Login

Register

Member List

RSS Feed

Amanda | Contact

Auguste | Contact

Jesse | Contact

Pam | Contact

Next entry: Politely Speaking Out: The New New Liberal Fascism Previous entry: Conservapedia York And The Case Of The Kindergarten HIV

If these things come in threes, I got another one coming, Disco Ball help us

ConservativesSex

Brian Beutler found a gem from Ross Douthat that is a perfect example of how anti-choice scolds easily outclass pornographers in the art of reducing women to mindless sex objects. Douthat is trying to collapse the difference between cheating on your wife and watching pornography while you masturbate. 

Start with the near-universal assumption that what Spitzer did in his hotel room constituted adultery, and then ponder whether Silda Spitzer would have had cause to feel betrayed if the FBI probe had revealed that her husband had paid merely to watch a prostitute perform sexual acts while he folded himself into a hotel armchair to masturbate. My suspicion is that an awful lot of people would say yes—not because there isn’t some distinction between the two acts, but because the distinction isn’t morally significant enough to prevent both from belonging to the zone, broadly defined, of cheating on your wife.

You can see where I’m going with this. If it’s cheating on your wife to watch while another woman performs sexually in front of you, then why isn’t it cheating to watch while the same sort of spectacle unfolds on your laptop or TV? Isn’t the man who uses hard-core pornography already betraying his wife, whether or not the habit leads to anything worse?

Brain teases out one difference.

I think he’s pretty clearly making a false comparison here—paying a prostitute to perform sexual acts in front of you is still prostitution (a real human-to-human transaction even in the absence of exchanged bodily fluids) while watching porn is a fully virtual experience—an aid, of sorts, to indulging a fantasy.

Yes, the difference is that having sex with someone—-and touching yourself in front of someone is having sex with them—-is about human interaction between two people.  And women count as people, whose thoughts and feelings are relevant during a sexual interaction.  Watching a performer perform, especially on camera, is a one-way street.  Yes, the actresses in porn are having sex—-with the actors and, if you want to get philosophical about it, with the other people in the room while they’re doing it.  But they aren’t having sex with you, the viewer.  And men who forget the difference between staring at an image onscreen and interacting with someone sexually—-i.e. men who have completely reduced women to sex objects—-are the ones who end up checking out of relationships with real women and masturbating to porn all the time and going to porn conventions, because attainable sex objects (they’ve ceased to be women) at home fail to be as plastic or perform as dramatically as the sex objects on screen and are deemed inferior.  These are the guys that are irritated that the sex objects around them can’t stick to the script, but keep insisting on breaking character to express their own feelings.  Douthat’s example of the dangers of porn—-Peter Cook, Christie Brinkley’s ex-husband—-strikes me as an example of the dangers not of masturbation, but of being unable to realize that women are human beings, not just visual and tactile aids for masturbation, which causes the real women in your life, especially your wife with her snoring and her opinions, to seem like a broken appliance instead of a person.

Masturbation, even with the visual aid of porn involving real people,  is having sex with yourself.  Reasonable people don’t consider this cheating, because you’re not sharing something with someone else that you and your partner have deemed exclusive.  That’s not true if you go to a prostitute, who is being paid not to simulate or project a fantasy for you, but to share in it with you.  If you think of women as human beings whose level of participation in an event matters, this is pretty obvious.  If you don’t, what’s cheating and what’s not becomes more confusing, I’m sure.  (As does the difference between having sex with someone and sexually assaulting them.)  You have to make a list of acceptable objects that you can be looking at or touching when you orgasm (wife, yes, any other flesh-bound female object, no, because god says so), because the difference between sharing sex and just getting off has collapsed, and sexual intercourse, even with a loved one, is a form of masturbation. 

By the way, these lines between shared and performed emotions and events are, while fun for artists to blur, understood in non-sexual areas.  Watching someone make a movie about her pain is observing a performance, but listening to the same woman confess her pain to you, even if you’re just a stranger in a bar, is a shared experience.  It’s an interesting question to ask why a camera or a stage and a large audience move something from shared experience to performance, but we don’t need to know why or how it works to understand that it does.  And this distinction is fairly well understood.  And beware a guy who can’t tell the difference between a fantasy recorded onscreen as a performance and an interaction with a flesh and blood woman, because he’s got problems understanding that women aren’t objects.

I will say the statistics the Douthat whips out are interesting:

A survey of American college students last year found that 70 percent of the women in the sample never looked at pornography, compared with just 14 percent of their male peers; almost half of the men surveyed looked at porn at least once a week, versus just 3 percent of the women.

Like I’ve said before—-and contrary to the hopes of men who show up in comments and wax poetic about how we ladies can never understand how lust feels when these porn discussions turn up—-the difference isn’t because women don’t enjoy fantasy when they masturbate or that women don’t masturbate.  It’s that misogyny is such a standard feature in a lot of porn that women are turned off by it.  I wish more men were, too, of course, but alas, if it’s not you that’s being hated on in a video then it’s a lot easier to overlook the hate.  (And then there’s the men who need the hate.)  The explosion of written porn from erotica to romance novels that cater to women throws a wrench in the whole “men just have this lust thing, you see” argument.

What I also found interesting is that Douthat argues with Dan Savage on whether or not women should just accept that men look at porn and get over it.  It’s clear that Douthat thinks he’s being more generous to women is saying that you shouldn’t get over it, and that in fact, you’re a better person if you constantly fight with a man over this and try to tame his uglier man instincts. 

Yes, adultery is inevitable, but it’s never been universal in the way that pornography has the potential to become—at least if we approach the use of hard-core porn as a normal outlet from the rigors of monogamy, and invest ourselves in a cultural paradigm that understands this as something all men do and all women need to live with…..

Rather, it’s about what sort of people we aspire to be: how we define our ideals, how we draw the lines in our relationships, and how we feel about ourselves if we cross them.

It sounds high minded on paper, but practically speaking, Douthat is establishing the same old gender roles where men get to push the lines and women have to spend all our time as fun-free nags.  Savage is being pushy and obnoxious in telling women just to get over it, mostly for the sake of humor, but his is actually a more generous view of women than Douthat’s.  Savage’s point comes from a belief that women have better things to do than police our partners’ imaginations.  It also comes from a belief that women do and should masturbate, and that fantasy is also a part of women’s masturbatory habits, and any man who would try to deprive his girlfriend of a vibrator because he was jealous would get the same smackdown from Savage.  To allow someone else to have a private sexual life all by themselves isn’t to coddle people who reject their chosen partners as insufficient to fantasy objects.

 

------

Registration is now required! We're still in the process of getting it all squared away, so for the moment don't forget to Login or Register using the links in the upper left menu before starting to write your comment.

Posted by Amanda Marcotte on 11:03 AM • (59) Comments

Of course, what your wife thinks constitutes adultery never figures into it.  I’m sure I’m not the only wife around who has no issue if my husband wanks to the nudies but saves the live action for me.  I’m sure there are other wives who have arrangements with their husbands about the limits and boundaries of these things, moving on out to actual sex with actual other women.

None of my fucking business if they do - these things are a matter of negotiation between members of a couple, not up to definition by losers like Doutout who want to scold men and completely remove any possible agency from women.

Comment #1: Ms Kate  on  09/16  at  11:12 AM

Amy caught that same story earlier this week, and had much the same reaction, although not in such detail. She wrapped it up like this:

In other words, the very fact that Douthat can make this argument is evidence that he fails to see a woman (or perhaps just a prostitute?) as a full human being. To him, a woman in person is the same as an image of a woman on paper or in a film.


And I think it’s clear that conservatives, both male and female, feel this way pretty much across the board about women.

Comment #2: Incertus, Nacho Daddy  on  09/16  at  11:16 AM

I didn’t even want to touch on couples who define cheating differently, because a) they’re still a small minority of people and b) this post was already growing long.  But I do think that the reason that most people settle on fantasy isn’t cheating/sex with others is is precisely because of this difference between sharing and not sharing.  Again, the difference is obvious if you think of sex as a two-way street.  Straight men who think of sex as just pronging an flesh-based pocket pussy with a woman who just happens to surround it are precisely the men who fall into the trap of porn addiction.  No wonder the conservative Christian community keeps having massive problems with porn addiction.

Comment #3: Amanda Marcotte  on  09/16  at  11:18 AM

Incertus, the funny thing is I read a Klosterman piece where he got caught in the same confusion.  He presented this scenario to a bunch of friends: A guy in a monogamous relationship is home alone and the neighbor upstairs comes over for coffee.  She and he start talking, and somehow it comes up that she can do some weird thing while masturbating.  (I forget what it is, but novelty was important.)  He wants to see, so she shows him.  He stays clothed, doesn’t touch himself, and doesn’t touch her.  Is that cheating and should his girlfriend dump him?

Klosterman found that the women said yes, and the men were more hesitant.  Now, part of that is that it’s easier to relate to people you have something in common with, and the only thing we really know about the people in this story is their gender.  But part of it is probably that object/person confusion.  My mind immediately went to WTF this other woman was thinking, and how she’d be around looking for other opportunities to get my boyfriend to engage in sexual encounters with her.

Comment #4: Amanda Marcotte  on  09/16  at  11:25 AM

The explosion of written porn from erotica to romance novels that cater to women throws a wrench in the whole “men just have this lust thing, you see” argument.

That’s the thing:  if you insist that only specific videos and magazines count as “porn,” then, yeah, you’re going to have wildly uneven statistics.  If you include any erotic material—including written erotica and romance novels—I suspect the numbers would be a lot more even.

Though I do think there’s a difference between written and visual porn.  When I see a picture or a movie, I can’t help remembering that it shows a real person and it gets in the way, because my reaction is usually, “Ouch!  Your leg isn’t supposed to bend that way!”  With written porn, you can visualize it the way you want.

Comment #5: Mnemosyne  on  09/16  at  11:32 AM

Ross Douthat: “Watching someone kill someone in a movie is just like committing murder!”  I mean that is his argument after all.

“A survey of American college students last year found that 70 percent of the women in the sample never looked at pornography, compared with just 14 percent of their male peers; almost half of the men surveyed looked at porn at least once a week, versus just 3 percent of the women.”

And I find this highly dubious.  I’ve seen the internet caches of female college students. 70% is way too high for never.

Comment #6: Rob  on  09/16  at  11:35 AM

RE:  the Klosterman piece you describe:

I find it interesting that these guys would have a hard time describing that as cheating.  If their girlfriend walked in on that happening, would they be embarassed/upset/scared of getting in trouble or kicked out?  If the answer is no, there is seriously something wrong with them.  Because the flip side of that is, what they walked in on the same scenario, only it was their girlfriend and male upstairs neighbor?  I doubt they would have any trouble defining that as cheating.

You know, cause only men need to get off at every possible moment.

Comment #7: speedbudget  on  09/16  at  11:41 AM

Rob, to be fair, in a movie we know that the person “killed” is still alive.  But in porn, the sex is real.

Comment #8: Amanda Marcotte  on  09/16  at  11:42 AM

Klosterman found that the women said yes, and the men were more hesitant.  Now, part of that is that it’s easier to relate to people you have something in common with, and the only thing we really know about the people in this story is their gender.  But part of it is probably that object/person confusion.

I’ve always defined cheating this way: if your partner caught you doing it, would you be in trouble with him/her? If the answer is yes, then it’s cheating, whether we’re talking about masturbation or a Mazola party with twenty of your most intimate friends. It’s all relative to the relationship, and we have relationships with people—or that’s the ideal anyway. In my relationship, what Klosterman describes would unquestionably be cheating, but it wouldn’t be for everyone.

Comment #9: Incertus, Nacho Daddy  on  09/16  at  11:43 AM

Speed, they knew it was wrong.  The debate was mostly over whether it was a doghouse offense or a dumping offense.  Men were on the doghouse side, and women on the dumping side, with some crossover, I’m sure.

Comment #10: Amanda Marcotte  on  09/16  at  11:43 AM

“The explosion of written porn from erotica to romance novels that cater to women throws a wrench in the whole “men just have this lust thing, you see” argument. “

Yeah, the “looking at” part not only automatically excludes a huge amount of porn—especially if you take that to mean stills, photographs, and drawings only—but excludes the types of porn that are most popular with women.  Using that to demonstrate anything other than “visual porn is more popular with college-aged men than with college-aged women” is shaky at best.  And that’s before you get into the format of the survey and the possibility that women were playing down their porn use on account of social disapproval.

Comment #11: preying mantis  on  09/16  at  11:45 AM

Again, we’re assuming that the hypothetical couple has the standard arrangement.  It’s true that every couple negotiates, etc., but realistically, the vast majority of heterosexual couples have the same boilerplate rules—-porn isn’t, doing something with someone else is.  The situation didn’t involve the possibility of deviation from the norm.

Comment #12: Amanda Marcotte  on  09/16  at  11:45 AM

Straight men who think of sex as just pronging an flesh-based pocket pussy with a woman who just happens to surround it are precisely the men who fall into the trap of porn addiction.

That may be, but removing all notion that the woman/wife in question has anything to say about what the rules and boundaries are just dehumanizes women all the more.  For every porn addict and prostitute “user”, there is also likely to be a wife who has never been permitted to have anything to say about whether it bothers her or not.

Comment #13: Ms Kate  on  09/16  at  11:48 AM

It’s that misogyny is such a standard feature in a lot of porn that women are turned off by it.  I wish more men were, too, of course, but alas, if it’s not you that’s being hated on in a video then it’s a lot easier to overlook the hate.

Count me as one man who is disgusted by that aspect of porn. The misogyny really is overwhelming. It’s discouraging to me that it is apparently such a central feature of so many men’s sexual fantasies.

Comment #14: spencer  on  09/16  at  11:52 AM

“the difference isn’t because women don’t enjoy fantasy when they masturbate or that women don’t masturbate.  It’s that misogyny is such a standard feature in a lot of porn that women are turned off by it.”

Thank you.  That’s precisely correct.

Comment #15: Lisa KS  on  09/16  at  11:55 AM

I promise, I’m not dissing poly people.  I think it’s great that they’ve convinced even basically monogamous people to talk about expectations, etc.  But all these discussions invariably turn to the “what about poly people?” thing, which is a red herring.  Poly people are great, they should do their thing. But the vast majority of women (and men) settle on wanting a monogamous relationship with allowances for your own fantasy life. It’s fair to talk about why that particular delineation makes the most sense to most people.

Comment #16: Amanda Marcotte  on  09/16  at  11:55 AM

Amanda, do you really think Douthat is then fine with softcore porn?  I don’t.

Comment #17: Rob  on  09/16  at  12:11 PM

I don’t think that the “what about poly people” issue is actually about poly people, per se.  It’s about defining the offense committed by adultery. 

For Douthat and his ilk, adultery is defined by the nature of the act itself, as proscribed by various religious definitions.  To point out the exception of polys isn’t just pedantry.  It is actually pointing out that for the rest of us, the sin involved in adultery isn’t the sex, it’s the lying and betrayal. 

To me, absent specific boundaries of trust, there is nothing in particular immoral about two consenting adults having sex.  For Douthat, this is not the case—sex must be placed into a very specific category to be considered acceptable.

Comment #18: rufustfyrfly  on  09/16  at  12:19 PM

Rob, read the article.  He does in fact think Playboy is more acceptable than videos of people having sex.  Me, I’m not so sure.  Playboy is worse in my eyes than swinger couples making videos of themselves having sex and putting it online, all in the spirit of goofy sexy fun.  The latter doesn’t necessarily demean women’s intelligence like Playboy does, nor is it about Photoshopping the pictures into an ideal real women can’t physically achieve.

Comment #19: Amanda Marcotte  on  09/16  at  12:22 PM

I’d be really really pissed off if I found out that my partner had watched some weird masturbational stunt and not told me about it.  And not said to the neighbor, “Would you come over later and show my wife?  I know she’d be interested.”

Comment #20: Older  on  09/16  at  12:22 PM

Fair enough, rufust.  But as for the question of how a monogamous relationship can be built on shared trust and not on religious dogma—-and the rules are porn is okay, sex without another isn’t—-on that question, we can say that there is a distinct difference between the acts, a difference that constitutes, for monogamous couples built on trust not tradition, the difference between cheating or not.

Comment #21: Amanda Marcotte  on  09/16  at  12:24 PM

I used to watch porn when I was younger.  These days, porn is my guy with his clothes off, especially if he’s heading in my direction.

Comment #22: Older  on  09/16  at  12:24 PM

I am going to avoid the poly debate (and I think Amanda pretty much summed it up in her last comment anyway) but I am curious about this. 

“Yes, the difference is that having sex with someone—-and touching yourself in front of someone is having sex with them”

I get that you are going with the shared experience aspect here, but I am not sure this holds up. It may be that it falls into the idea that there is a shift at a certain point in stage performance, and so you have addressed this.  I certainly don’t think I would say that everyone in a strip club has had sex with the strippers (and, presumably, each other, if they were in the room as well).  How about a sex party? Would you say that the line is really some sort of personal interaction?

I am thinking specifically of someone who once used a similar definition of sex to explain how he and the woman he sat next to at a sex party had already had sex (that incident) with her partner not objecting, so when they had intercourse some weeks later, it wasn’t cheating because the partner had already given tacit approval for the sexual relationship.

Comment #23: LC  on  09/16  at  12:24 PM

In fact, I’ll go a step further and bet most poly people have a strong distinction between sex with another person and porn watching.  The former probably is the focus of a lot more rules and negotiations and the latter is considered more a private habit.

Comment #24: Amanda Marcotte  on  09/16  at  12:27 PM

LC, I do think a sex party and a strip club are different because of the performative aspects, yes.  But more importantly than what I think,this is a commonly held belief.  Many women who shrug off visits to strip clubs by partners would not, under any circumstances, agree to their partners going to sex parties.

Comment #25: Amanda Marcotte  on  09/16  at  12:30 PM

“But in porn, the sex is real.”

I would like to add that it is “real” but not always real. Porn, at least movies, are edited. So what you are seeing is not necessarily real in the sense that if you were in the room during filming it would look the same (and less so that if the scene was not being filmed at all).

Scenes are reconstructed: long breaks are edited out, awkward moments and sounds are removed, etc. There is also makeup, and lighting to consider. Most porn has real people, and there is filming of real people’s naked bodies, and there is filming of real people’s penetration (if it is that kind of porn), but it is not real. The people are actors, and though what they do is more visceral than some actors, it is still acting.

Comment #26: ropty  on  09/16  at  12:36 PM

Now hold on. I watched Apollo 13. Are you trying to tell me I haven’t been to the moon?

Comment #27: Quaker in a Basement  on  09/16  at  12:43 PM

I don’t think it’s the performative aspect; I think it’s that strippers are dancing, which is not sex.  Even if one wanted to claim that watching someone perform an action in person meant that the watcher was performing the act with that person, one couldn’t claim that the watcher was having sex with the stripper.  She’s dancing, not masturbating.  Huge difference.

Comment #28: Lisa KS  on  09/16  at  12:48 PM

Point taken.

Also, context matters.  Someone going to a strip club for a bachelor party—-for other men, in other words—-doesn’t offend me as much as if I was dating someone who went by himself.  A man who visits strip clubs alone I couldn’t date.

Comment #29: Amanda Marcotte  on  09/16  at  12:57 PM

In 90% of the strip clubs I’ve gone to, high-contact “lap dances” have been the rule- and those are where the dancers made the best tips.  Where cities have implemented “3-foot” rules and otherwise enforced what are termed “air dances,” clubs either struggle or assume an entirely different character (which is of course the point).  Very few dancers in most strip clubs are what you would call particularly proficient artistic dancers.  And I would guess that most men don’t go to a strip club to get air dances or just watch from afar.

Comment #30: liberalrob  on  09/16  at  01:10 PM

I could see porn being the subject of relationship rules, too, though.  The rule “watch rape fantasy or horribly racist porn and your ass is dumped” would be eminently reasonable, in my view. 

But, to be clear, I’m not arguing with your overall point that eliding the difference between porn-watching and actual sex is objectifying, I was just pointing out that where Douthat is coming from on his “tradition” definition of cheating is very different from the “trust” definition.

Comment #31: rufustfyrfly  on  09/16  at  01:28 PM

I could see porn being the subject of relationship rules, too, though.  The rule “watch rape fantasy or horribly racist porn and your ass is dumped” would be eminently reasonable, in my view.

Yeah, I think this is reasonable - I mean, a relationship’s rules can really encompass a lot of things, and of course, they’re very dependent on the 2+ people involved in the relationship.  In the abstract, some things seem more reasonable than others, and generally, I think an allowance for porn-viewing/non-partner-based fantasy is pretty okay.  And that racism and misogyny - expressed via porn or otherwise - is a dumpable offense.

Comment #32: Mikey  on  09/16  at  01:33 PM

rufustfyrfly: I have a similar rule in my relationship, and a couple of others on top of that.

Comment #33: Ashley  on  09/16  at  01:46 PM

Your point on the difference between the attitudes between Ross Douthat and Dan Savage as regards to how women should react when men watch porn (and your analysis of why these two men view it differently) is very good, but I think it misses a key point:
Douthat is straight. Savage is gay.
As a (conservative) straight man, Douthat needs women to accept the worldview that says that they are simply penis receptacles that are capable of independent locomotion. Otherwise, he will not be able to have sex except with prostitutes (and god says that this is bad). Douthat’s sexual happiness is vested in women agreeing to have sex with him, but he views them as inferior to himself. This conflict (desiring something that is inferior to you and thus unworthy of you) is what produces the bizarre arguments that you pick apart here.
Savage, by contrast, doesn’t need women to do anything for him sexually. He is willing to accept women as independent actors in their own lives with their own wants and needs because women demanding equality in bed will not affect his sex life at all. While I agree that he makes his point in the way he does partially to be funny, I don’t think that he’s the appropriate contrast to Douthat. The appropriate contrast to Douthat is a straight man who is willing to accept free agency in women.

Comment #34: Esteleth  on  09/16  at  02:35 PM

This guy argues that porn really hasn’t gone mainstream:

http://www.gnxp.com/blog/2008/08/has-porn-become-mainstream-not-really.php

The amount of people who watch porn hasn’t gone up since the seventies.  The internet surprisingly has not increased the percentage of people who watch porn.  Instead, the people who do watch porn tend to watch a lot of it because of the internet.

Male college students watch a lot of porn, but a lot of men are not male college students.

Comment #35: lemmy caution  on  09/16  at  02:38 PM

Yeesh.  53 y.o. married guy here, I am just weary of porn.  I love my wife.  Sex for me=sex with her.  I’m lucky to have her, I won’t have her forever.  Using porn would feel like cheating to me.  And I am so weary and sad from what I see in all the avalanche of porn.  Blah.  Those are real people, and I hate it.  I wish I could make those poor kids a sandwich.

Comment #36: baime  on  09/16  at  02:38 PM

The appropriate contrast to Douthat is a straight man who is willing to accept free agency in women.

I agree with you, to be clear, but I do look forward to you finding a candidate in the relatively-major press.

Comment #37: Auguste  on  09/16  at  02:55 PM

OT: Jon Stewart just mentioned how Sarah Palin made rape victims pay for their own rape investigations. I think it’s a rerun of last night?

Comment #38: Grammar RWA  on  09/16  at  03:08 PM

I’m going to hazard that real cheating
is very broadly perceived
as any/only penetrative assignation.

And most other forms of infidelity…
and they ARE acts of bad faith in my view..
are just foolin’ around.

I think.

Comment #39: has_te  on  09/16  at  03:11 PM

has_te wraps this one up with a haiku.

Comment #40: Mikey  on  09/16  at  03:25 PM

Ross Douthat has no penis. x_X

Comment #41: Sirkowski  on  09/16  at  03:34 PM

I’m a man, and when I was a teenager/early twenties, anything with nudity in it was “porn”, and the object of my substantial interest. Well, I’m over fifty now, had several relationships, am a father and in a long-term relationship now. I occasionally surf for porn just out of curiosity, and most of it I find intolerable for a mature adult, for a whole variety of reasons (misogyny, excessively perfect bodies, male as well as female, etc.). The only form of porn I find anything in nowadays is consensual amateurs posting their self-filmed erotic adventures. I find these real, funny, touching, and (sometimes) exciting.

We all grow up sometime—except for Ross Douhat and all the other religious freaks who are kept sexually and emotionally immature by their irrational, hate-filled religion.

Comment #42: Hairhead  on  09/16  at  03:42 PM

When I was 12 or so, a Victoria’s Secret catalog was all the visual stimulation I needed. I guess that is the adultery-free porn Douthat was talking about.

Besides being misogynistic, the commercial porn I have seen has been boring. The excitement is in the seduction, not the pistoning. The woman is generally reduced to a set of three apertures. But, there’s a lot of amateur porn out there that is not misogynistic, and actually erotic.

Comment #43: Hector B.  on  09/16  at  03:59 PM

Amanda,

I get what you are saying, but I think you miss the mark a bit when you try to start with the acts as the first principle and work forward from that, making distinctions between acts and trying to logically group them.

Cheating really is, pure and simple, breaking the agreement between the two people in the relationship. It is clear and obvious when it involves people who have sat down and explicitly mapped out the form of that agreement. But even when the couple has never had a single discussion about it, they each have, however fuzzy and however mutually mismatched, a sense of what that agreement is, and they’ve absorbed it from the culture.

Maybe it is a question of chickens and eggs, but it seems to me that the reason that overt sexual behavior with an actual person present violates the cultural expectations, rather than the idea that there is a logical basis to judge by. And cultural norms really haven’t settled into addressing some of the more modern variations, like internet porn. We’ll end up doing that, because too many people are stepping on land mines.

I don’t think the norms have caught up. We have millennia of experience with prostitution, including strippers and showgirls, and even when filmed porn started, it was still principally something you had to leave the house to engage in. The norms regarding porn that comes into your house, the distinctions between, say, watching an internet film and an internet web-cam, and so on, just haven’t settled out yet.

But I doubt that is coming too soon, because most people, men specifically, see the norms as rules regarding what they are allowed to get away with rather than regarding how they should conduct themselves.

Personally, I see things like unilaterally joining a bowling league without discussing it with your spouse as far more “cheating” on the relationship than most forms of infrequent and casual sexual interaction. But it depends on what the agreements are perceived to be.

Comment #44: Lymis  on  09/16  at  04:05 PM

Is calling a phone sex line prostitution?

Comment #45: Doug S.  on  09/16  at  04:14 PM

That’s great, Lymis.  I agree that’s what cheating is.  And I agree that you are very sophisticated and beyond us plebes with our tedious monogamous ways restrained by jealousy.  Now that we’ve set that aside, let’s admit that the real question I’m discussing is this—-why is the norm for the vast majority of couples one that honors the difference between porn and actual sex?

Comment #46: Amanda Marcotte  on  09/16  at  04:17 PM

I agree that the big difference is that things that are not cheating don’t involve any actual human interaction with another person, and those which are, do. Part of the fear of being cheated on is the fear of being replaced, and there’s a big difference between the fear of being replaced by a fantasy and the fear of being replaced by an actual person.

Also, the pedant in me would like to mention that Klosterman’s scenario is labeled “The Jack and Jane Hypothetical”, the weird trick is that the woman can only have an orgasm if there’s a man watching, and it was published in Esquire in 2005, and collected in the book “Chuck Klosterman IV”. Also available here.

Comment #47: grendelkhan  on  09/16  at  04:44 PM

My mother saw Deep Throat in the theater… With her parents. Does that count as incest?

Comment #48: vitaminC  on  09/16  at  04:53 PM

even when filmed porn started, it was still principally something you had to leave the house to engage in.

Dude, the idea of going and watching a dirty movie and masturbating while surrounded by other complete strangers who are doing the same is way freakier to me than going to a place and buying it, or watching it online.  Uck.

Comment #49: Atheist Feminazi  on  09/16  at  04:58 PM

Hey Rob? How is it that you’ve seen the internet caches of female college students? I’m curious about that.

Comment #50: felagund  on  09/16  at  05:36 PM

“Hey Rob? How is it that you’ve seen the internet caches of female college students? I’m curious about that.”

Tech support?  Worked in any number of capacities for a college?  It’s generally not the done thing to use open-use or checked-out computers for porn viewing, but it certainly does happen.  And of course, there are also plenty of people who totally thought they covered their tracks but, uh, not so much, it turns out.

“Dude, the idea of going and watching a dirty movie and masturbating while surrounded by other complete strangers who are doing the same is way freakier to me than going to a place and buying it, or watching it online.”

Ditto.  I still find the idea of watching porn in small groups where everybody knows each other but aren’t in sexual relationships with each other deeply weird.  It’s explicable when it’s homosocial reinforcement, but when everybody’s actually trying to get off instead of chest-thumping, ass-grabbing, and hi5ing over the content?  Bizarre.

Comment #51: preying mantis  on  09/16  at  05:57 PM

The real moral objection to video porn and its consumption is the arguable exploitation and dehumanization of the actual people being filmed for profit.

Imaginary sex is imaginary sex, whether the fictive agent of arousal is filmed, drawn, written, or just conjured out of one’s own brain.

The line between the actual and imaginary sexual encounter seems pretty clear, and a fair boundary line defining marital fidelity.

You can argue (or negotiate) about sexual communication at a physical (e.g. over the phone) or emotional (e.g., lap dance, stripper, prostitute) distance.

Comment #52: wapsie  on  09/16  at  07:09 PM

Slightly off-topic - what is the picture of? The characters have me totally curious.

Comment #53: Robbie Taylor  on  09/16  at  07:30 PM

There’s a whole lot of thinking in this post, and I enjoyed reading it. 

Your comments about the misogyny of porn got me thinking a while ago about how little affectionate behavior there is in porn.  I hardly ever see any attempt to recreate the little playful things done by people who like each other, because they like each other.  Even affection faked by people without any real acting skill would be enough, but I can spend a long time at the computer without finding it.

Comment #54: Neil the Ethical Werewolf  on  09/16  at  08:54 PM

Felagund, if you work in IT, you see all sorts of things you don’t want to see on other people’s machines.

Trust me, you don’t even have to go looking for it. Backing up someone’s “My Documents” to the server? Making sure acceptable use policies are being followed at the behest of your boss?

Check and check.

If you want to see what porn other people like, work in IT. No snooping involved. In fact, I try to avoid as much possible even looking at what’s on people’s machines when I work on them, as I don’t want to have to get anyone into trouble, and I don’t want to see their damn goat porn or whatever else.

Comment #55: Mike  on  09/16  at  09:19 PM

Felagund, if you work in IT, you see all sorts of things you don’t want to see on other people’s machines.

This phenomenon goes back to the age of photography.

I had an aunt who worked at the Kodak photo-developing facility in Shanghai in the 20s’ through the early 40s’.

Her job was QC.  After Kodachrome came along, she was QC for those pictures because women usually have better color vision then men.

Whenever someone brought pictures of a “sexual nature” in for developement, the fellow upstream from her on the processing line would tell her, “Don’t look, don’t look.” and she wouldn’t of course.

Comment #56: The Dark Avenger and Guardian of 10 Gold Chow Mein  on  09/16  at  09:43 PM

Doug S: you asked if calling a phone sex line was prostitution (i presume you mean is it soliciting a prostitute?), and to some extent, yeah, it kinda is. you are paying a specific and individual person to help you vocally act out specific sexual fantasies.
on the other hand… i worked phone sex for 3 years. i was the second youngest woman in the office (at 30) and was the “skinniest” (at 30-40lbs overweight), and like every other person there i did other things while i “worked”. in my case, i did homework and played StarCraft. no caller got my full attention, or anything resembling reality (including how i looked. we all lied about how we looked, of course).

but phone sex seems to piss off women more than porn. again, because of that ineraction Amada is talking about, i think. watching something happen is PASSIVE, even if you are reacting to it. reaction is not the same as INTERacting.

i would actually be pissed myself if my boyfriend called a phone sex line. and not just because he should know its all a total rip-off, but because it would seem to imply that he wasn’t getting something he needed from me AND (this is the important part) couldn’t and/or wouldn’t talk to me about it.

Comment #57: denelian  on  09/17  at  04:36 AM

To him, a woman in person is the same as an image of a woman on paper or in a film.

I think this highlights a feature typical of minds inclined to right wing beliefs. The conflation of imagination with reality. If you can’t imagine it it doesn’t exist. If you can imagine it, it does. The world of the mind is a direct and perfect, insofar as the individual is perfected by status, representation of reality. Anything that defies this in some way is a perversion or evil, straining against the real, natural order. That reality is revealed by authority figures exclusively, and all else is terror. Original imagination is filled with horror and anxiety. Only the proscribed imaginings are good and true. Uniqueness is a function of experience and social status, not identity.

So women, being different, are either ciphers for the man’s desires, providing comfort and overriding his fear, or evil.

Comment #58: me  on  09/17  at  09:45 AM

For what it’s worth, I agree with your assessment that Ross Douthat’s article misses the point. From this man’s point of view, the purpose of porn is to relief hydraulic pressure, nothing more. We need to deal openly with the biological fact that most men would have much more sex with many more partners than would be healthy for anyone, if given the chance. Porn, if used correctly, can alleviate this situation. Porn is necessarily male centered and often goes too far in using women as purely sexual props, sometimes crossing the line and degrading women. I think that once porn viewing becomes more socially acceptable this problem will correct itself as most men do not enjoy watching overtly misogynist material.

Comment #59: Joe  on  09/18  at  01:09 PM
Page 1 of 1 pages
Commenting is not available in this channel entry.