Life is short - Have an Affair

[moon]

CTV said in a statment it doesn't want an ad "promoting adultery" running alongside "quality brands" in its Super Bowl advertising roster.

I call BS on this. I have seen CTV advertising and there is rarely any "quality brands" being advertised.

I think it is pretty stupid to ban the ads based on moral principles but if they really feel that it is bad for their image or business then go ahead ban it.

I personally don't think that the ad is bad at all and certainly no worse than a lot of other things being advertised on network TV.

[photon]

Originally Posted by peter12

As for that point, I can think of two circumstances, from experiences of friends and family, where a relationship ended terribly because of pornography addiction.

Right, but it's the addiction portion that caused the problem, not the porn itself. Just like alcohol, gambling, Internet, or anything else, addiction makes the person exclude everything else, what they're addicted to is almost incidental.

Originally Posted by peter12

I should clarify. I am not condemning all pornography. I do think there exists a certain type of "good erotica" which does celebrate human sexuality, but it is clear that much of pornography objectifies humans, both male and female, as little more than animals. That's what I have a problem with as I do think it leads to the justification of biological practices which are supposedly outmoded by our current ethical institutions.

I agree with that, lots of porn goes way over a line. But again I don't think it's the dehumanizing porn that causes people to hate women, if that porn didn't exist men who look at women that way would find another way to feed their views. That kind of porn may exacerbate and reinforce the negative views of the user, but I find it difficult to believe that someone with a healthy view of women would a) view that kind of porn in the first place and b) change their views on women based off of viewing it.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by photon

Right, but it's the addiction portion that caused the problem, not the porn itself. Just like alcohol, gambling, Internet, or anything else, addiction makes the person exclude everything else, what they're addicted to is almost incidental.



I agree with that, lots of porn goes way over a line. But again I don't think it's the dehumanizing porn that causes people to hate women, if that porn didn't exist men who look at women that way would find another way to feed their views. That kind of porn may exacerbate and reinforce the negative views of the user, but I find it difficult to believe that someone with a healthy view of women would a) view that kind of porn in the first place and b) change their views on women based off of viewing it.

Addiction can't exist without the addictive substance. As well, not all addictive substances are the same. Alcohol can be used moderately, while heroin cannot.

As for the type of "healthy porn," I'm not sure even someone with a good view of women would even enjoy watching it. The real joy of being with women is to actually spend time with them, not fantasize about them through a computer screen. In fact, you could argue that all pornography is dehumanizing to the extent that it clearly takes away the intimate element of human contact. Something we know to be incredibly important to a humanist conception of morality. Infidelity, in my mind, is just an extension of that dehumanization as there is rarely anything more intended than brief "enjoyment" of the other party.

[Daradon]

I think peter12 does have a point. The easy access to porn makes it easy to become addicted to it. Like anything else, when their is easier access, addiction goes up.

I mean, what are countries trying to do to stop binge drinking? Increasing the prices of alcohol, or really, making access more difficult.

The question becomes then, what is more important? The freedoms of people who can handle themselves, or the welfare of those who become addicts?

I gotta go with the freedoms of ordinary people any day. But there might be a few small things society could do to bring a little more balance back that might help everyone out.

[photon]

Originally Posted by peter12

A reason so far as what? I am a subscriber to many biological explanations for human beings, in fact, I am going to be involved in research that seeks causation for certain political behaviours that can be revealed in gene coding.

However, nothing exists in a vacuum. Culture, more specifically ethics, does seek to eliminate some of our more dirty biological behaviours and to a limited extent, at least cognitively, we have succeeded. In special regards to human sexuality, I do not subscribe to the poor justifications for the more "libertarian" definition of sexuality. That is, everything goes if there is a biological reason for it. Certain types of sexual behaviour should be socially frowned upon. Infidelity being one of them.

That's what I'm saying, a biological imperative can give a reason as to why something happens, but of course doesn't mean that that behaviour is justified. Men may feel a biological urge to sleep with as many women as possible, but that doesn't justify breaking a commitment.

I totally agree, many behaviours are socially unacceptable despite being biologically driven, and that's fine.

Though I think the definition of what's socially acceptable can change over time as well and that's fine too.

[Winsor_Pilates]

Originally Posted by peter12

Disagree. There is a lot of social scientific evidence pointing to the fact that with internet pornography etc... we are living in an increasingly "over-sexed" world. That's not say that you are wrong, humans are very sexual beings, but there is a difference, in my opinion, between healthy and unhealthy sexuality.

I would argue that we are "over'sexed" compared to some recent times where sexuality was somewhat oppressed, mostly due to religion and social norms, and accessibility due to the internet has certainly changed things too. The evidence you're referring to would certainly show this, but in the grand scheme of the human timeline, you would find many cultures and societies ripe with "unhealthy sexuality".
I think the question is, what comes first? the desire for "unhealthy sexuality" or the internet/affair sites that make it easier. IMO, it's undoubtedly the first.

[Weiser Wonder]

Originally Posted by peter12

As for that point, I can think of two circumstances, from experiences of friends and family, where a relationship ended terribly because of pornography addiction.

I should clarify. I am not condemning all pornography. I do think there exists a certain type of "good erotica" which does celebrate human sexuality, but it is clear that much of pornography objectifies humans, both male and female, as little more than animals. That's what I have a problem with as I do think it leads to the justification of biological practices which are supposedly outmoded by our current ethical institutions.

EDIT: I can't find electronic links to the articles in the case without purchasing the articles. I have access through my university account.

If you go to google scholar and type in the appropriate search words, you get a bunch of articles from academic journals.

Duh. That's the point. A lot of sex is power and people like it that way. People need to separate sexual instincts/desires from being ethical human beings. As long as it's between consenting adults and no abuse is done.

What screws with society is sexual moralists who insist on inducing shame in others. Society NEEDS to be open to people exploring their sexual instincts.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by Winsor_Pilates

I would argue that we are "over'sexed" compared to some recent times where sexuality was somewhat oppressed, mostly due to religion and social norms, and accessibility due to the internet has certainly changed things too. The evidence you're referring to would certainly show this, but in the grand scheme of the human timeline, you would find many cultures and societies ripe with "unhealthy sexuality".
I think the question is, what comes first? the desire for "unhealthy sexuality" or the internet/affair sites that make it easier. IMO, it's undoubtedly the first.

Certain traits are not innate. Human sexuality, in ultimate cause, is certainly innate. The ways we express our sexuality are probably culturally-influenced. I think the increase of pornography and corporate sexuality into the lives of individuals has impacted sexuality.

It's funny. Most pornography is not "grassroots" in nature, it's made by a bunch of men working for a multi-billion dollar industry. If this isn't top-down culture, I don't know what is!

[peter12]

Originally Posted by Weiser Wonder

Duh. That's the point. A lot of sex is power and people like it that way. People need to separate sexual instincts/desires from being ethical human beings. As long as it's between consenting adults and no abuse is done.

What screws with society is sexual moralists who insist on inducing shame in others. Society NEEDS to be open to people exploring their sexual instincts.

Hahaha, wow. Rape is about sex and power. Do you have a problem with "sexual moralists" taking a stand against that? I didn't think so.

If we accept that sexuality is based on power, we intrinsically accept that human relationships are primarily patriarchal.

As I've said many times, human sexuality in its biological origins is not acceptable to a modern liberal democratic society.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by photon

That's what I'm saying, a biological imperative can give a reason as to why something happens, but of course doesn't mean that that behaviour is justified. Men may feel a biological urge to sleep with as many women as possible, but that doesn't justify breaking a commitment.

I totally agree, many behaviours are socially unacceptable despite being biologically driven, and that's fine.

Though I think the definition of what's socially acceptable can change over time as well and that's fine too.

I think you need to explain this point a lot more. Cultural change does not always correspond with good ethics. Where does the source of healthy social change come from?

[Daradon]

Originally Posted by peter12

I think you need to explain this point a lot more. Cultural change does not always correspond with good ethics. Where does the source of healthy social change come from?

It can come from many places. There is no one such source. However I would argue that social change is OFTEN positive in nature. But no one argued that it was always good or didn't have a dark side.

If you look at the human rights movements over the last 50 years there was a lot of good social change right there.

[photon]

Originally Posted by peter12

Addiction can't exist without the addictive substance. As well, not all addictive substances are the same. Alcohol can be used moderately, while heroin cannot.

Of course, with some substances there's a physiological component to the addiction, that's not really relevant here.

Addiction is the problem, you can't remove every possible addictive substance from society to fix addiction.. at least not in ours, our society values freedom of choice and expression above restricting such to benefit the minority that can become addicted.

Porn can be used moderately.

Originally Posted by peter12

As for the type of "healthy porn," I'm not sure even someone with a good view of women would even enjoy watching it.

Women themselves enjoy watching it, many couples view porn together.

Originally Posted by peter12

The real joy of being with women is to actually spend time with them, not fantasize about them through a computer screen. In fact, you could argue that all pornography is dehumanizing to the extent that it clearly takes away the intimate element of human contact.

Let me adjust that a bit and see if it's still valid:

"The real joy of being with women is to actually spend time with them, not fantasize about them through a computer screen. In fact, you could argue that all romantic movies are dehumanizing to the extent that it clearly takes away the intimate element of human contact."

If my wife watches a romantic movie and is very moved by it, there's romantic and emotional involvement with the movie. Yet I am not threatened by that because it isn't real.

I could argue that romantic chick flicks create an unrealistic view of men and women can become addicted to an unrealistic view of men portrayed in movies to the point that they hate real men and are dysfunctional in their relationships, substituting idealized romance for the real thing.

It's the same kind of logic, but I don't think it flies in either case.

If porn is being used as a substitute for human contact then yes I would agree, but there's nothing that means that that has to be the case.

Plenty of couples watch porn together and use it as a marital aid. Watching a idealized couple on screen be really romantic with each other in situations that could never really happen doesn't damage a healthy relationship, it probably just makes the couple feel more romantic to each other. Watching an idealized couple on screen be sexy with each other is no different, in a healthy relationship where the couple are both interested, it would just make them feel sexy to each other.

If one or the other is using the porn as a substitute, then there's a problem in the relationship. The porn isn't the cause, it's a symptom. If there was no porn available then it'd be something else; infidelity, neglect while spending time with friends, whatever.

[ResAlien]

Awesome. Another "First I argue my viewpoint that will never change, then you tell me I'm stupid for believing it, then you argue your viewpoint that will never change" thread.

OT, I don't see a problem with this company. That's fine if the TV station doesn't want to run it, it's their airtime and if they don't want the money, fine. The only difference between this affair site and a thousand other "dating" sites is that this one is honest about it's intentions.

It's the beauty of capitalism.

And to potentially derail this thread even more, Peter12, rape is about sex and power? I'd have to disagree. Rape is about power, control, anger and domination.

And porn rules.

[Daradon]

Originally Posted by peter12

If we accept that sexuality is based on power, we intrinsically accept that human relationships are primarily patriarchal.

As I've said many times, human sexuality in its biological origins is not acceptable to a modern liberal democratic society.

??? Just because sex is based on power means it's primarily patriarchal?

Whoa, back up there buddy. Power comes in many forms, and it doesn't always mean who is the strongest.

I can't get behind that statement at all.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by photon

Of course, with some substances there's a physiological component to the addiction, that's not really relevant here.

Addiction is the problem, you can't remove every possible addictive substance from society to fix addiction.. at least not in ours, our society values freedom of choice and expression above restricting such to benefit the minority that can become addicted.

Porn can be used moderately.



Women themselves enjoy watching it, many couples view porn together.



Let me adjust that a bit and see if it's still valid:

"The real joy of being with women is to actually spend time with them, not fantasize about them through a computer screen. In fact, you could argue that all romantic movies are dehumanizing to the extent that it clearly takes away the intimate element of human contact."

If my wife watches a romantic movie and is very moved by it, there's romantic and emotional involvement with the movie. Yet I am not threatened by that because it isn't real.

I could argue that romantic chick flicks create an unrealistic view of men and women can become addicted to an unrealistic view of men portrayed in movies to the point that they hate real men and are dysfunctional in their relationships, substituting idealized romance for the real thing.

It's the same kind of logic, but I don't think it flies in either case.

If porn is being used as a substitute for human contact then yes I would agree, but there's nothing that means that that has to be the case.

Plenty of couples watch porn together and use it as a marital aid. Watching a idealized couple on screen be really romantic with each other in situations that could never really happen doesn't damage a healthy relationship, it probably just makes the couple feel more romantic to each other. Watching an idealized couple on screen be sexy with each other is no different, in a healthy relationship where the couple are both interested, it would just make them feel sexy to each other.

If one or the other is using the porn as a substitute, then there's a problem in the relationship. The porn isn't the cause, it's a symptom. If there was no porn available then it'd be something else; infidelity, neglect while spending time with friends, whatever.

You've narrowly defined pornography so that it is far outside of the original constraints of the debate, which is fine, because it means we basically agree.

If porn, or erotica/romance, is being used between a couple, then I would deem it healthy, More-so, it's none of my business.

Substitution is another thing and I do agree with you. However, I am not exactly sure what constitutes a symptom or a cause in this case. It's most likely a direct symptom closely corresponding to a poor lack of commitment. However, pornography addiction as substituted for healthy sexuality is most likely a very direct form of relationship abuse.

Taking this out of the context of the individual, we should always be looking out for the harmful effects of such actions on other individuals and the community as well.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by ResAlien

Awesome. Another "First I argue my viewpoint that will never change, then you tell me I'm stupid for believing it, then you argue your viewpoint that will never change" thread.

OT, I don't see a problem with this company. That's fine if the TV station doesn't want to run it, it's their airtime and if they don't want the money, fine. The only difference between this affair site and a thousand other "dating" sites is that this one is honest about it's intentions.

It's the beauty of capitalism.

And to potentially derail this thread even more, Peter12, rape is about sex and power? I'd have to disagree. Rape is about power, control, anger and domination.

And porn rules.

From a biological perspective, rape is a forcefully taken reproductive community. For an academic perspective, read "The Dark Side of Man" by Michael Ghiglieri, you'd find you're pretty much wrong in your definition of rape.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by Daradon

??? Just because sex is based on power means it's primarily patriarchal?

Whoa, back up there buddy. Power comes in many forms, and it doesn't always mean who is the strongest.

I can't get behind that statement at all.

From a naturalist perspective, how does a woman express power through sexuality?

Look at our close primate relatives, with the single exceptions of bonobos, their sexual hierarchies are entirely patriarchal.

In a healthy relationship, I cannot possibly understand how you could equate sexuality and power. If you do that, you are entering some very murky waters.

[photon]

Originally Posted by peter12

I think you need to explain this point a lot more. Cultural change does not always correspond with good ethics. Where does the source of healthy social change come from?

No, cultural change does not always correspond with good ethics, but that doesn't mean it doesn't either. Some change is neutral with respect to ethics.

Good question, I'm not sure where it comes from. I don't think it comes from the grass roots, because it seems that any time there's a significant leap forward in the social consciousness (abolish slavery, equality for women) it's initiated by a person or small group of people. Though I guess society has to be "ready" for it otherwise the change would never become permanent, society would reject the laws and lawmakers that institutionalize that change over and over.

I think this gets into the idea of memes too with how ideas spread in a society.

[Daradon]

Originally Posted by peter12

From a naturalist perspective, how does a woman express power through sexuality?

Many ways.

By having a good view of herself as a sexual creature she expresses her own power.

By being able to attract mates, she exerts her sexual power.

By being able to CHOOSE her partners (or turn them away) she exerts her sexual power.

Go to any bar where males and females are trying to meet each other and tell me what you think of the power structure...


And that's just showing normal/usual scenarios. Obviously there are many other dynamics that are less usual or 'accepted.'

Saying the sex, or power in sex is patriarcal is an old idea I think, and that may be why it doesn't fit in with 'modern liberal society'.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by Daradon

Many ways.

By having a good view of herself as a sexual creature she expresses her own power.

By being able to attract mates, she exerts her sexual power.

By being able to CHOOSE her partners (or turn them away) she exerts her sexual power.

Go to any bar where males and females are trying to meet each other and tell me what you think of the power structure...


And that's just showing normal/usual scenarios. Obviously there are many other dynamics that are less usual or 'accepted.'

Saying the sex, or power in sex is patriarcal is an old idea I think, and that may be why it doesn't fit in with 'modern liberal society'.

It may be an old idea, but it still exists. And yeah, you're right, female sexual power, on the individual level, is often expressed through promiscuity.