It's a bad sign when the strongest claim you can make is that you don't think your argument is insane.
It's like a slope that has been coated in oil. I call it a slicky slope.
Is there such a difference between you covering the slope in oil, Heebie, and covering yourself in oil? I think not.
watching porn is kinda sorta like adultery
Also, watching CSI is kinda sorta like murdering your neighbors.
That said, I totally agree with Douthat. I'm not sure his analogy is helpful in any way, but I agree that hard-core porn is "enough" like adultery that one shouldn't dabble in it over spousal objection. If your spouse doesn't care if you watch porn, have at it; the same goes for sleeping around. But if either bothers your spouse, you really ought to abstain.
It's like commiting adultery in your TV! Jimmy Carter would have seen this.
3: I would cover one finger in oil, but I really don't see how things would escalate from there.
5: Brock's committing adultery in his hea-aaaa-rt.
Also he's being all crazy with the Sorites. What about just thinking about hardcore porn while you jerk off? What about reading hardcore sex scenes? &c. &c.
A general rule that "one ought to not do things that piss off one's partner, nor ought one make unreasonable demands on one's partner"; this I'm down with.
I call it a slicky slope
Getting an erection on the train while imagining sex with a passenger bent over the back of a seat is what?
nor ought one make unreasonable demands on one's partner
But isn't this the crux of it? The question is really only whether "I don't want you to watch porn" is an unreasoanble demand. I say no. But I'm a moralist.
5: "Things you shouldn't dabble in over spousal objection" can be a long list. In my case it includes leaving the top off the toothpaste, and speeding up to beat a red light. The connection to adultery is rather indirect.
Tweety: Jacking off is clearly having an affair with your self. You should save that semen for your partner.
Jilling off, OTOH, will probably just turn your partner on, and doesn't count as having an affair.
In my case it includes leaving the top off the toothpaste, and speeding up to beat a red light.
You have weird turn-ons.
10: didn't Jesus clear all this up several millennia ago? Yes, that's adultery.
Ross asks himself each day WWJB.
"That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart."
But I'm a moralist.
As opposed to everybody that disagrees with you? Brock you lovable troll.
13: right, that's why I said the analogy was entirely unhelpful. I haven't read Doughnut's full article--just the excerpt in the post, so I have no idea what broader point he was trying to make.
Actually the excerpt is the whole thing. There is no broader point.
maybe married couples should look at watching porn as a therapeutic tool, as if one has mental problems (b/c without that one wouldn't make it a habit making it a problem of adultery) or in his intimate life and spouses should watch together, i mean if the wife is supportive
if not, most probably she won't care also whether one watches porn or not
I'm amused by the pains taken to identify "hardcore" pornography and "anything beyond Playboy" as the real problem, as if there we might finally encounter a sharp line.
In fairness, Douthat is hardly alone in his capacity to draw arbitrary bright-line moral boundaries at precisely the frontier of his own level of level of comfort and/or enjoyment. The only available alternatives are to be a hypocrite, a saint, or a moral relativist, and really, who wants that?
Ross only stands out for the vehemence of his condemnations, the prominence of his soapbox, and the laughable prissyness of his particular personal boundaries.
12: I'm really, really reluctant to make general rules about what counts as an unreasonable demand in all relationships. I suppose if demands escalated to genuine abuse--you must fuck my friends, I get to hit you when you act up, etc.--that counts as unreasonable. Beyond that, I'm not telling anyone what they can and can't demand in a relationship.
Unless 18 is somehow wittily pointing out that I misused the word "moralist", which is quite likely since I have no idea what the word means, I don't follow what you're saying, Sifu.
Fontana, I'd recommend you smear your retinas with a water based lubricant instead of vaseline.
24: well, pretty much, yeah. To imply that you're a moralist because you believe what you do is to imply that those who do not believe what you do are less concerned with morality, which is the fallacy Knecht alludes to in 22.
23: isn't this Douthat's whole point, though? Admittedly he didn't articulate is very well.
I hear if you do it right, the eyes lubricate themselves.
Ross only stands out for the vehemence of his condemnations, the prominence of his soapbox, and the laughable prissyness of his particular personal boundaries.
Waaaaaaait a minute, I think I'm on to something here. Nobody has ever seen Douthat and Ogged in the same room, have they?
26: hmm, I thought it would imply that those who do not believe what I do are perhaps less unduly concerned with the morals of others. I thought the word had a negative connotation. Regardless, my point is that I'm a prude.
I wouldn't know, since my religion prohibits me from making eye babies.
27: No, that is not Ross's point at all.
His point is that we are all evil sinners with no hope for redemption.
26: so, in other words, if you're saying that there's a qualitative difference between somebody saying "I'm uncomfortable with you watching hardcore porn" and somebody saying "I'm uncomfortable with you watching R-rated movies" or "I'm uncomfortable with you masturbating while thinking of Jimmy Carter" or "I'm uncomfortable with you having lustful thoughts about anybody, ever", in that requesting that you stop the first is reasonable in all cases while requesting that you stop the second or third is not, then you're doing the same thing Douthat is. If you're saying that all of them are equally subject to veto by a partner then, okay, you're weird. But not a "moralist", per se, just a particular variety of Christian.
"Fox News sexpert" are the only three words worth reading on that page.
my religion prohibits me from making eye babies.
There's always Plan B.
38: I thought, canonically, it was "Bone"?
Beyond that, I'm not telling anyone what they can and can't demand in a relationship.
Absent serious power issues, I am reluctant to judge what other people want or tolerant in a relationship.
The truth is, Sifu, I am uncomfortable thinking about you masturbating while thinking of Jimmy Carter.
As always, I'll start being impressed if he calls for expelling from the conservative movement the people who profit from making and distributing the stuff he's talking about. Like the hotel porn purveying company with Mitt Romney as one of its directors. Really, he's on about things that originate among respected funders of his own cause, and until he deals with it, this is all just posturing.
I am uncomfortable thinking about you masturbating while thinking of Jimmy Carter.
I masturbate to Brock getting uncomfortable thinking of Sifu masturbating while thinking about Jimmy Carter.
I am uncomfortable thinking about you masturbating while thinking of Jimmy Carter.
You should think about them separately then, Brock.
I masturbate to thoughts of Jammies, heebie, so he might be cheating on you.
i started to read the SEP article on sorites and immediately feel how my attention goes all deconcentrated and it starts jumping from one sentence to another
just any deviation from 100% full scalp is various degrees of balding, if you choose the right comparison point where to start you won't start comparing one hair to two and up endlessly
imho
I masturbate to thoughts of Jammies, heebie, so he might be cheating on you.
How do you know what Jammies thinks about?
38, 39, 41, 42: All wrong!
The correct answer is "What Would Jesus Blog"
Cambridge change: is it cheating? Stay tuned.
You know read, come to think of it, Fuzzy Wuzzy wasn't very fuzzy.
Due to a casual misreading of the post title and the first couple paras, I was looking forward to links to hott sorority pr0n.
Alas.
Tangentially to 54: We know that several members of the commentariat pledged fraternities, but are there any sorority sisters in the crowd? Magic 8-Ball says "It's doubtful", but it would be interesting to know for sure.
Cambridge change: is it cheating? Stay tuned.
"Elbridge just underwent a Cambridge change. It's a new procedure."
Looking forward to it is enough, JRoth. Guilty.
It will likely not come as a shock that I made precisely this argument (porn=adultery) to the UNG once upon a time. In retrospect, I'm thinking I may have been less pissed at the sense of sexual infidelity and more at the sense that I was working to pay the bills so he could stay home and jack off at the internet. But also the thought that that shit is the image of sexuality the guy I am sleeping with is into. Frankly, an ordinary affair with an ordinary woman would have grossed me out less.
Also, the whole idea of some objective continuum of adulterous behavior is off, not just for slicky slope reasons, but because what sort of infidelities are going to be damaging to a relationship is entirely contingent on the relationship. One marriage might thrive, despite a regular, ongoing, hot steamy stud on the side. Another might be devastated by the existence of a completely non-sexual but emotionally intimate friendship on the side.
There's a whole lotta stupid in the question "But is it on a moral continuum with adultery?" Yes, it is. But so is living a chaste life in which one never has a single sexual thought. It may be way the hell over at the other end of the continuum, but so what? It's on the same continuum, dammit, and because continnua are great conductors of moral ickiness, everything on the continuum is infected.
I masturbate to the thought of not masturbating.
It's on the same continuum, dammit, and because continnua are great conductors of moral ickiness, everything on the continuum is infected.
Is that how original sin works?
Is that how original sin works?
No, that works because women are evil.
No, that works because women are evil.
But original!
No, that works because women are evil.
Because their existence makes men masturbate to them.
The only principled way to respond to an argument like Douthat's is to make a parallel case that Douthat is kinda sorta like Hitler. Does Douthat like dogs?
You masturbate to women? What are you, some kind of fag?
But also the thought that that shit is the image of sexuality the guy I am sleeping with is into.
See, that's where a competent marriage counselor can help. If a knowledgeable therapist could have helped guide the two of you to a compromise over genres of p()rn that both of you could get off on...
67: What are you, some kind of fag?
Ha! Are you kidding? I masturbate in Reno, just to watch them die.
You masturbate to women?
I masturbate at women.
This is a lot of discussion given that Douthat's obviously correct that it's a shades of grey situation, and that the people trying to draw the bright line are those arguing against him. But whatever.
68: the knowledgeable therapist being presumably engaged the day of the wedding.
71: except that if you follow that to its logical conclusion, Douthat is therefore arguing that touching your mother's toe, as it were, is equivalent to adultery.
I don't think you have to be "a variety of Christian" to feel "I'm uncomfortable with you watching hardcore porn" is a reasonable and sympathetic stance. I agree Douhat's lines and categories are not helpful, but I'll support Di and Brock to the extent that watching porn risks affecting intimacy in the opinion of many people, who would be distressed to know their partner did it.
Di: A lot of women's objections to their partner's porn habits are like that, especially feminist women. "This is what you think of me?" "This is what you want me to do?" Behind all of that is often just a visceral anti-porn feeling.
Like I said, though, I won't make any blanket rules on whether such objections are reasonable or unreasonable.
Looking around, I think that it's possible to have a good marriage with many degrees of openness. But trust and good faith are essential-- even a little bit of distrust or resentment amplifies problems.
74: I didn't say anything of the kind, but anyhow!
KR solves the Unfogged font o/0 lookalike conundrum that had previously stymied n()()bs like me.
71: I think some people are arguing that it's not a shades of grey situation, or that, to the extent that it is, it's trivial because any two things can be connected--the Celts and yogurt--and any weaknesses disguised as shades of grey. The physical person is an important part of adultery.
Behind all of that is often just a visceral anti-porn feeling.
I've got this.
71: I am refuted with an eye-roll! I'd flick you with my finger but that would be on a continuum with battery. Come on, baa, the slippery slope stuff is tired.
76: But trust and good faith are essential-- even a little bit of distrust or resentment amplifies problems.
My wife says this a lot, but I don't believe her and wouldn't give her the satisfaction of letting her know I think she is right if I did.
but I'll support Di and Brock to the extent that watching porn risks affecting intimacy in the opinion of many people, who would be distressed to know their partner did it.
So, for some, would finding out their partner was a long time con man who swindled the old and the desperate. That doesn't make such swindling of the downtrodden--or such "fucking the downtrodden," if you will--like adultery.
You know what'd be fun, though? A slippery pope.
What would be interesting is a discussion of the differences between using pornography, paying people to perform for you personally, and so on; how the nature of mass media renders porn impersonal in a way that might affect its relationship to adultery; whether the intuition that paying prostitutes to make out in front of you is more wrong than looking at porn is just getting at the greater likelihood of escalation in the first case or whether there's some other difference.
it's a shades of grey situation
Sure, but the question remains: is turquoise a shade of grey? is pink?
the slippery slope stuff is tired
But, look, I still haven't clicked through the link, and I'm not going to, but he can't possibly be arguing that one must consider hardcore porn and adultery to be equivalent, and must oppose one if you oppose the other. He's just saying that it may be as reasonable for a spouse to be upset by one as it is to be upset by the other. I'll say again that his analogy isn't terribly helpful, but I don't think he wrong about this.
79, 81: KR wins a coveted Unfogged MacArthur "young genius" grant. Free Posting Privileges for a Year! Give it up for Knecht ladies and germs!
whether the intuition that paying prostitutes to make out in front of you is more wrong than looking at porn is just getting at the greater likelihood of escalation in the first case or whether there's some other difference
This is an interesting question. I blame capitalism.
Click through the link, Brock, and you will see that the post in its entirety is sticking Sanchez with an uncharitable interpretation and then objecting to it on tedious sorites grounds.
Guys, please don't give these popes any more ideas.
87: that is interesting, and brings up the question of whether e.g. paying HOT WEBCAM SLUTS to do ANYTHING YOU WANT THEM TO is closer to the former or the latter.
I think, in fact, that it should be possible to develop an accurate taxonomy of masturbatory hijinks, ranked by absolute inappropriateness. This could be turned into some sort of wall chart, with a magnetized bright line (LEDs? Battery powered?) that could be affixed at an agreed upon point.
And I think the answer is just likelihood of escalation.
Although, we could add strip clubs to the analysis. There you have in-person titillation, but no chance of escalation. Equal to paying two prostitutes, equal to porn, or somwhere in between?
91: Hmmm, so maybe the wild bear can stick the pope up his ass after all. Who knew?
he can't possibly be arguing
There probably are arguments that are too fatuous for Douthat to make, but since others have made those arguments, Douthat exists on the same continuum and is therefore roughly the same sort of fool.
Be careful not to drop the pope.
I think, in fact, that it should be possible to develop an accurate taxonomy of masturbatory hijinks, ranked by absolute inappropriateness.
And then on the y-axis, destructiveness of intoxicating substances, for a whole plane of hijinks.
97: so maybe the wall chart would need to be two dimensional, with a line down the middle of actual adultery ranked from "wrong" to "really super duper wrong", (we could call this line "bone of contention") and various non-adulterous masturbatory activities arranged in relative proximity to given regions of the central line.
Hmmm, so maybe the wild bear can stick the pope up his ass after all.
I think a pope-on-a-rope is more like a tampon.
And then a 3D z-axis where we chart the degree of pwnage!
Dear Sir:
The committee believe that you are incorrectly using the similar slang syllables "oi/oy."
"Oy," as in "Oy vey ist meir, there the goyim go again appropriating our perfectly good in-group terms," is a common Yiddish expression of woe.
"Oi," as in "Oi you septic bastard, come back so I can bash your head in," is an interjection common among the more energetic class of the British Isles, meant to engage the interlocutor's attention.
Please ensure that the next time you wish hegemonically to appropriate some marginal identity that you do so with due respect for its folkways and customs, you uptight honkey.
Sincerely yours,
The Linguistic/Ethnic Studies Collective
101: so 2-dimensional may not be enough! We might be talking about an N-dimensional inappropriateness field, with the vectors of maximum inappropriateness determined on a case-by-case basis by means of principal component analysis, and described with a "bright manifold" limning the inappropriate/appropriate border.
I continuumed adultery in my porny, porny heart.
"Pictures of Zbiggy, made me feel so wonderful...".
This could be turned into some sort of wall chart, with a magnetized bright line (LEDs? Battery powered?) that could be affixed to one's nipples.
discussion of the differences
Depends on the attitudes of the spouses, I'd think. Just as sometimes an emotionally intimate friendship is a problem and sometimes not.
Less theatrical than sexy or heartpouring hijinks is stubbornness or insecurity; stubborn behavior can be interpreted very differently, leading to misinterpretation of motivation. It's hard to prove innocence for thoughtcrime.
A grassy field of inappropriateness? Sign me up.
FL,
1. I will agree that slippery slope args are, in general, tired. That the world is more shades of gray than black and white is not news.
2. That said, denial of slippery slopes is equally tired, especially by people with an ax to grind.
3. Douthat is not the ax grinder here, but rather the noter of other's ax grinding: to whit, the "nothing to see here" (if I may) theory of pornography. So, so surprised to see this view articulated by libertarians, by the way.
4. But the eye-rolling tone was obnoxious, and I apologize.
Sifu,
is equivalent to adultery = Not Douthat's point, not what he said.
Yikes, this is bad. I thought "oi" was an acceptable alternative spelling of "oy" that was orthographically identical to the British Isles "oi." But now Slol tells me this is not so.
And I think the answer is just likelihood of escalation.
I think it's the immediacy of the person there. To me, at least, it's a bit the distinction between buying something that may well have been made in a sweatshop and owning a sweatshop for the purpose having clothes made. Or watching Faces of Death for entertainment vs. watching a killing as a member of an audience.
106: We might be talking about an N-dimensional inappropriateness field,
Don't forget the "How good did it make you cum*" axis.
*I invoke situational non-deprecatedness.
watching Faces of Death for entertainment vs. watching a killing asof a member of an audience for violating the analogy ban.
He's just saying that it may be as reasonable for a spouse to be upset by one as it is to be upset by the other.
Yes, but that's not a very interesting point to be making. The more relevant question is whether any individual spouse (and in my case, my spouse) is as upset by one as by the other.
Also, I don't see the point of this "it is reasonable for a spouse to get upset about x" line of inquiry. If my wife is upset about something, it doesn't matter whether it is, in some abstract sense, reasonable for her to be upset about it. The point is that she's upset, and we have to work that out between us, in a very non-generaliseable way. It does no good whatsoever for me to say "Four out of five spouses would not have a problem with this."
114: with ogged gone, all that was deprecated is reprecated.
116: "most spouses agree: boning your sister is a perfectly good idea!"
Principal component analysis only works if you're drawing samples from a single distribution. Errant spouse may be lewd one day and paranoid the next.
111: aw, shucks, baa.
In addition to 87, another interesting question is whether the mass-media vs. personal point is relevant to Wilkinson's non-transitivity claim. My irritation with Douthat is that these interesting questions are not at all obscure and he could have said something about them, instead of making what I think is a sophomoric point about how some things can be lined up in a series.
Shorter Ross:
Anything more than what I do is wrong!
I've read that book before, checked the index, even went to see the movie, but not the sequel.
I get it, we all draw the line for ourselves and if someone wants to explain his reasons then that is fine too. The problem is when that someone pretends he has some bigger authority instead of "I draw the line here so anything more is simply wrong."
From a human psychology standpoint I will point out that if Ross suppresses the normal human tendency to sometimes go beyond his line, in imagination if nothing else, he will build up an obsession, ironically making himself even more perverse than a regular guy. See "Republicans," for example.
For normal people I say accept the occasional "indecent" thought or feeling. Control your actions. Those thoughts and feeling will pass.
119: so you would need a sample period, and then you would want to recalculate your vectors on every new sample. Unfortunately, since spousal inappropriateness cannot be assumed to have the Markov property, the data storage requirements will quickly become prohibitive. Only Moore's law can save human relationships!
113: And I think the answer is just likelihood of escalation.
Like commenting about watching a bear get "poped" vs. commenting about it from your work computer.
What would be interesting is a discussion of ...how the nature of mass media renders porn impersonal in a way that might affect its relationship to adultery.
I think, too, that it's interesting to consider whether this sense is changing where the evolution of the internet. Generation Awesome! has been wired virtually since birth and is probably a whole lot more likely than the Boomers to view interactions over the internet as genuinely personal interactions rather than purely impersonal media. Does that make internet p()rn seem less impersonal, too?
Anything more than what I do is wrong!
Tripp, this bears basically no relationship to what Douthat wrote. Are you serious, or just polemicising for fun?
122: . Only Moore's law can save human relationships!
Or maybe cellular automata, it's a New Kind of Morality!
Douthat omits the well-known rule of intent. Conservatives can watch as much pr0n as they want, as long as they don't enjoy it.
Although, we could add strip clubs to the analysis. There you have in-person titillation, but no chance of escalation
I am told by a source who I'd consider reliable on this subject, if few others, that the chance of escalation is non-zero.
Less impersonal and less private simultaneously. The youngins will exchange or better post pron playlists to gauge affinity. Maybe they already do.
Generation Awesome! has been wired virtually since birth and is probably a whole lot more likely than the Boomers to view interactions over the internet as genuinely personal interactions rather than purely impersonal media.
This I do not buy. I would argue that Generation Stupids is, in fact, less likely to characterize internet interactions as being equivalent to real interactions.
It also elides the distinction between actual interaction and passive viewing, but that is much a different question.
90: "He's not saying their equivalent. He's saying they are equally objectionable!"
116: MAE, sure, every individual and every relationship are different. That's a trivial point too. As for the "more relevant question", the answer is definitely "yes", plenty of individual spouses are as upset by one as by the other. I'm sure, in some cases, more.
And I'd say that it, in real-world relationship dymanics, it actually matters quite a lot to many poeple if "four out of five spouses would not have a problem with this."
If my wife is upset about something, it doesn't matter whether it is, in some abstract sense, reasonable for her to be upset about it. The point is that she's upset, and we have to work that out between us, in a very non-generaliseable way.
Such an utterly important concept, sadly understood by far too few people.
127: Conservatives can watch as much pr0n as they want, as long as they don't enjoy it.
Exactly, per 114 if the value on the "How good did it make you cum"* axis is zero, all bets are off, none of the other axes come into play. You can do anything, no slippery slope, nothing. Just get'er done!
Can be generalized to the G-rated "Did you enjoy it axis?"
Exactly, per 114
Yeah, I know, but the value-added is in the link.
128: well, it depends on the club. But you're right. It was a hypothetical--you aren't supposed to question the facts in a hypothetical. Didn't you go to law school?
four out of five spouses
I usually answer "good luck with any of them, then" when I hear this.
118: 116: "most spouses agree: boning your sister is a perfectly good idea!"
OK, you're right the "while you watch" results weren't quite so positive.
If my wife is upset about something, it doesn't matter whether it is, in some abstract sense, reasonable for her to be upset about it.
One of the most irritating recurrent squabbles I've witnessed was where the boyfriend felt that buying flowers was irrational, and the girlfriend really wanted him to buy her some goddamn flowers once in a while. I don't think he ever caved.
it doesn't matter whether it is, in some abstract sense, reasonable for her to be upset about it
I think this is false in important ways, because it affects, say, whether I'm warranted in being annoyed by her being upset.
Right. You have to be compatible with your spouse at least in some sense, or the two of you may just be incompatible. But that doesn't tell us very much either.
buy her some goddamn flowers
See, because "buy some goddamn flowers once in a while" is a perfectly reasonable request.
141: because it affects, say, whether I'm warranted in being annoyed by her being upset.
Holy shit, FL, talk about your slippery slopes.
143: See, because "buy some goddamn flowers once in a while" is a perfectly reasonable request.
Yet it is not insane to consider it the equivalent of prostitution.
145: what if you only pay to have the flowers bloom in front of you, but don't actually bring them home? What if it's a botanical garden that charges admission, but the flowers have already bloomed?
Where does buying raffle tickets fall on the infidelity spectrum?
(link arguably nsfw)
145: They're on the same continuum, that's for sure.
(link arguably nsfw)
That's a strong argument.
warranted in being annoyed by her being upset
Depends on whether the mean spouse would be irked by what is so obviously a minor foible in an otherwise optimal parter. So she's justified in claiming nightly headache or whatever. But you're both content in knowing that your methods are statistically sound, which more than compensates for the screaming bouts over disorderly loading of the dishwasher.
because it affects, say, whether I'm warranted in being annoyed by her being upset.
This is a reaction commonly referred to as "defensiveness" and is problematic because it makes your reaction to her being upset more important than the fact that she is upset. Far better MAE's response -- to acknowledge the upset first and validate the important of not wanting the other person to feel upset. If the initial upset was "unreasonable," you'll likely get to that in the process of working through it together. Getting pissed off at someone for feeling upset because you don't think they have any right to feel that way, well, that's not going to help anyone.
149: right, I meant "potentially." Got me again, Sifu!
152: no, I meant, you're right. It's very NS. I love you, Brock! You are very accurate and correct in your statements!
There are all sorts of issues about the pragmatic advisability of a reaction vs. its warrant here, but the short version of this is that there's a big difference between "oh, the partner is annoyed, and I see her point" and "wow, she's annoyed at some minor goddamned thing that's really not a big deal" in the long-term health of a relationship.
Getting pissed off at someone for feeling upset because you don't think they have any right to feel that way, well, that's not going to help anyone.
Well, it's not going to help your marriage/relationship. But it does help you if what you enjoy feeling righteous.
Oh, look at Sloly McHebrew jumping to the emotional higher ground.
It's called self-knowledge, grasshopper.
153: I was going to say I don't think it's "very" nsfw, but I just realized I accidentally included the wrong link in my comment. I haven't actually clicked the link in 147. The url suggests it might, in fact, be quite nsfw.
Next on Fox 21!
When Moral Philosophers Get Married!
"I fail to see how your unwarranted reaction to my warranted reaction to your unwarranted action helps your argument. Please clarify."
There may be a generational divide here, but I don't think it's about internet-based interactions, I think it's about pornography.
My impression of pornography is that it's something that enables me to masturbate more efficiently. It isn't something that substitutes for adultery. Ideally I would not be masturbating in a relationship, but this ideal situation has not happened yet, possibly because I've never lived together with a lover.
Masturbation taking the place of actual sex is a different problem for a relationship. Not very similar to adultery.
If the hat fits, sensei. A pet peeve of mine is the idea that we can't assess irritation, anger, or other emotions in terms of whether they make sense, because that more or less games the emotional system by awarding strategic advantage to people who are prone to emotional outbursts. This is why I admire Ogged so much for not apologizing to people who are crying.
McHebrew
I believe that when the Israeli-Palestinian debate is resolved, Israel will have an undivided Edinburgh as its capital.
161: Ideally I would not be masturbating in a relationship, but this ideal situation has not happened yet, possibly because I've never lived together with a lover.
The last clause is superfluous and easily deducible from the first two.
A pet peeve of mine
Dude, I totally share this pet peeve. Experience tells me that explicating it in the heat of the moment does not improve relationships, is all.
The tip-off is when you're listening to yourself talk and you realize you sound just like Mr. Spock.
enables me to masturbate more efficiently.
Wow.
Seriously, if all her friends say, "OMG! I can't BELIEVE he would even think of doing that!!!" and all his friends say "Well, my wife would NEVER let me get away with that", it's very, very different than if all her friends say "Yeah, my husband does that all the time. Men are dogs." and his friends say "She's actually upset about THAT?! Dude."
These may not matter to everyone, but it matters a lot to the vast majority of people. People seem to be (implicitly) disputing this, which I find crazy.
enables me to masturbate more efficiently.
I'd like to see the time/motion study on that.
I would like to endorse 105.
165: O my overanalytical brother, I feel your pain.
I feel compelled to note that I'm not as much of a jerk in person.
159
(1) What we have here is a master of understatement.
(2) I haven't clicked the link either because I'm at work, but really, how do you make that mistake?
(3) What link did you mean to include, then?
167: that's a much better way of putting it.
it matters a lot to the vast majority of people
I'll just note that this comment was left by the same person who doesn't know any independents willing to vote for Obama.
I don't disagree with anything in 167, but at the same time it has been my experience that "Most people would say you're wrong about this" is rarely a winning line of argument.
175: of course. Did someone suggest otherwise?
enables me to masturbate more efficiently.
My Indian manservant masturbates for me.
And now that "fuck raffle" is in my google search history, I figure I may as well head to the beach for the rest of the day.
174: There's some sense in 162.
Yes, but it is a strawman. No one is saying that you cannot "assess". It is the actions that you subsequently take, what you do in the face of that assessment that matters and is under discussion.
My Indian manservant masturbates for me.
Do you watch? If so, is that equivalent to adultery?
180: Indeed. And, pragmatically, when someone is having an unreasonable emotional outburst, reacting to is by noting that it is an unreasonable emotional outburst is far more likely to escalate rather than defuse the outburst.
what you do in the face of that assessment that matters and is under discussion
It is? I think we're having different discussions. Who are you having this discussion with?
I may as well head to the beach for the rest of the day.
Watch out for the fishdicks.
In ancient China, it was not permissible to touch a sister-in-law in any way, though liberals like Mencius argued that you could touch her in order to save her life, for example if she were drowning. He didn't say anything about whether you could have sex with her afterward, though, but that would seem only fair, if she were good-looking.
183: It is? I think we're having different discussions. Who are you having this discussion with?
I had nearly the same reaction to 167. Hmmmm... but at least now we are having the same discussion!
re: 182
Oh sure, but that FL is also right that [regular/consistent] unreasonable emotional outbursts* often do constitute a 'gaming' of the emotional system. I'm sure we all know histrionic individuals who disproportionately get their own way, or get pandered to by people who care about them partly because of the fear of upsetting them.
As a pragmatic matter, you're right of course, trying to raise this at the time is just asking for trouble.
* of course, I'm betting there's no-one here, including myself, who isn't or hasn't been prone to the occasional one, either ...
183: Because I assumed (possibly incorrectly, but I do not think so) that FL's I think this is false in important ways, because it affects, say, whether I'm warranted in being annoyed by her being upset. implied a spouse-detectable behavioral component to any possible annoyance rather than just the updating of some internal tally of "warranted annoyance".
there's no-one here, including myself, who isn't or hasn't been prone to the occasional one
No. All my reactions are entirely rational and proportionate. Everyone else is insane.
pragmatically, when someone is having an unreasonable emotional outburst, reacting to is by noting that it is an unreasonable emotional outburst is far more likely to escalate rather than defuse the outburst.
I clung to FL's view of this matter until I wised up. I still have not completely internalized Di's view, but I've come to understand that I won't ever fulfill my plan of celebrating my 50th anniversary with Fleur if I cling dogmatically to the Dr. Spock approach.
I have a great analogy for this, but I'm turning over a new leaf on observing the analogy ban.
wait, HOW do you put vaseline on your retinas? I can't reach mine.
188: Intellectualization and emotion, which is the game and which the reality? Aka 2500 years of accumulated bullshit rules our view of the world. (And not badly I will admit, scientific method, liberal proceduralism etc., it works for me most of the time.)
Agree with Stormcrow in #193.
we all know histrionic individuals who disproportionately get their own way, or get pandered to by people who care about them partly because of the fear of upsetting them
But you can choose to push back against those individuals, even at the risk of alienating them (unless they hold power over you), or you can choose to avoid associating with them all together. A spouse is different. "For better or for worse" includes "indulging the occasional emotional outburst or irrational demand". There are limits, of course, and sometimes the balance of costs and benefits favors ending a marriage (e.g. when the partner is manipulative or abusive). But as long as preserving the marriage is an objective, there is no alternative to bending your will in the face of some emotions that you don't share.
Oh sure, but that FL is also right that [regular/consistent] unreasonable emotional outbursts* often do constitute a 'gaming' of the emotional system.
Absolutely. But, of course, the gaming works best (at least in the cases I'm familiar with, if you give the person justification to escalate the outburst. Although. A person committed to gaming is often pretty adept at finding justification in just about anything. My revised theory:
A person who is upset, apparently unreasonably, is either (1) genuinely upset, possibly/probably for genuine and valid reasons that may be different or deeper than the ridiculous reason initially expressed, or (2) is gaming the emotional system (because they enjoy a good fight? know they can manipulate you this way? are psychopathic bastards?). Much is to be gained by acknowledging and validating the former's upset, working through it, etc. The latter should probably just be shot. In the groin, perhaps.
I'm betting there's no-one here, including myself, who isn't or hasn't been prone to the occasional one, either
What are these "emotions" of which you speak, Nattar?
so if you're getting it on and watching porn are you committing adultery on each other while you are having monogamous sex with each other? That's pretty sweet. I bet it makes the sex more exciting.
OT: via Alex at Illegiterati, an awesome new Christian email service to notify your doomed loved ones once they've been left behind by the rapture.
196
Can I add (3) genuinely upset, but only for the ridiculous reason initially expressed, and unwilling to abandon being upset for reasons of a) embarrassment or b) irrationality?
199: Awesome!
This occurs when 3 of our 5 team members scattered around the U.S fail to log in over a 3 day period
193:Disagree with stormcrow in 193, it was better on the veldt with the hunter gatherers. 50k human years a total waste.
Alltough I am grateful Stormcrow turned the thread to politics.
200: You can -- but I would note that 3(a) seems like a likely (inevitable?) response where the immediate reaction to the initial upset was "OMG, you are being so fucking stupid!" and that 3(b) seems really just a nuanced version of 2.
It's the deep pwnage that hurts the worst.
This occurs when 3 of our 5 team members scattered around the U.S fail to log in over a 3 day period
Seems pretty risky to be handing over power of attorney over your assets on trigger of three unknown people failing to log in over a single five-day period. Suppose one dies, one's on a weeklong bender, and one is stuck in a North Dakota blizzard. Suddenly your ne're-do-well nephew has got title to your house.
Then again, the target market for this service is presumably not given to careful analytical consideration of major life choices.
199: It's good to be apprised when the rapture happens, so you can know it's safe to loot the houses of your rich Christian neighbors.
I feel enough comity in the air for me to veer off topic and suggest to FL that he needs to get himself one of these.
It's the deep pwnage that hurts the worst.
Experiencing pain from deep pwnage is not unusual, especially the first time. But a caring partner, by observing a few simple rules, can help you minimize the discomfort and learn to enjoy whole new vistas of commenting pleasure.
Further to 193, I rewrite Di and F's three possibilities from the other perspective:
A person reacting intellectually to an emotional situation, is either (1) genuinely reacting to the world in the way that they always do for principled reasons, or (2) is gaming the emotional system via intellectualization or (3) intellectually reacting to this particular situation because they are unwilling to confront the underlying emotions of the specific situation or its broader context.
by awarding strategic advantage to people who are prone to emotional outbursts.
if you choose the point which sets a standard of a major hysteria, then all other minor emotional outbursts would look minor, so the person enjoyng the outburst is relieved from stress
and the person who chose the starting point of the comparison in perspective is not harmed emotionally too, win-win and no advantages on the each side coz the situation has reversible roles
the same principle would work on the solution of the sorites paradox, for example the heap argument, how 10 thousand grains wouldn't make a heap, it's a perfect heap, and the smallest heap begins with three grains, the heap of three reaches the threshold when the individual grains enter the other quality of being the part of a heap, as a grain is the smallest unit of the heap and is in an orderly state by itself, but when it begins to make heaps with others it enters another, chaotic state and the heap of 3 or 10 is not the same as the heap of 11 or 10 thousand, by mass, shape, volume etc though there could be two heaps of 10, but b/c the individual grains are not exactly the same copies of one, there are still some differences between two heaps of 10, so, chaos
just have to choose the point when a grain is in the grain and the heap state simultaneously from where to start to count heaps and grains
it entertains me to think about paradoxes
210: But were those rules observed in this case I ask you.
It's good to be apprised when the rapture happens, so you can know it's safe to loot the houses of your rich Christian neighbors time to stand on their lawns and taunt them for having failed to make the cut.
193 is fucking brilliant. I have read volumes by Frankfurt School philosophers and never seen this basic point so well expressed before.
204: I dispute pwnage on account of raptureletters.com's inferior layout and youvebeenleftbehind.com's superior well of hilarity.
This occurs when 3 of our 5 team members scattered around the U.S fail to log in over a 3 day period
This is the first time in my life I've been seriously tempted to go on a kidnapping spree. It's a curious feeling.
To apply the heap paradox to pron: How many naked body parts does it take to be pron? If one masturbates to a naked ankle, does that make it a heap o'pron or just a fetish? Is one naked breast pron or does it take two? Is gay pron pron if one is a straight man? Straight woman? Jewrry Falwell? [FTM, if one masturbates to a Campbell soup can, is going to the grocery store adultery? Or just a Hebro-Palestinian dweller in reunited Edinburgh?]
Sorites, so wronges.
baa has a point above. The sorites paradox wouldn't be a paradox unless there was something to the slicky slope. The ability to watch a hot 19 year old getting double-teamed any time you like really is different than occasionally catching a glimpse of your neighbors ankle.
But I want to know is, which is worse, adultery or fantasizing about your wife before she gained twenty pounds?
216: Were I a hacker of sufficient skill, I would crack the customer database of youvebeenleftbehind.com and email all its members to let them know that the rapture occurred six days ago.
Whether something is pr0n or not depends on prurient interests, intentional attitudes regarding arousal, etc.; we can't cash it out in terms of naked body parts without committing a naturalistic fallacy.
3(a) seems like a likely (inevitable?) response where the immediate reaction to the initial upset was "OMG, you are being so fucking stupid!"
Personally I find the most awkward cases to be where I can rationally understand I'm being so fucking stupid about x, cognitively agree that everyone would be better off if I wasn't being so fucking stupid, and still have the ole lizard brain going nuts with whatever dumbass emotion it's fixated on. Awkward, I guess, because they reveal that one is not in fact a grown-up, or something.
a Campbell soup can
yesterday i warmed up a Cambell soup without can, but in a deep plate in the microwave oven and got almost an explosion
when i warm water in it, it seems to me, water expands
we can't cash it out in terms of naked body parts without committing a naturalistic fallacy
So sayeth the pre-eminent cock theorist of our time.
The ability to watch a hot 19 year old getting double-teamed any time you like
Your link didn't work, PGD.
Awkward, I guess, because they reveal that one is not in fact a grown-up, or something.
Not at all. Even grown ups can get emotionally flooded and need to cool off sometimes.
221: the presence of strong empirical regularities in human prurient interests allows this true and interesting point to be elided in practice.
Wander over to your local Barnes and Noble and page through some of the featured books in the Romance and Urban Fiction sections, or the vampire ones - all primarily aimed at women. Should guys be upset at women getting hot and bothered off of those porny depictions of sex? How is watching porn different from reading it, and does it matter if it's called porn? Personally, I'd be a hell of a lot less upset at a girlfriend getting off on porn than on a fantasy about a friend.
the pre-eminent cock theorist of our time
Mouseover?
229: While Brigitte Mouseover has without a doubt made some very important contributions to the field of cock theory, I wouldn't put her in the pre-eminent spot, no.
229: Doesn't anyone read the archives anymore?
215: Actually I rather like Hillary Clinton.
229: The phrase has a history 'round these parts, one which even the most fervent redactionists cannot erase.
232: Now you're just pandering.
The ability to watch a hot 19 year old getting double-teamed any time you like
Man, I think I just decided I want a job on Capitol Hill after all!
||
Tim Bray demonstrates he doesn't read Unfogged:
"In fact, they gave me a screen-grab picture [of my colonoscopy] and by running it here I could have out-goatse'd goatse but there are bounds of good taste even for a blogger."
|>
baa,
Anything more than what I do is wrong!
Tripp, this bears basically no relationship to what Douthat wrote. Are you serious, or just polemicising for fun?
I was imprecise. What I was trying to point out is this.
Douhat is saying (unless I get it totally wrong) that porn is on the same moral continuum as sex with a prostitute.
To that I say "well duh, but so what?"
He seems to be adding the idea that "for this reason reasonable (or non-crazy) people can see these two things as equally wrong."
My short response should have been - "Bah. Normal people thing anything they want to do is OK and anything more than that is wrong. People are rationalizing, not rational."
People also think when they are wrong it was a mistake or accident and when someone else is wrong it was a moral failing, but that is besides the point.
So In my opinion Douthat made a trivial point and then tried to use that in an attempt to make rationalization look rational.
234: I agree with 167.
Shock!
235: 232: Now you're just pandering.
Yes, yes indeed I am.
Reading the threads in the results from 233 is a good demonstration of the fact that this site used to be funny, even though one of them already complains about decline.
Grammar policing that killed the funny, Ben.
THE REFERENT OF "THAT" IS UNCLEAR
YOU WILL BE ELIMINATED
I think I just decided I want a job on Capitol Hill after all!
Washingtonienne doesn't work there anymore, Knecht.
(I found Cutler's book in a bargain bin for three bucks the other day. I haven't read it yet. Maybe I won't.)
228:
Wander over to your local Barnes and Noble and page through some of the featured books in the Romance and Urban Fiction sections, or the vampire ones - all primarily aimed at women. Should guys be upset at women getting hot and bothered off of those porny depictions of sex? How is watching porn different from reading it, and does it matter if it's called porn? Personally, I'd be a hell of a lot less upset at a girlfriend getting off on porn than on a fantasy about a friend.
tkm, I have called Romance Novels "porn for women" for many years but the thing is that in real relationships in this area a global concept of right and wrong just isn't very useful.
And I shouldn't have to say this but of course anything that involves minors is wrong and anything that involves exploitation is wrong.
Between two consenting adults it doesn't really matter who is 'right' and who is 'wrong.' What matters are the feelings involved and resolving those conflicts satisfactorily. That is really the most important thing in resolving emotional conflicts.
Look, I know my wife has feelings and I care about those. I also have my own feelings and needs. To take a silly example if my wife forbid me to go swimming because of a childhood accident or something maybe I agree cause I don't really like swimming or maybe we have to work on it because to stop swimming would be a big loss for me.
242: the referent of "you" is unclear. That will be corrected!
MEANING, OF COURSE, THAT IT IS UNCLEAR WHAT THE REFERENT OF THAT MIGHT BE, THAT WE DO NOT KNOW, OF THE MANIFOLD POSSIBLE REFERENTS, WHICH ONE IS THE ACTUAL REFERENT, AND NOT THAT THE THING WHICH IS KNOWN TO BE THE REFERENT IS UNCLEAR, AS FOR INSTANCE MIGHT BE THE CASE WITH THE FOLLOWING SEQUENCE OF SENTENCES: "DO YOU SEE THE WINDOW OVER THERE? THE ONE SPATTERED WITH MUD? I WANT YOU TO CLEAN THAT.".
To take a silly example if my wife forbid me to go swimming because of a childhood accident or something
How can you -- at this turbulent moment in unfogged's history -- call swimming accidents "funny"?
For shame!
247, instead of "funny", is "stupid".
246: the referent of that that referred to as lacking a clear referent is unclear.
Just so's you know, ben: Originally it opened with `twas, but editing it left the ambiguous referent. I was about to fix it but couldn't resist leaving it for you.
Douthat is therefore arguing that touching your mother's toe, as it were, is equivalent to adultery.
that depends on how it were. Were it good for you?
Another real-life example. I think I mentioned that my wife is a gifted actor and a brilliant director. When we were younger I had a pretty tough time watching her act a love scene with someone else. Yes I know all about "it means nothing" and "it is just acting" but I still had strong feelings of jealousy that I had little control over.
On the other hand there are very few roles for young women that do not involve romance. Very few leading roles anyway. And I also, now and then, got the chance to play such a role too.
So who was right? Who was wrong? How should I have felt? How should she have felt?
Washingtonienne doesn't work there anymore, Knecht.
Was she getting double-teamed? My understanding was that she was doing the guys sequentially and the orifices alternately.
Relationships are neither possible nor desirable. Thus, in a relationship, beither histrionic emotional behavior not calm rational behavior is acceptable.
Bible verse for today:
The Dude: Just take it easy man. Walter: I'm perfectly calm dude. The Dude: Yeah, waving the fucking gun around. Walter: Calmer than you are. The Dude: Just take it easy. Walter: Calmer than you are.
Tripp, you're not Norm Coleman, are you? It all fits now. Hollywood wife, lives in Minnesota, crazed.....
So who was right? Who was wrong? How should I have felt? How should she have felt?
Kissing another actor as part of a role is on a continuum with having sex in a pornographic film. So really, she might as well have been getting reamed by a well-hung stud on a Vivid Video production.
For shame!
As an aging actor who still tries I think it has been sufficiently proven that I have no shame.
As the father of four teens (well, one is post-teen but still) I also, as they insist on reminding me, have very little dignity. Or humor.
Call me fat though. That still hurts pretty good.
251: Easy, you should have filmed them and secretly masturbated to them later.
Actually, it is good to have some overarching really awful thing to be guilty about to put these little quotidian occurences into perspective. You know, like you're killing the whole fucking planet or something.
And I also, now and then, got the chance to play such a role too.
Now I'd pay good money to see Tripp the Young Woman!
Tripp, you're not Norm Coleman, are you? It all fits now. Hollywood wife, lives in Minnesota, crazed.....
I did say I was getting in to the GOP convention. So what do you say big boy, ready for some toe-tapping fun at the MSP international airport?
259: Won't your wife be jealous?
Is your wife hot, Tripp? I'm potentially interested in learning some "acting".
Now I'd pay good money to see Tripp the Young Woman!
I did play a woman in "Greater Tuna." She wasn't all that young though. But still pretty hot, if I say so myself.
My favorite role, though, was being the only guy with five woman in "Five Women Wearing the Same Dress." That was a most excellent time indeed.
Was she getting double-teamed?
I don't recall her saying so specifically, but she was very bipartisan.
I submit to you all that masturbating to this is much worse than adultery. So much worse that it's not even on the same continuum.
(The link is safe for work, but not safe for the soul.)
259: Won't your wife be jealous?
I said I care about her feelings!
That's why she doesn't need to know.
And Walt - I think my wife is hot. How much money you got?
I have no doubt that the thread has moved on, but the real and obvious problem with this sort of bullshit argument is the idea that the harm in adultery or pornography is towards the *spouse*. And that once the commitments you've consciously and deliberately made have been honored, you're morally free and clear!
God sometimes I hate people.
I once played a girl in the middle-school drama club favorite Sure as You're Born.
B,
I did add, in 244, that exploitation is wrong as well. We can add the effects from the objectification of women as well.
It is a shame those are not always assumed and agreed to.
The subject is similar to the subject of polygamy. In theory between adults it may be fine but if it involves exploitation or minors it is wrong.
I once played a girl in the middle-school drama club favorite Sure as You're Born.
Were you hot? (Assuming the girl was of legal age of course.)
I used to watch pornography until my wife took away my pornograph.
(Trying to ease us back onto the humor track.)
the real and obvious problem with this sort of bullshit argument is the idea that the harm in adultery or pornography is towards the *spouse*
I'm having trouble understanding how "adultery" fits into this sentence.
271: Not to speak for B, but it fits to me in the sense that, like pornography, the harm in adultery extends beyond the harm to the spouse.
Sorites, so wronges.
I know arguments by degrees are wrong...but they feel Sorites!
Were you hot? (Assuming the girl was of legal age of course.)
The woman who applied the stage makeup told me I would make a beautiful girl. In view of the fact that dressing up in a skirt and makeup in deep Redstatia in 1983 was already tantamount to wearing lavender ruffled blouses and pursuing a career in hair styling, this ostensible compliment was more disquieting than flattering.
Also, I would have been barely pubescent, if at all, at the time.
Also, I would have been barely pubescent, if at all, at the time.
So, definitely hott.
like pornography, the harm in adultery extends beyond the harm to the spouse
According to the Napoleonic Code, IIRC, adultery was a crime because of the harm inflicted on the cuckholded husband. For a married man to have sex with an unmarried woman was not considered adultery under civil law.
274: I think...society?
No, I have no idea.
As far as I can tell, all of the harm in adultery is done to the spouse, and none of the harm, if any, in pornography is done to the spouse. But who knows what the truly sensitive answers are.
a mobile president on rushmore is great! should always open the links which i don't do sometimes
i think i got why it hurts that ogged left, it's b/c it feels like rejection
so maybe watching porn is indeed adultery
274: The kids, perhaps. The "other man/woman," at least in some cases.
On the other hand, we shouldn't fail to to acknowledge the benefits of adultery, particularly for those like Will whose very liveihoods are greatly enhanced by it.
The difference between hiring a prostitute yourself (to masturbate in front of you), going to a strip club, and/or watching porn is in the degree of intimacy. Duh.
Adulterous marriages make fucked-up houses for kids to live in usually. Lucien Freud or other people with open rather than dishonest and furtive arrangements likely excepted.
The difference between hiring a prostitute yourself (to masturbate in front of you), going to a strip club, and/or watching porn is in the degree of intimacy. Duh.
In the first two cases, the possibility exists that you will engage in actual intimacy with the person you are watching. In the third case, no such possibility exists.
As far as I can tell, all of the harm in adultery is done to the spouse, and none of the harm, if any, in pornography is done to the spouse.
I have the opposite intuition -- that in porn there is real potential for harm to the spouse, because the sexual connection and resulting emotional bonding might be disturbed. (This would be relationship-specific but I can totally see it happening). But there's not a lot of harm beyond the relationship (assuming the pron producers are legal, etc.). In adultery you have potential harms spilling every which way...other families, etc.
none of the harm, if any, in pornography is done to the spouse
This, of course, is nonsense. To the extent the porn industry is exploitative of women (and I think that's a given, no?) and to the extent porn itself is degrading to women generally and contributes to their objectification in society at large, consumption of porn by a man harms his wife by supporting the exploitation, degradation, and objectification of women generally and, more directly, by communicating to her his acceptance of the exploitation, degradation, and objectification of women.
I used to watch pornography until my wife took away my pornograph.
Silly old man. Generation Awesome has never even seen a pornograph. They grew up with the Internet! C'mon, tell us about the hott telegraph sex you used to have ("DON'T STOP DON'T STOP DON'T STOP")
283: "Intimacy" means more than "sexual penetration."
287: Knecht is a funny, funny guy.
286 is like the Nicene Creed of sex-negative feminism: recited by rote at least 10,000X as often as it is rationally defended.
Oh, damn it. Di gives me a compliment and I kick her in the shin? I rescind 290.
271: The spouse isn't in any way actually harmed by their partner fucking around; they're harmed by finding out about it.
Also, the person with whom the cheating is happening is often as harmed, or more harmed, than the spouse, inasmuch as he/she can't *help* but know about the spouse, is far more likely to deal with the cheater's unavailability, etc.
I'm talking about emotional harm here, obviously.
I guess I need to remind myself that we're talking about pornography in reality, that is, an industry that exploits people, rather than pornography in theory.
I don't want to sound like a BS-er here, but the only kind of pornography I consume consists of things made by random people who show all signs of being actual couples honestly enjoying themselves. That seems OK, and that's become my image of pornography in general, which is not even close to correct.
Although who knows what percentage of it was originally intended for personal use only, and then uploaded to a website without the woman's permission. Even if it was, they were enjoying themselves consensually at the time.
284 to 288.
I see where this thread is going. Goodbye everyone.
290: What's the Kirchliche Dogmatik of feminism?
283: Whatever. There's the "potential" for intimacy in walking down the street. Anyway, intimacy doesn't mean orgasm or even necessarily fucking. If X watches a pornographic movie, the interaction is between X and a video tape. If X goes to a strip club, the interaction is between X and the stripper, mediated by the rules, bouncers, other strippers, etc. If X hires a prostitute, the interaction is between X and the prostitute. Escalating degrees of intimacy, and I think that this is why these things would tend, in order, to bother people increasingly.
Oh, if only ogged were here to save the blog with a swimming post!
Fatman, most reputable pornographers require actors and actresses to sign affidavits attesting that they are fun-loving people who really enjoy it. So there's really nothing to worry about.
268: Right, I think that's a separate and different issue from "does it harm your spouse" (to which I think the answer is no, not really).
Fatman consumes only organic, free-range, artisanally-produced pr0n.
299: I'd guess that typically it does, but it doesn't have to.
286 is like the Nicene Creed of sex-negative feminism: recited by rote at least 10,000X as often as it is rationally defended
I'll cop to the feminism part. But, contrary to what UNG may have told you, I am in fact very much in favor of this sex thing.
302: perhaps pornography-negative feminism, rather than sex-negative ...
292
"The spouse isn't in any way actually harmed by their partner fucking around; they're harmed by finding out about it."
This doesn't make any sense, if your spouse is distant and inattentive because they are having an affair you are harmed even if you don't know about the affair.
Di gives me a compliment and I kick her in the shin?
Perhaps it's just your way of communicating to her your acceptance of the exploitation, degradation, and objectification of women?
304: But what if you have one of those spouses who overcompensates for his guilty conscience by being extra attentive, buying you nice things, etc.?
305: I think the former is often (intentionally) mischaracterized as the latter.
307: you play it for all it's worth?
The spouse isn't in any way actually harmed by their partner fucking around; they're harmed by finding out about it.
Not true at all. Many people subtly withdraw sexual and emotional intimacy from their spouse when they are having sex with someone else. Especially (though not only) if they're lying about it. I'm sure some people don't, but it's obvious that it happens. This whole "monogamy" thing is about more than habit and custom.
pwned! By Shearer, no less.
what if you have one of those spouses who overcompensates for his guilty conscience by being extra attentive, buying you nice things, etc.?
Being patronized by someone who's lying to you is soooo hot! Although, you know, depending on what you want from the relationship it could work.
287 is classic.
310, 311, etc. was what I meant in 301 but was too lazy to spell out.
This is why it's best to be open about extramarital sex. All the upside, none of the lying, alienation, and sneaking about. Hell, that's pretty much why it's best to be open about everything.
311: But if you don't know you are being patronized...
I think it should be ("DON'T STOP STOP DON'T STOP STOP DON'T STOP STOP")
314: Why then you shouldn't worry your pretty little head about it, sugar.
if your spouse is distant and inattentive because they are having an affair you are harmed by their distance and inattention, yes. Not by the fact that their genitals are doing Things You Don't Know About, in and of itself.
Many people subtly withdraw sexual and emotional intimacy from their spouse when they are having sex with someone else.
And many people withdraw intimacy even when they aren't having sex with someone else. And many people have sex with others because they're seeking intimacy that's fading a bit from their primary relationship.
It's a li'l more complicated than the "Cheating is Bad" rule really acknowledges.
312: Ah, so basically Douthat's point is that *any* form of sexual gratification that's "outside marriage," meaning that doesn't involve both married partners and only both married partners, is wrong.
It's a viewpoint.
I've heard of being unable to take a compliment, Knecht, but I never really knew what they meant until now...
Tripp, you're negotiating your wife's rate? What kind of shitty feminist are you?
The Obama campaign finally released a statement on the FISA compromise:
It is not all that I would want. But given the legitimate threats we face, providing effective intelligence collection tools with appropriate safeguards is too important to delay. So I support the compromise, but do so with a firm pledge that as President, I will carefully monitor the program, review the report by the Inspectors General, and work with the Congress to take any additional steps I deem necessary to protect the lives - and the liberty - of the American people.via MY
And many people withdraw intimacy even when they aren't having sex with someone else. And many people have sex with others because they're seeking intimacy that's fading a bit from their primary relationship.
Well, sex and intimacy are bound up in ways that increase the incentive to fix intimacy problems with someone when you are dependent on that person for sex as well. Sex also heightens intimacy just on its own. It complements lots of things that are needed to keep a relationship going.
Non-monogamy isn't bad, but it's complex and potentially risky, more for some people / relationships than others. Cheating is sort of bad insofar as lying is bad.
It's a viewpoint.
Neither a nuanced, nor particularly informed one, it seems.
So, does the FISA compromise make illegal surveillance legal in the future as well as the past, or only in the past?
Obama is dead to me. I am not enjoying my current feeling of helplessness mixed with rage.
I used to watch pornography until my wife took away my pornograph.
"Ovular isn't even a word."
You'll only take away B's sexual freedom when you pry it out of her cold, dead cooch.
She's very wholesome, you know. A blonde 4H cracker. Don't want to mess with her. Not a weenie liberal at all.
322: PGD has the most sensible and nuanced views on love, intimacy and sex of any person I know who isn't getting any.
289: 287: Knecht is a funny, funny guy.
Oh yes, yes he is! I like funny.
Veering off the tracks for a moment I am very thankful that I have never 'strayed' because it allows me the freedom to discuss these things with a clean conscience.
Restriction leads to Freedom. Who knew?
322.1 is, of course, correct. 322.2 is, I think, oversimplified. Monogamy, too, is complex and potentially risky, after all.
Non-monogamy isn't bad, but it's complex and potentially risky
Relationships are complex and potentially risky. If one or both of you are going to do it, far better above board than below.
237: 4H girls are known to give it up.
327 is also, of course, correct, but B won't tell you that.
323: Well, I don't think so, no. Presumably Mr. Douthat does. Or else he thinks that nuance is for weenies.
322: I myself am definitely monogamy-oriented, but I'm not convinced by the argument that monogamy increases the incentive to improve intimacy because you are dependent on the sex. That dependence on a single person to fill your sexual needs can, in the face of unresolved intimacy problems with that person, create some really fucked up feelings about your sexuality. Do I have sex with this person who has nothing but contempt for me because otherwise I'm never, ever going to get to have sex? Do I come to view sex as a distasteful, repulsive act because the only person I could have sex with is someone for whom I have nothing but contempt? It's not that easy.
I am very emphatically convinced that it is not healthy to depend upon a single person for the fulfillment of all of your needs for emotional intimacy. Logically, I could see how this would translate to sexual intimacy, as well.
331: Meh. If one person is going to cheat, lying about it might well be the best thing. It really depends. I suspect that having a Serious Affair, or even being a Serial Adulterer, is not the kind of secret that's easily kept from a reasonably attentive partner, but the odd lapse? In general, probably best kept to yourself.
So, in sum, every path you take is rife with the potential for disaster and catastrophe. Too, too true.
334: Oh I agree, I don't think he believes that. But the linked article isn't any sort of competent defense of the position.
333 gets it exactly right, by the way.
315: lemmy, I think Knecht's version involved a telegraphic pornographic rape fantasy.
What kind of shitty feminist are you?
The kind that has four kids to put through college?
Now how much money you got? If you tell me that I'll tell you where you got your shoes.
Deal?
322: Non-monogamy isn't bad, but it's complex and potentially risky, more for some people / relationships than others.
Fixed.
(I say this as one who endorses and practices monogamy, of course.)
Sorry. Yggles neither provided the full text, or as far as I could see, a link.
Glenn Greenwald does more, Update VII.
How much "better" the full statement is I leave to your judgement.
Cheating is sort of bad insofar as lying is bad.
The key here is what is defined as 'cheating'. And for people who aren't going to be monogamous, what sort of things they're expected to tell their partner about.
monogamy life isn't bad, but it's complex and potentially risky, more for some people / relationships than others
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
Speaking for myself, I find fantasizing about actual people to be far, far closer to adultery than porn consumption. Sometimes I feel a little guilt over masturbating [to porn] when I could conceivably be trying to get it on with my wife, but in practice there's no competition - we're married with children, and we have about as much sex as we can, regardless of whether I may have jerked off recently. But issues of fidelity and emotional intimacy play no role at all in my porn life.
But thinking about another woman that I see around? Creepy. We've got a cute neighbor right now who's pretty much the first other woman I've thought about in that way, but I always get creeped out before my fantasy goes anywhere. My fantasy life is pretty much limited to past GFs (or near-misses) - safely impossible due to direction-of-time constraints, and not exactly news to Wife ("You mean you're sexually stimulated by ex-GF Y!? Oh. I guess I knew that.").
Not that I'm announcing any of this to her, but it's pretty clear in my mind.
322: I myself am definitely monogamy-oriented, but I'm not convinced by the argument that monogamy increases the incentive to improve intimacy because you are dependent on the sex. That dependence on a single person to fill your sexual needs can, in the face of unresolved intimacy problems with that person, create some really fucked up feelings about your sexuality. Do I have sex with this person who has nothing but contempt for me because otherwise I'm never, ever going to get to have sex? Do I come to view sex as a distasteful, repulsive act because the only person I could have sex with is someone for whom I have nothing but contempt? It's not that easy.
Wow. You must be female. So much thinking.
4H girls are known to give it up.
So do math team girls (no links, sorry).
337 represents my evolved views, and replaces 322.2. I'm going to go read Ecclesiastes now.
I commend to Mr. Douthat the German aphorism "Appetit darf man sich draussen holen, aber gegessen wird zuhause" ("Whet your appetite whereever you please, but eat your meals at home.")
346:
But thinking about another woman that I see around? Creepy.
Jimmy, that feeling will pass. How's your brother Billy doing? Is he OK?
Wow. You must be female. So much thinking.
Indeed. You can only imagine how helpful all that thinking is to the theory of actually having a sex life.
I endorse 325.
I don't know which is worse - the bitterness in my mouth over his move on this, or the bitterness in my mouth over not venting at certain people with whom I may have discussed Mr. Obama's positions and prospects in the past.
I think I need to go chew on a bag of sugar.
350: But is it okay to imagine the fast food up the street while eating your home-cooked meal?
344: Exactly. That, and the silliness of the idea that there is generally correct prescription that will fit all relationships.
B, I see what you're saying about better to lie about it, but ime it seems much of the time people can't handle doing that without it becoming an issue in other ways in the relationship. Hard to know what least-harm path is (and this is relationship specific).
From the link in 332:
I came *this close* to losing my virginity to one of the national winners in the youth swine breeding program
I thought that Emerson said that swine only get artificial insemination?
But is it okay to imagine the fast food up the street while eating your home-cooked meal?
It makes the home-cooked meal seem all the better (I would hope).
I support the compromise, but do so with a firm pledge that as President, I will carefully monitor the program, review the report by the Inspectors General, and work with the Congress to take any additional steps I deem necessary to protect the lives - and the liberty - of the American people.
Hahahahahahahahahahahahaha
358: pretty much right on schedule, afaics.
354: If you're going to fantasize, wouldn't you prefer something that's not so fat and greasy?
Think high-end cuisine: complex, presentable, just the right size, and implaceably international.
360: I prefer to fantasize about things that I know aren't good for me...
360 to further mangle the analogy, then: fast food is a bad quicky with an ex?
362: A cheezy ex, with extra fries.
I prefer to fantasize about things that are fatty and greasy.
Why throw the ex in there, soup? You just ruined the whole damned fantasy. I guess I'll have to try fantasizing about high-end cuisine, now.
@354 It certainly is okay to do so. To throw in another german aphorism "Die Gedanken sind frei".
The real question is whether one still enjoys the homecooking.
363: You are skiting dangerously close to ruining cheese fried for me with that comment. I would never forgive you for ruining cheese fries.
But is it okay to imagine the fast food up the street while eating your home-cooked meal?
Yes, but you mustn't attend any potluck dinners. And asking for seconds on dessert is never polite.
368: "And for goodness sake, slow down. If you keep stuffing yourself like that, you'll wind up choking."
368: "And for goodness sake, slow down. If you keep stuffing yourself like that, you'll wind up choking."
(Sorry, didn't mean to take seconds there. How rude!)
"Sorry, I guess my eyes were bigger than my stomach."
"You gonna' finish that?"
358: I think that, personalities aside, Stras, McManus, and I have attained a degree of objective unity.
"Well, they say hunger is the best spice."
"I'm hungry enough to eat a horse."
"Did I say you could be excused?"
"Eat your vegetables, then we'll talk about whether you get dessert."
"Well of course it's not hot anymore. You expect me to have a hot meal on the table the very moment you finally decide to show up? You oughta be thankful I'm not sending you to bed with no supper!"
(It says something meaningful, I'm sure, about my relationship with food that I am finding the present direction of this thread far more stimulating than the p0rn stuff.)
Going into a new restaurant with questionable hygiene? Best order the meal cooked sous vide.
There are children starving in China.
"I'd like you to think about all the hungry people right here in this very country who could be fed from what you leave on your plate."
"It doesn't taste like your mother's? Well I'm not your fucking mother! So you'd better just get used to the fact that I cook the way I cook!"
Cook your own damn dinner. I'm tired.
And asking for seconds on dessert is never polite.
Oh please, a good chef always has a bit extra, just in case.
"Sure you used to go get carry-out to eat every night, but you're not in college anymore!"
Do I look like a short-order cook?
You're always on about the entree. Have you ever thought about getting the tasting menu?
You're always on about already the entree.
-- "Do you remember the first time I cooked for you? I was so nervous you wouldn't like it. I drank like a bottle of wine to calm my nerves, and then I ended up barely being able to get dinner on the table."
-- "Yes, I remember. To tell you the truth, it was pretty awful. I was so hungry when I left, I stopped at the place down at the corner and got a late night snack."
"I like wine more nowadays. Anyway, I'm drinking more."
I swear to god my patience for the New High Cholesterol lifestyle (avoiding super cholesteroly foods, deliberately exercising more) lasts about two fucking months. And the end result is that all I want to do is lie around eating blue cheese bacon burgers.
No wonder diets don't fucking work.
390: Sorry to have pushed those buttons, Di. I'm gonna quit now.
Guy once asked me:"McManus, is everything you say a quote from something." Of course, it was ridiculous flattery + ignorance, but if you look around wide & deep enough, you learn that originality is not only overrated but rarely necessary.
Shorter:Wish I said this:
The Donk can't do anything; her influence on "policy" is nil; her Congressional majority goes on and votes for the Dictator anyway. Who's the fuckin' nihilists, here? There are certainly precedents for spending an eternity on a task that will never reach fulfilment, but bending eternally to the receding water or pushing forever at the heavy stone are meant for punishing the wicked dead, not that I necessarily object to watching Good Liberals go heaving boulders up a hill.It would be one thing to argue that reactionary nut jobs like yours truly are wrong in our diagnoses and prescriptions, but arguing instead that we are impotent sophists, all the while standing atop the vast, steaming pile of Netrootsian inefficaciousness--incapacity being the principle characteristic of blog--now that takes a pair of brass ones, as my grandmother likes to say. The people that Digby et al. claim as representatives of their political aspirations won't do a goddamn thing that Digby et al. request. As for me, I'm proud to be a whiner, and it is the nature of the whiner to be proudly ineffectual. On the other hand, to claim status as an activist while failing in virtually every political endeavor is to put on the clown hat and become purposefully, almost magestically ridiculous.
I think I have been banned from Crooked Timber
389 was pretty hilarious. And on the flipside of what Chopper said in 386:
"I'm only making one thing for dinner. You get to choose what it is, but only one!"
392: Seriously, I know I get to be a pain-in-the-ass proselytizer on this, but did you get the thyroid checked? I still have bitter, bitter memories of extremely strict dietary and exercise regimes which proved both useless (before the thyroid problem was treated) and unnecessary (after the thyroid got fixed). (Though, the High Cholesterol Lifestyle did provide me with a new and welcome appreciation for beans, high omega-3 fish, and red wine, so there's that.)
393: Oh, no, don't apologize for that! Calling me a sex-negative feminist, yes, but 390 was not apology material!!
And with that, I'm heading out to grab some fast-food....
396: Yep, we did a total blood thingamajigy and my thyroid is fine.
MMMMMmm, fast food....
Really, I just need to go grocery shopping. But it's so hot! And I'm so lazy, I'm having a hard time motivating PK to put some damn clothes on.
And asking for seconds on dessert is never polite.
That is the single most immoral thing yet written in this filthy, sinful thread.
I left town for a week and a half, right?
And I come home to find that Mr. B. has stocked the house with jolly ranchers, jelly bellies, m&ms, marshmallows, and chocolate chips. This in additio to the usual stock of one-lb chocolate bars in the cupboard.
The man is weird.
But it's so hot!
I thought it was always perfect there.
That's not even snark, I'm serious - the mere suggestion that weather might not be 72, non-humid and sunny 360 days a year is an invitation for guffaws from the SoCal contingent.
Anyway, I'm off to bike to the Indian store with Iris for curry leaves and black mustard seeds.
PS - AB just learned that she and her best friend from college and post-college have the same bike , which is also the same as B's - Trek meetup!
I, too, have a Trek, a hybrid. I am very happy with it.
And I come home to find that Mr. B. has stocked the house with jolly ranchers, jelly bellies, m&ms, marshmallows, and chocolate chips. This in additio to the usual stock of one-lb chocolate bars in the cupboard.
If you'd watch more Simpsons, you'd be properly familiar with German stereotypes.
You married Uter.
But John, do you have the same girl's bike that we ladies have?
I wouldn't blame you if you did; it's an awesome bike. But I would be somewhat surprised.
405: Oh, I know it.
Also, in re. weather, my little apple widget tells me it is currently 77 and the projected high is 82. Which, y'know, I like hot weather and all, but I'm working on a laptop here.
Jesus, I need to just go yell at PK to get some fucking clothes on so we can go to Foster's Freeze and then buy some damn groceries.
Are you complaining about 77 being not hot enough, or too hot?
77 is like January weather here, Ardent. Must have been the former.
410, 411: Knowing this thread was about pornography, I scrolled back up to comment 77 and found no link. How am I to know if it's hot or not?
I refuse to believe it's 77. It's freaking stifling.
Funny. I also initially thought 77 was a comment number.
It's like 83, 84 now. Sans a/c, I might add. Bleah.
Whatever. It's in the 90s here and I biked back from the train station wearing a heavy, big-ass backpacking backpack. And you don't see me complaining.
I totally *do* see you complaining.
I'm impressed, though. My fitness/biking/global warming jones quailed in the face of the heat, and I took the car. I didn't turn on the a/c, though.
No you don't no you don't no you don't, 'cause I can't see you, so you can't see me.
I can see the complaints, however, which are textual in nature.
What! I never need to complain about matters—oh, textual. No, I have no textual complaints either.
Move to Hawaii, B -- the only state in the union without either hot or cold weather. Also, before going to bed, look carefully under all 17 feather ticks to make sure that there isn't a pea under there somewhere.
If you have textual problems, TV tells me that you have several pharmacological options.
Jesus fuck, B, it's that hot here in the subarctic.
Right, but you people mostly probably have air conditioning, do you not?
416: I didn't turn on the a/c, though.
Satan wept.
PK bitched about having the windows down and the wind mussing his hair.
I can't wait until he's 16, really I can't.
221: Benjamin, Benjamin, Benjamin - my point was that pron is so freakingly subjective and/or culture-centric that it's impossible to set a brightline standard and say "This is pron". There are places that the average American movie poster would be considered hard core. There are things - especially for fetishists - that, whilst certainly arousing the prurient interests of the viewer, fail your " intentional attitudes regarding arousal" standard because most of us don't get off perusing Home Depot catalogues or watching Faces of Death III. Or Barney.
If a closet Plushie gets a hard on /wet on for Barney, have they committed a sin?
Dear God, B, a/c for heat in the 80s? Are you sure PK hasn't surreptitiously set you on fire?
It's 79 indoors. And I bicycled 35 or so miles yesterday in the hot 80 degree sun. And I'm a senile alcoholic.
The reason I'm so healthy? No relationships, no sex life. B is burning up internally due to her indulgence of her hormones.
If a closet Plushie gets a hard on /wet on for Barney, have they committed a sin?
Dear god, yes.
When I was a boy, back when a nickel was worth a nickel, a tight sweater or a flash of lacy underthings was pron. And we liked it. Barefoot in the snow, uphill both ways.
fail your " intentional attitudes regarding arousal" standard because most of us don't get off perusing Home Depot catalogue
Unsurprisingly, I don't think those things should be considered pornography.
Ooh, maybe it's menopause!
No, seriously, it's hot. Everyone's griping about it. IT'S NOT JUST ME.
CURRENT CONDITIONS 88.3. C'mon. That's hot, you fuckers.
You're dying of lewdness, B. Cotton Mather would hang your lewd ass in a New York minute, if he weren't dead. And he'd make you listen to a two hour sermon first.
A two-hour sermon about your lewd ass. Count your blessings.
I have a nice way of highlighting the bright side of things, don't I?
It's a damn good thing he's dead, then.
About 300 years dead. Your lewd ass is safe.
Synthetic Fiber Mather handles the heat better.
That's nonsense. I'm totally wearing a "coolwick" sports bra, and it's just as sweaty and gross as any other.
Sweaty boobs are not fetching, B. Best not mention them.
You know what helps wick moisture away? Wool. You should be wearing a scratchy wool bra.
Yeah, I desperately want a scratchy wool bra. Screw that.
The gardenia in the garden is blooming, though, so I stuck a blossom in my hair. So I feel sweaty and gross but I smell lovely.
So how do we reconcile the lewd ass with the egregious wholesomeness?
How, indeed! We may have a devil-child, fox-fairy, changeling or a succubus here.
442: Speak for yourself, John.
Mmmm, gardenia.
It's amazing how strong the gardenia scent is, I'm telling you.
I used to have one in a pot on the back porch until some hateful motherfucker stole it. God, I love that scent. Fussy plant, though; needs attention.
Jesus, you might as well buy an airline ticket down to Manteca where B lives. La belle dame sans merci is irresistible. Better you than me.
Anyone ever feel really fucking alone?
Yeah, me either.
The one in our yard grows by the patio, but I think it's not usually humid enough here, b/c it only puts out a few blooms a year.
I think that, after I finish making this melon soup for dinner, I am going to propose that we embrace the decadence and go to the beach until bedtime. What's the point of living here otherwise?
not sure how that signed "b." 'Twas me.
Bi Kotimy would be the Latin equivalent.
I'm sorry I mentioned Cotton Mather.
I'm sorry, lowercase b.
Majuscule B, with regular water and feeding, you should be able to get more blooms. Pain in the ass, I know, but maybe you could get PK to take an interest in it.
DK, want a little kid who'll try to be as PHYSICALLY CLOSE TO YOU AS POSSIBLE? Currently he's sticking his fucking hand in my armpit.
Going to the beach is wholesome. Melons are on the very short list of Manichaean-approved foods. You're still a devil child, though.
Isn't he a little young to have a fucking hand?
with regular water and feeding, you should be able to get more blooms
I'll let the gardener know.
I feel confident this may in fact be the only sin:
If a closet Plushie gets a hard on /wet on for Barney, have they committed a sin?
462: Great, I'm packing him up as we speak.
BphD, if it's so hot, maybe you can try to put on some wet with cold water tee or top, it's really refreshing
Uh huh. I'll be getting right on that and posting pictures any minute now.
(A cold, wet scarf around the neck really does help. I think it's something about having the cold so close to the carotid, so it carries the cooled blood through the system. Or maybe someone just told me that and it was a very effective placebo effect. Either way.)
OT: Netflix has the top 2% of telephone customer service I've ever experienced. Based in Portland, apparently.
On topic: Di, I hear ya. Although at least you're not being sent on business trips to remote Kentucky, huh?
470: Thanks. Although, at the airport in KY, I had the best beer I have ever had in my entire life, a bourbon barrel ale available only in the Lexington area. And... When you start getting sentimental about a beer, it's clearly time to take a deep breath, get some sleep, and get it together.
455 was impressively quick.
88.3 is pretty warm.
Some fucker stole Iris's bike helmet from on top of a power transformer (where I stupidly left it). WTF??
But the Indian dinner I made was fantastic.
bourbon barrel ale available only in the Lexington area
I had a bourbon porter at Toronado a while back that was excellent.
Unsurprisingly, I don't think those things should be considered pornography.
Some significant others would disagree with you.
I didn't think anyone ever stole bike helmets. I always just leave mine hanging loosely on the handlebars.
that's what you think b. have you looked recently? like in the last 10 minutes?
If it's gone, I know who I'm gonna blame.
Sorta OT:
I was thinking about certain bawdy Beastie Boys lyrics and musing that, if only the PMRC and Tipper Gore had possessed the power that the Hays Code did, there could have been a real flowering of creativity in risque hip hop in the 1980s. Instead, you got to say any banal profanity you wanted as long has you put a silly little sticker on your album.
I guess that really doesn't have that much to do with pron or hotness.
