A reader points out that the real question is where giving foot massages falls on the infidelity continuum:
The natural follow-up, of course, is this: Would you watch porn with Marsellus Wallace's wife?
« The GOP Must Die! | Main | Europe's Catholic Problem »
Porn and Adultery (III)
20 Jun 2008 10:44 am
Comments (37)
I generally disdain contract-law metaphors for ordinary human relationships, due to their abuse by Randroids, but Freddie is generally correct. And just like real contracts, many relationships seem to run into arguments over the fine print and struggles with buyer's remorse. Nonetheless, fidelity means whatever a couple agrees that it should mean. You can download a pre-existing contract from the Church of your choice or be as kinky as you wanna be.
The fundamental elements are consent and trust. If your partner thinks porn is abhorrent and doesn't want you to touch the stuff, then it IS tantamount to adultery to violate that trust. Otherwise, not so much.
That said, I think there's a categorical distinction between watching other people have sex and actually having sex. There are risks of disease, paternity suits, and other complicating factors that simply don't exist if you're "cheating" with strippers and porn. That isn't to say that the latter behavior can't be incredibly destructive to a relationship if taken to excess, just as a drug addiction or other non-sexual vices can be. It may not be "crazy" to view porn and hookers as points on a continuous spectrum of infidelity, but I think you're being somewhat obtuse if you don't see the discontinuity between the two halves of that spectrum.
I posted this in the last thread but I want to bump it up. I agree that the boundaries established by the partners themselves should be the ultimate guideline here. One of the problems, though, is that many women have been shamed into silently accepting what they might actually consider hurtful and distasteful by a desire not to appear prudish or unreasonable. Society at large has embraced pornography and masturbation as healthy and normal, and "boys will be boys," after all. If you don't find it to be so in the context of a relationship, well, you're shit out of luck unless you want people thinking you're an unreasonable prude. That attitude of many of the men in this thread confirms this belief.
And is anyone speaking on behalf of the sex slaves that we call "performers" in the porn industry?
If fidelity is just a contract, it's an awfully incomplete one. Most people who marry or "commit" probably agree that full-on sex with a third party would be cheating. But they probably don't bother to flesh out what other sorts of things would be cheating.
And because cheating is not completely defined in the "contract," there is lots of room for argument about what cheating is. Bill Clinton claimed that receiving oral sex wasn't "sex." Samuel Jackson argues in Pulp Fiction that foot massages aren't sexual. And plenty of commenters are arguing that watching porn isn't cheating.
All of this begs the question: if two people get married and never have a conversation about the appropriateness of porn and if those two people have different understandings about its appropriateness and get into a fight about it, with whom would a neutral third party side? This happens with business contracts all the time (judges being the third parties); what would happen with a marriage contract?
Ross's answer (and mine) is that the third party would say that porn is inappropriate, because most people intrinsically know that there's something not quite right about watching porn when you are married (or even when you're not). Sure, you can argue the contrary. But the third party will probably lump you in with Bill Clinton and Samuel L. Jackson - as rationalizing.
Really it depends.
Is Marsellus Wallace a Republican?
Ross's answer (and mine) is that the third party would say that porn is inappropriate, because most people intrinsically know that there's something not quite right about watching porn when you are married (or even when you're not).
Society at large has embraced pornography and masturbation as healthy and normal, and "boys will be boys," after all.
Why project your own perejudices on others when there is evidence. 2004 Harris Interactive Poll:
Two out of five adults (40%) believe that pornography "harms relationships between men and women" with this view also held by a higher percentage of women" (47%) than men (33%).
So, Joe Magarac, half of the female and two-thirds of the male third parties would disagree with you. On the the other hand, Barnabe Googe, porn is not so widely accepted that those opposed to it can feel alone and besieged only by those who disagree with them.
I now return you to your regularly scheduled evidence-free argumentation.
It's worth noting that Quenting Taratino is well known for having a thing for Uma Thurman's feet (i.e., Mrs. Marsellus Wallace, the person about whom Jules and the other guy are talking above).
See, for example, the closeup of Uma's feet in the "twist" scene at Jack Rabbit Slim's in Pulp Fiction, as well as the scene in Kill Bill when she is trying to move her feet after having spent a spell in a coma.
Ross asked whether watching porn is cheating. Maxx cited a poll asking if porn harmed relationships. Those aren't the same questions.
I now return you to your regularly-scheduleded ad populum and generalizing argumentation.
The problem with all of these arguments in these posts the last couple days is that many people, including Ross, seem to think that there is an objective definition of what fidelity entails. But there isn't; there's just the agreement between two people.
Get the fuck out my face with that shit! The motherfucker that said that shit never had to pick up itty-bitty pieces of skull on account of your dumb ass.
"Is Marsellus Wallace a Republican?
Let's see... he's a small businessman and a gun owner, and he's objectively pro-torture...
"Society at large has embraced pornography and masturbation as healthy and normal, and 'boys will be boys,' after all. If you don't find it to be so in the context of a relationship, well, you're shit out of luck unless you want people thinking you're an unreasonable prude... And is anyone speaking on behalf of the sex slaves that we call "performers" in the porn industry?"
Well, frankly, if you don't think masturbation is healthy and normal, and you feel that the context of a relationship means that your partner should never be able to have an orgasm, ever, when you don't feel up to it, then you're an unreasonable prude. Sorry.
Hard-core porn is a different matter, given the ethical considerations and the potential for abuse and exploitation. There undoubtedly are slaves working in sex sweatshops. The Playmate of the month is hardly a sex slave, however, nor is the webcam girl who runs her own site and profits from it. Most of the industry falls somewhere in between. I don't think the ethical concerns about porn should be casually dismissed, but a blanket opposition to all porn regardless of its nature and provenance is not particularly reasonable.
For those who have explicitly agreed to accept it in the relationship, porn is probably no worse than no porn. However, the proof is not in polls, it is in divorce rates -- what is the rate of divorce in marriages with porn (possibly split between explicitly agreed and not discussed), and the divorce rate without porn.
I gave up porn to become happily married, and practice fantasizing about my wife when I see a cute girl (free advice!).
Do you know any marriages where porn is explicitly accepted? I do, and worry about them, but not more than some others where there are other problems (maybe even full cheating!).
The deeper problem of porn is the consumerization of sex that porn, like the worse prostitution, encourages. Sex as a commodity is a terrible idea for civilization.
Maxx, thanks for the link to the Harris table, which lists, under Harms Relationships: 40% 33% 27% (agree, disagree, not sure/refuse) -- so only 33% combined disagree, less than the amount that agree. From a
"survey of 2,555 U.S. adults conducted online between September 20 and 26, 2004." -- quite likely to have a preponderance of heavy porn watchers.
"Ross asked whether watching porn is cheating. Maxx cited a poll asking if porn harmed relationships. Those aren't the same questions."
No, it doesn't answer the question of whether watching porn is cheating (which wasn't Ross's question: He asked if they were on the same continuum--to which the answer is, of course, yes, in the same way that, for instance, Meyer lemons and nuclear warheads are both on a continuum of physical objects), but it does speak directly to your unsupported assertion that "the third party would say that porn is inappropriate, because most people intrinsically know that there's something not quite right about watching porn when you are married (or even when you're not)."
Unless you're redefining "most" as 40%, then it just ain't so.
And if only 40% believe it harms relationships in any way (and in the same poll women cite issues like men developing an unrealistic expectation of how women look or act as the biggest harms) then an even smaller number are going to see it as "cheating," unless you're going to seriously argue that a significant number of people think that cheating improves relationships.
So unlike Ross's mealy-mouthed version of the question--which is just mealy-mouthed--your version of it is, yeah, a little insane.
All of this begs the question: if two people get married and never have a conversation about the appropriateness of porn and if those two people have different understandings about its appropriateness and get into a fight about it, with whom would a neutral third party side?
I don't wanna hear about no motherfuckin' "ifs". All I wanna hear from your ass is, "You ain't got no problem, Jules. I'm on the motherfucker. Go back in there, chill them niggers out, and wait for the cavalry, which should be coming directly."
Of all the sophomoric, guys-in-barracks, topics!!!
But as always here the comments are entertaining. Problem is that most commenters don't address the Catholic foundation of our host's objection to porn.
Many posters say somethng like--if two people marry and have a shared understanding of fidelity then simply living within that agreed 'contract' is fidelity even if it involves porn or even 'open marriage'.
Wrong. To a Catholic marriage is not a contract between two persons only. God and The Church are part of it or there is no marriage. So infidelity can occur even though neither partner is actually offended.
There is another objection to the 'porn equals infidelity' idea that can be stated something like, 'if there is no person involved to have actual physical sex with then there is no infidelity'.
Wrong. It is Catholic teaching that what we see and touch and think of as 'physical reality' is actually only the representation of a spiritual reality. Think of the Mass. The 'bread' becomes the 'True Body' and 'True Blood' of Christ even though it tastes, looks, smells, etc, like bread.
Lots of subtle questioning of 'intention' and such are involved in parsing out the sin or lack of sin in our actions. (That's part of the whole 'Confessional' business, that the Priest helps the confessing person to learn how they fell into sin and how to avoid it in future.) So a Penitent asking a Confessor about porn would (ideally) be guided by questions about his/her spiritual state as related to the porn; was his/her 'intention' to experience some forbidden pleasure or was the pleasure 'accidental' to some other activity, etc and etc.
I'm an expert on all this because once long ago I took a couple of instruction classes for inquirers back when I was a believer. I even read about it. In a book. (But I bet I've got the doctrines right.)
To a Catholic marriage is not a contract between two persons only. God and The Church are part of it or there is no marriage. So infidelity can occur even though neither partner is actually offended.
Whether or not what we experienced was an According to Hoyle miracle is insignificant. What is significant is that I felt the touch of God. God got involved.
Do you know any marriages where porn is explicitly accepted? I do, and worry about them, but not more than some others where there are other problems (maybe even full cheating!).
Never assume that your relationships or marriages, or the ones you know of intimately, are like everyone else's.
For heaven's sakes, there are SWINGERS who stay together 50 years. Of course there are going to be couples who have long term marriages that include porn consumption!
This whole debate is a matter of (mostly) religious people declaring that the assumptions they make in their own life must be the assumptions that everyone else makes in theirs'.
"Well, frankly, if you don't think masturbation is healthy and normal, and you feel that the context of a relationship means that your partner should never be able to have an orgasm, ever, when you don't feel up to it, then you're an unreasonable prude. Sorry."
I meant masturbation TO pornography, not the two things individually. And I'm not a prude in the slightest, thanks.
OK, the playmate of the month isn't a sex slave. Are we really talking about playboy here? What about the female performers on such august and healthy sites as bangbus.com, exploitedteens.com, rapvideoauditions.com, hypnotrick.com, analabuse.com, or whatever other ridiculous, insidious, disgusting sites that fetishize sexual abuse of stupid women. Do you think because these women get paid $300 or whatever per "session" that they are not being horribly exploited.
Regarding the porn industry's effects on it's participants - no need to worry about that anymore. Just go to xtube or youporn and watch guilt free. If someone records themself having sex/maturbating, etc. and posts it on the internet, I doubt they feel coerced or exploited.
"youporn" and "xtube" are just clearinghouses of free porn videos.
"youporn" and "xtube" are just clearinghouses of free porn videos.
PLUS user created and posted videos. If you only look at the user created stuff - you are not contributing to the enslavement or exploitation of sex workers.
But again, if you eat produce, aren't you contributing the exploitation of undocumented migrant workers? Better skip the produce at the supermarket next time.
Oh, and that computer you're typing on? More exploitation. The people in China who built it are not being paid an adequate wage, and are being totally exploited by the Western-based computer companies for their undervalued labor. Never mind the clear harm you are causing to American workers, etc.
I mean if you're really worried about exploitation, you've got bigger things to worry about than porn.
If a person thinks of a third party while having sex with their spouse this is also adultery? I wouldn't think so. Porn is a waste of time and energy, like many activities that take place in front of a screen, but it's a stretch to call it adultery.
exploitedteens.com
Thanks for the suggestion, dude. That site's awesome!
"Oh, and that computer you're typing on? More exploitation. The people in China who built it are not being paid an adequate wage, and are being totally exploited by the Western-based computer companies for their undervalued labor. Never mind the clear harm you are causing to American workers, etc."
Doesn't mean I jerk off watching them being exploited.
"I mean if you're really worried about exploitation, you've got bigger things to worry about than porn"
Are you that fucking dense that you don't see the depravity in watching someone being sexually abused and thinking it's just grand.
"Are you that fucking dense that you don't see the depravity in watching someone being sexually abused and thinking it's just grand"
Tone it down. You can't assume someones sexual abuse for them. I grant that porn more often than not shows women in sexually inferior rolls and that all of porn is about male gratification and dominance. But then again you don't see female porn stars really complaining now do you. Hell man, they have their Oscar award show and annual convention where female porn stars sign autographs. I can't stand the argument that female porn stars have no agency in the porn industry. Did you stop to think that women go into the porn industry knowing exactly whats going to happen, and CHOOSE to do it anyway? What happens in porn isn't exactly a mystery, and everyday more women CHOOSE to do it regardless of the depravity of it. Exploitation is a tricky concept to prove when you have a exploited person making a good living, and enjoying a celebrity like existence. You don't see Jenna Jameson crying at night?
PS. I like how the anti-porn guy knew all the websites to go to:)
"Exploitation is a tricky concept to prove when you have a exploited person making a good living, and enjoying a celebrity like existence. You don't see Jenna Jameson crying at night?"
Indeed. The poster is someone who formerly had a porn addiction and now obviously has a very negative view about it.
In addition, he suffers from the typical liberal shortcoming of considering viewpoints which differ from his own to be dense or depraved. Always a crusade for the liberals, isn't it? (And no, I am not a conservative, so don't go there).
Although it makes sense, if adultery is purely defined by the couple than adultery can be anything or not exist at all. A couple can decide that it's a betrayal for one or the other to say "hello" to an old girlfriend or boyfriend. Or they can decide casual sex with virtual strangers is not a betrayal because no emotional attachment results. (And in theory I suppose a couple could decide both simultaneously)
I can't find the text of civil marriages documents at the moment. Still I could see how intentionally doing something to bring yourself to orgasm, if you don't have the spouses involvement or approval, could be on the spectrum of adultery for normal purposes. Even if the "something" was looking through travel magazines, taping Beach Volleyball on ESPN, or watching music videos.
Oh lordy...people CHOOSE to work in sweatshops and to work long hours for little pay. People CHOOSE to be exploited all over the world, because the alternative choices either are grim, or are blocked off to them by circumstance.
You bring up the AVN awards, which shows how little you really understand that modern porn industry. The AVN awards a complete and total sham farce financed by the porn industry to make it appear mainstream and harmless. It's a cosmetic glossing over of the real truth of the porn industry. You won't see the bangbus girls there, that's for sure. The Jenna Jamesons of the world are the one in a million exceptions. The largest growing sector of the porn industry is the gonzo sector, where performers make very little for the right to be humniliated, debased, and abused on camera. Most female performers in the porn industry do it for a couple years, in rather desperate circumstances, for very little pay, and they come out on the other end at real risk of being unemployable, certainly with few or no prospects outside of porn, and at risk of winding up in even less savory sectors of the sex industry. Also, the internet makes their humiliation eternal and inescapable.
Yeah, it would be great if there were no other kinds of exploitation either, but it doesn't mean I should feel good about porn because of where my sneakers came from.
Realize that you think the AVN is a sham, because you are ASSUMING that all of the girls were FORCED into porn. Which is not the case, now is it? Which still does not address why most female porn stars at this convention seemed to really like being there, and love the attention. And you still have not dealt with the fact that female porn stars might enjoy what they do. You are making a gross generalized psychological assumption about female porn workers, because of your feelings about pornography. You think its dirty, evil, and mean and therefore nobody would really want to do that.
And if you think that there is not a difference from a woman choosing to act in a porn movie, and fucking Chinese sweatshop factory worker, then you need a reality check. Last time I checked there were alternatives to the porn industry.
Now you may not like porn, I myself am not sure that I like it, but I'm not going to go around on a crusade because of what I think porn stars (who I have never met, and don't know their backgrounds, AND YOU DON'T EITHER) should feel and think about the work they do. You have not also addressed that while you think they are humiliated eternally, they may not. Once again you cannot assume someone's abuse for them.
Sorry, Eliot. The whole AVN thing is a total sham, and not a very convincing sham at that.
Ross's argument seems to hinge on teh fact that real people are depicted in the production of photographic pornography. I can't imagine Ross would argue that reading a sexy book was adultry, but maybe he would. Who knows...)
At any rate, in a recent and rather vexing decission, the Supreme Court of the United States held that photo realistic but synthetic depictions of minors were entitled to First Amendment protection. It's icky to think about some pervert with a copy of Photoshop cooking up CG child porn and being shielded by the Constitution, but constant with the foundational ideas of the First Amendment.
Yeah, I know, gross to think about, but the photo-realism brings to mind a question for Ross: Where on your Fidelity/Monogamy continum would you put masturbating to synthetic images of adults? No actual people involved; and CP issues to enflame passions. Just the collision of the imagination of the images' creator with the imagination of the masturbator.
Ross, is the masturbator cheating on his or her spouse? If the answer is yes, then I suppose that makes the artist the cheater's sex partner. Is this different than written erotic material, or non-photo-realistic erotic material?
Looking forward to your answer!
Oh, and to answer your question, Ross; Marsellus Wallace's wife is married to a homicidal sociopathic criminal, which pretty much excludes her from being the sort of woman I'd want to be alone with under any circumstance.
Oh, and to answer your question, Ross; Marsellus Wallace's wife is married to a homicidal sociopathic criminal, which pretty much excludes her from being the sort of woman I'd want to be alone with under any circumstance.
Shut the fuck up, fat man, this ain't none of your goddamn business.
When you little scamps get together, you're worse than a sewing circle.
The 'bread' becomes the 'True Body' and 'True Blood' of Christ even though it tastes, looks, smells, etc, like bread.
Sewer rat may taste like pumpkin pie, but I'd never know, 'cause I wouldn't eat the filthy motherfucker.
I can't imagine Ross would argue that reading a sexy book was adultry, but maybe he would. Who knows...)
For the umpteenth time, Ross didn't argue that porn was adultery. He argued (correctly) that it belongs on the same continuum.
It's hard to believe some posters here have much experience with real human relationships, much less marriage, when they act astonished by the suggestion that most people would be troubled by a spouse's actively fantasizing about having sex with someone else.
At any rate, in a recent and rather vexing decission, the Supreme Court of the United States held that photo realistic but synthetic depictions of minors were entitled to First Amendment protection. It's icky to think about some pervert with a copy of Photoshop cooking up CG child porn and being shielded by the Constitution, but constant with the foundational ideas of the First Amendment.
The authors and ratifiers of the First Amendment thought they were protecting expressions of political speech, not filth. Nobody in the U.S. ever believed that porn (or even lewd literature) was protected by the First Amendment before the mid-20th century. The Court's decision here is just a regurgitation of the sophistry that now passes for legal reasoning in the law school culture.
| 
Grand New Party: How Republicans Can Win the Working Class and Save the American Dream
Privilege: Harvard and the Education of the Ruling Class
Fidelity is a personal contract between two people. The two people have a general agreement about what is and isn't acceptable conduct within the bounds of their relationship, and understand that going outside of that conduct is an act of infidelity and a violation of trust. The problem with all of these arguments in these posts the last couple days is that many people, including Ross, seem to think that there is an objective definition of what fidelity entails. But there isn't; there's just the agreement between two people. If your personal agreement says that watching porn is being unfaithful, it's being unfaithful-- although I personally don't think I'd want to engage in a committed relationship with a person who has that kind of a requirement.
Posted by Freddie | June 20, 2008 11:25 AM