaps you are deluding yourself most of all.

Posted by James | June 20, 2008 6:49 AM

Considering your opinions, as those of a Christian Stalinist, are a joke, who cares what you say? I bet you're a virgin - or someone who couldn't control themselves before they had to convert in order to pretend they had changed and found some sense of self-control.

"It's pretty depressing to see that not only do some of today's young men use porn themselves, they also find it necessary to corrupt women into doing the same. Pornography is even more a rebellion against women's essential nature than it is against men's. A healthy and normal womam despises pornography. But then again, we all know that the ultimate pleasure of evil is the corruption of the innocent.

Posted by Hector | June 20, 2008 6:46 AM"

Except that no one actually made them sat down and watch porn. They are both intelligent women capable of making their own decisions. Women aren't a collection of unthinking, pure porcelain dolls without their own sense of agency who are then sullied by the grubby hands of men. Do you actually think when you write this crap? How do you take yourself seriously?

Posted by Reality Man | June 20, 2008 8:17 AM

It seems to me that watching porn is a lot more analogous to watching Sex and the City than to hiring prostitutes and not touching them.

Ross is usually smart enough to grasp that the medium by which titillation is purveyed makes a big difference. I don't really get this series of posts.

Posted by DivGuy | June 20, 2008 8:46 AM

Through centuries of scourges and disasters, brought about by your code of morality, you have cried that your code had been broken, that the scourges were punishment for breaking it, that men were too weak and too selfish to spill all the blood it require. You damned men, you damned existence, you damned this earth, but never dared to question your code. Your victims took the blame and struggled on, with your curses as reward for their martyrdom - while you went on crying that your code was noble, but human nature was not good enough to practice it. And no one rose to ask the question: Good? - by what standard?

Posted by Jeff | June 20, 2008 9:01 AM

I thought that commenter "Bad" on the last thread had this pretty well wrapped up. In any case, I agree with Bad that:

1) All of the activities involved are on a continuum, so the Fox commentator wrong to say that the pron and affairs are obviously identical, and whoever Ross was originally responding to was wrong to say that they are not alike in any way.

2) As for where you draw a line in the continuum, that really is an issue for the spouses in any given marriage.

I think Ross is on to an interesting moral intuition -- why do we feel that it's worse to engage in live voyeurism than to watch recorded pron? I'm not sure what the answer is, though.

Posted by J Mann | June 20, 2008 9:34 AM

Elvis Elvisberg -

Please don't let my prior post strain your commitment to "The Humpty Dance." My intent was not to insult Mr. Wilkinson.

I was trying to say that porn is not like most things we encounter. It inflames passions. When we ask if it is good for us, we need to acknowledge this fact. But Wilkinson doesn't: he compares porn and kittens.

I thought a your-mama joke might be a clever way to make the point that sex is serious business: the relationship between porn and adultery is not like the relationship between kittens and cotton balls. Where I grew up, your-mama jokes were ironic and not personally insulting. But if you or anyone else (especially Mr. Wilkinson) say the joke as insulting, my apologies.

Posted by Joe Magarac | June 20, 2008 9:50 AM

"I was trying to say that porn is not like most things we encounter. It inflames passions."

So does baseball and the smell of baking cookies. Think of how often people all over the world riot over sports. Or do only carnal passions count?

Posted by Reality Man | June 20, 2008 10:20 AM

A huge problem with this discusion is that it takes place under some unchallanged assumptions about what the collision of sex and photography can and should be, and what the experience of viewing sexually explicit photography (stills, film, video) can encompass. It would take too long to recount the legal and economic reasons for this misunderstanding here, but anyone who thinks it's interesting and/or important to discus what pornography is or isn't, or what watchign it is or isn't would do well to eductate themselves.

With regard to adultary and prosititution, I've spent a lot of time thinking about how sexually explicit images can rendered photographically in a way that is de-commodified and de- transactionalized, without nulifying a sense of eroticism and preciousness; and how idealized sexual beauty can be rendered in a way that invites reflection and celebration instead of comparison. If my films are understood as somethign new or interesting, a lot of that is because they cut against the covetousness that people simply assume will be a part of seeing arousing depictions of explicit sex.

That's also probably why everyone – from critics, to censors, to viewers – have such a hard time categorizing these films. They are frank, they are explicit, but they are not adulterous. Instead of adultery, each film offers a vignette of erotic joy, wrapped in the most normative and pro-social context: loving, mutually pleasurable sex between committed partners.

Also, I'm pretty sure that thinking about sexuality as a "continum" ranging from monogamous to adulterous, or for that matter, from healthy to perverse is a mostly useless way to parse questions of sexual morality. Kraft-Ebbing has been rejected through out the theraputic community, but the shadow of his misbegotten view of sexuality lives on; on this blog, and elsewhere.

Posted by Tony Comstock | June 20, 2008 10:21 AM

Reality Man -

You're right. Porn, sports, and the smell of baking cookies all arouse passions. You imply that because we don't worry too much about the effect that sports and cookies have on people, we shouldn't worry about the effect that porn has, either.

I'm not so sure. I don't think that someone's low-grade, casual love for the Pittsburgh Steelers or for chocolate chips should concern us. But the sorts of Pittsburgh Steeler fans who murder people for wearing opposing teams' jerseys (you can look up a murder at Tom's Diner in Dormont, Pa. a couple years ago) aren't healthy people. Neither is Cookie Monster.

Does porn arouse healthy, causual passions or the less healthy kind? I would argue the latter. It's not an argument I can win - people who watch porn argue the contrary. But I suspect they protest too much.

Posted by Joe Magarac | June 20, 2008 10:48 AM

Question for Will. What if religion makes people happy?

Also, I commend Joe Magarac for his indictment of Cookie Monster. It's by far the bravest -- and probably the truest -- thing anyone has said on this thread.

Posted by Zenobia | June 20, 2008 11:06 AM

Pornography is simply an aid to masturbation for (mostly) men. Masturbation is not adultery. Using images to assist with masturbation is similarly not adultery, any more than it would be adultery for a woman to masturbate after reading a bodice-ripper romance novel, or while she is thinking about that hot guy she saw on the bus who is not her husband.

Adultery = sex with a person other than the one you are married to. Pornography is simply a masturbation aid. There is no physical or emotional connection between the viewing man and the women whose images he is viewing. Therefore, unless masturbation is in itself considered to be an adulterous act, then viewing porn should also not be considered an adulterous act.

The fact that some women get jealous and insecure about their partners viewing porn reflects more on their insecurity than any real basis for jealousy. It's akin to a man being jealous of the vibrators his wife uses as a masturbation aid. People need to grow up and not be jealous of the masturbation aids that their faithful partners use.

Posted by Novaseeker | June 20, 2008 11:18 AM

I hate the pornography argument, because it always has me siding with conservatives against my fellow liberals.

Pornography is a dangerous narcotic for the consumer, and a dark, twisted, slave trade for the performer. In the past, its dangers were limited by its medium. But internet pornography has made an unlimited amount of free drug available, and it is not a pretty site. Look at young college men today. I would say habitual pornography use (I would call it addiction, but habitual use is something we can all agree on without opening that can of worms) is probably something like 90%, as they all have tons of hormones and free ethernet connections. By habitual, I mean at least daily masturbation to hard core pornography.

I never believed there was anything wrong with pornography. I am as socially liberal as they come, and enjoy drinking to excess, and believe sex with whatever partner you want whenever you want is just fine and dandy. But pornography isn't sex. It's the constant training and retraining of your brain to respond to a certain kind of stimulus. It's why men with porn addictions suffer so frequently from ED: after endless, free variety of visual stimuli provided by porn, and after years of training themselves to respond to their own hand, suddenly real sex is problematic.

I've "used" plenty of pornography in my day, but I found it utterly incompatible with a real relationship. When I was heading towards cohabitation with my partner, I decided to give it up. The only problem was that giving it up was INCREDIBLY difficult.

Now I'm about two and a half years removed from having quit, and it has improved so much about my life. My sex drive is higher, my relationship is better, my self esteem is better, and I just feel healthier, like I purged something awful from inside of myself. I know I won't go to my deathbed thinking "Gee, i wished I'd jerked off more to internet porn," so I don't really feel like I'm missing much. I don't judge people who use it and who don't see a problem with it. I hope it never adversely affects them the way it has affected me. But I for one am, hopefully, barring a relapse, done with it forever.

As for the purveyors and performers, "mainstream" pornography is no longer silly movie parodies with campy plots and escalating sex scenes. "Mainstream" pornogarphy is gonzo porn of the most exploitative, misogynistic, racist, dehumanizing variety.

Posted by Barnabe Googe | June 20, 2008 11:28 AM

"The fact that some women get jealous and insecure about their partners viewing porn reflects more on their insecurity than any real basis for jealousy. It's akin to a man being jealous of the vibrators his wife uses as a masturbation aid. People need to grow up and not be jealous of the masturbation aids that their faithful partners use."

I'm sorry, but this is an incredibly ignorant comment. First off, a man would NOT be crazy to be "jealous" of a vibrator if his wife was using it every day, seemed to have more interest in it than him, and seemed to waste hours of potentially productive time with it.

And pornography is more than just a masturbation aid. It changes the entire process of masturbation . It trains to brain to respond to that combination of visual image/hand. A 13 year old boy needs no masturbation aid. A 40 year old man whose been jerking off to porn for 20 years probably can't get it up without some serious hardcore shit. Porn destroys the normal sex drive. At least in some.

Posted by Barnabe Googe | June 20, 2008 11:36 AM

"The fact that some women get jealous and insecure about their partners viewing porn reflects more on their insecurity than any real basis for jealousy. It's akin to a man being jealous of the vibrators his wife uses as a masturbation aid. People need to grow up and not be jealous of the masturbation aids that their faithful partners use.

Posted by Novaseeker | June 20, 2008 11:18 AM"

That or have sex more. If your partner, male or female, is consuming a lot of porn, especially when you are nearby, something is wrong with your sex life. If they would rather watch porn than have sex with you, either they have issues, you have let yourself go or you are just not fun to have sex with. If they are using it when you are apart (extended business trips, etc.), then at least they aren't actually cheating. However, if you get mad that they watched some movie when you weren't around to have sex, then your insecurity is your own problem and you are looking for a way to channel it. If you don't just like having sex in the first place, then you have no real basis for complaining that your partner is looking for other outlets.

"You're right. Porn, sports, and the smell of baking cookies all arouse passions. You imply that because we don't worry too much about the effect that sports and cookies have on people, we shouldn't worry about the effect that porn has, either."

What does "concern" mean here in this context? I'm not really sure. We've already taken several precautions to make sure children cannot see porn (not letting them in porn theaters, not letting them buy or rent porn), with the exception of the internet, which not even the Chinese government can completely control. By the same token, there does appear to be a line of causality running from having access to porn and a reduced incidence of rape (most famously in the late days of East Germany). The bigger problem here is addiction, which in all three cases can be problematic (reduced social contact with porn, obesity in cookies, becoming emotionally unstable and having your mood for extended periods of time determined by box scores in the case of sports).

"I'm not so sure. I don't think that someone's low-grade, casual love for the Pittsburgh Steelers or for chocolate chips should concern us. But the sorts of Pittsburgh Steeler fans who murder people for wearing opposing teams' jerseys (you can look up a murder at Tom's Diner in Dormont, Pa. a couple years ago) aren't healthy people. Neither is Cookie Monster."

Why should someone's porn viewing habits matter to society at large (assuming they aren't watching child pornography)?

I could care less whether people watch porn or not. However, the idea that watching porn can come anywhere near to cheating strikes me as both silly and a bit creepy. If you are going to make a stink in your relationship over this, your relationship has a lot more other problems and you are probably just looking for a reason to break up.

Posted by Reality Man | June 20, 2008 11:43 AM

"seemed to waste hours of potentially productive time"

If a woman enjoyed masturbating with a vibrator for many hours each week, how would that be any more a waste of time than other avocational pursuits she might have?

Would you hold the enthusiastic pursuit of golf, or knitting, or fishing in the same contempt? How about reading and commenting on blogs? Would you be less comtemptuous if she used her fingers instead of a tool?

I find most of what's commonly refered to as "pornography" both banal and unctuous, and I have deep reservations about the manner in which it's produced. But to smeer the enjoyment of one's own sexuality as a "waste of potentially productive hours" reveals a contempt for our capacity to experience joy that rivals the contempt expressed by most producers of pornography.

Posted by Tony Comstock | June 20, 2008 11:49 AM

"I'm sorry, but this is an incredibly ignorant comment. First off, a man would NOT be crazy to be "jealous" of a vibrator if his wife was using it every day, seemed to have more interest in it than him, and seemed to waste hours of potentially productive time with it.

And pornography is more than just a masturbation aid. It changes the entire process of masturbation . It trains to brain to respond to that combination of visual image/hand. A 13 year old boy needs no masturbation aid. A 40 year old man whose been jerking off to porn for 20 years probably can't get it up without some serious hardcore shit. Porn destroys the normal sex drive. At least in some."

First, beware of projecting your own problematic use of porn onto others. Not all men use porn problematically. I agree that if someone's sexual activity outside of masturbation is suffering from the use of porn, then that is an issue that needs addressing. However, that does *not* mean that porn viewing as a masturbation aid is problematic for all people. That's like saying that because some people become alcoholics, that alcohol is bad. It just doesn't follow -- sorry.

Second, again if the wife is using vibrators to the exclusion of sex with her husband, then there is an issue. But if she is not, then there isn't one. For a spouse to get jealous about their partner masturbating when there is an otherwise healthy sex life between the two of them reflects a rather high degree of insecurity.

In sum, you're assuming that all use of masturbation aids is going to be excessive, because that was your own experience with porn use. Sory, but you don't get a free pass to universalize your own problems.

Posted by Novaseeker | June 20, 2008 11:50 AM

I can't believe some people find it odd that a woman might be put off by her partner spending hours using porn. Is it really so mind boggling?

Posted by Barnabe Googe | June 20, 2008 11:52 AM

Reality Man and others,

You say you could "care less" whether people watch porn or not, but you seem to care enough about a spouse's (usually the wife's) reaction to porn consumption to pronounce that anyone who "makes a stink" about porn consumption is demonstrating that the relationship "has problems."

Spouse 1 prefers to watch porn. Spouse 2 prefers that Spouse 1 *didn't* watch porn.

Spouse 1 picks his nose. Spouse 2 prefers that Spouse 1 *didn't* pick his nose?

What's the difference between those two scenarios, in your view of the world? Spouse 2 has just as much right to his/her preferences as Spouse 1, doesn't he/she?

Posted by Zenobia | June 20, 2008 11:53 AM

Really, the boundaries that a couple establishes for its own relationship should be the guidelines here,and nothing else. Both parters ok with it? Great. The problem is, many women have been shamed by a desire not to appear prudish into silently accepting what they find distasteful in a relationship. The porn industry has done an excellent job legitimizing itself in that regard, I must say. Yes, from the consumer side, my personal feelings and experiences won't necessarily be everyone's. But even if harmless to the consumer, do we have no regard for the performers?

Posted by Barnabe Googe | June 20, 2008 12:05 PM

But the sorts of Pittsburgh Steeler fans who murder people for wearing opposing teams' jerseys (you can look up a murder at Tom's Diner in Dormont, Pa. a couple years ago) aren't healthy people

I live in Pittsburgh and remember the murder at Tom's Diner in Dormont. It wasn't over the Steelers. The dead guy was local and not a football fan. He wasn't wearing another team's jersey or engaging in football discussion.

My father was in law enforcement at the time. The version of the story told to him by the Dormont police is that two drunk assholes from Brentwood decided to "stomp a queer" and, when he died, the assholes claimed he had started an argument about the Steelers.

Christmas eve. One of the more tragic and embarassing incidents in this area's history.

If there's any lesson to be learned from Tom's Diner, it has to do with living and letting live, not with the "healthiness" of porn.

Posted by Shinyk | June 20, 2008 12:08 PM

"But even if harmless to the consumer, do we have no regard for the performers?"

That's a point, but it's a separate issue from the adultery issue, which I thought was the main focus of these two threads.

I see the exploitation issue as akin to the level of awareness of exploitation that may be associated with the production of whatever products we may be consuming -- such as our food, clothes, appliances, personal services and the like. There's a *lot* of exploitation that goes on in connection with the production of much of what we consume.

Posted by Novaseeker | June 20, 2008 12:19 PM

Barnabe Googe,

I'm glad that you were able to kick the habit and I appreciated your sharing of your thoughts. That said, I don't think anywhere close to 90% of men use porn. I was a college student not very long ago, of fairly left-wing politics, and I've never used or watched pornography. I don't think my life choices in that regard are that atypical.

I have heard that Cookie Monster, by the way, no longer exists, I think his new name has been changed to "Carrot Monster" (in order not to encourage addiction to sweets among children).

Posted by Hector | June 20, 2008 12:33 PM

It certainly takes gumption to criticize porn on the largest free porn dispenser ever invented. I appreciate Ross' efforts.

The liberals disdainful of porn shouldn't be ashamed to line up with conservatives. This needn't be a partisan issue.

Also I think the defenders of self-abuse here aren't thinking things through. They're treating their own body as a substitute for their spouse's. This is an assertion of self-sufficiency in what should be a complementary relationship, physically and mentally.

It also treats one's body as interchangeable with a body of the opposite sex. This is one reason why moralists used to contemn male masturbation under the name "effeminacy."

Posted by Kevin J Jones | June 20, 2008 12:36 PM

Also I think the defenders of self-abuse here aren't thinking things through. They're treating their own body as a substitute for their spouse's. This is an assertion of self-sufficiency in what should be a complementary relationship, physically and mentally.

So any unmarried man or woman is in an abusive relationship? Who isn't thinking things through, here?

Posted by Shinyk | June 20, 2008 12:49 PM

"So any unmarried man or woman is in an abusive relationship? Who isn't thinking things through, here?"

I take it that he meant that people who are unmarried or otherwise unattached should not resort to masturbation, but should use their sexual needs as an impetus to get attached to someone.

Ultimately all of that leads to a pretty radical limiting of personal choice.

In any case, in the context of a relationship, it is for the partners to decide whether they are comfortable with each other masturbating.

Posted by Novaseeker | June 20, 2008 1:47 PM

I think Tony Comstock @ 11:49 am hit the nail on the head - but didn't pursue it:

But to smeer the enjoyment of one's own sexuality as a "waste of potentially productive hours" reveals a contempt for our capacity to experience joy that rivals the contempt expressed by most producers of pornography.

The droning scolds on this thread have no concept of 'enjoying one's sexuality'. To them sexuality = sex = biological act of procreation, preferably (and with limited frequency) within the union of a faithful husband and dutiful wife.

I can guarantee you that they would have far more of a problem hearing their copulously copulating, porn-free, married neighbors (just loud enough that the activity is clear) than they would with the same frequency / volume coming from their college-aged neighbors playing Madden Football.

All their blather about masturbation / porn / prostitution is just camouflage for their inherent inability (refusal?) to grasp that sexuality can be healthy and fun. With that in mind, it's no surprise to find out where they stand on the moral / immoral continuum. And there's no way to have a sensible discussion with them on the nuances of sexuality - to them it's pretty much all bad.

Cheers,

Posted by Rofe | June 20, 2008 2:01 PM

"I think Tony Comstock @ 11:49 am hit the nail on the head - but didn't pursue it:

But to smeer the enjoyment of one's own sexuality as a "waste of potentially productive hours" reveals a contempt for our capacity to experience joy that rivals the contempt expressed by most producers of pornography."

Is this "enjoyment of sexuality" really about masturbation? I see there are novels, operas, popular songs, and poetry about the sexuality and other things experienced by two people in marriage, romantic love, and adulterty. If masturbation is such a profound experience of one's sexuality, why isn't it the subject of great art?

Or even if you're talking about pornography. I can't help but think of the scene in the Odyssey where the gods watch Ares and Aphrodite have at, after they've been pinned down by Hephaistos ... and they break out laughing.

There is something funny about the act of sex itself, when you watch it as an outsider as opposed to participating in it oneself. It has to do with the fact that one is overcome by and enthrall to a bodily function, just as one is when one defacates, dies, or eats. That's why we typically have sex in private, close the bathroom door, cover corpses, and cover our mouths when we eat.

There really is something painful about seeing these things unveiled, as it were, and perverse in seeking pleasure, let alone any kind of joy or fulfillment, in that.

Posted by pwc | June 20, 2008 2:27 PM

Ross, your analogy doesn't work because a man who orders prostitutes to put on a sex show for him is interacting with them, whereas a man watching porn has no relationship with the actors. That interaction changes the act from masturbation to sex, or at least to something very close to sex.

A better analogy would be, watching strip shows. As to that, you're also conflating two very different questions when you use the phrase "jealous or perturbed." There are many reasons other than jealousy that a woman might feel perturbed about her SO watching porn or strip shows. She might worry that he was imbibing coarse values about sex and/or women that would harm their sex life and relationship, that he was spending too much time and money on it, that he might resent her for not looking or acting like the fantasies presented, that he wanted something she could not give him (although the same might be true if he went to