Sex, Cheating and the Internet

[Barry]

With the range of male indiscretion on full display lately, from possibly harmless (Anthony Weiner) to definitely harmful (DSK rape), I thought it would be worthy to take the pulse on cheating and the internet from our exceptional community.

For the sake of this discussion, lets say one person, typically the man, is involved in a committed monogamous relationship (as rare as that may be in these parts....:wink:). And lets say the other person, typically the woman, participates in a fully consensual manner. And lets further say the monagomous one doesn't tell their partner. And lets say it doesn't lead to an intimate physical encounter.

So what's OK and what's not? And how do you decide?
Is it always based on what your agreements are?
How many of you have agreements about cyberflirting and cybersex?

For instance, is it ok to send flirtatious emails to someone that you have either met or not met?
Is sending suggestive or erotic photos, of either your self or "nude art" ok?
What about skyping with them? What about cybersex?

What if other people find out about this? Is it any of their business? What if you are a public person?
Is it OK to keep a very constrained non-physical level of sexually oriented interaction private from your partner?
Should this be generally acceptable? Is it healthy or not?

:hmmm:

["Mad" Miles]

Keep your junk off the net. Period. End of story.

[Barry]

Keep your junk off the net. Period. End of story.
My questions were all assuming that all communication was private. You could say they are on the "net" but they are not visible to anybody. Except for slip-ups, of course!

["Mad" Miles]

Barry,

If it's recorded, it's recorded. This has been proven repeatedly. Since Abelard and Heloise (at least) and definitely since the advent of audio and videotape. Is anyone that naive, anymore?

[kpage9]

Miles, I think Barry's inquiries had to do more with morality than discoverability.

kp




Barry,

If it's recorded, it's recorded. This has been proven repeatedly. Since Abelard and Heloise (at least) and definitely since the advent of audio and videotape. Is anyone that naive, anymore?

[Shandi]

My opinion involves a question to myself. How does it affect my personal life? I don't expect
anyone to live up to my personal morality, or any morality that stands in judgement of another's
behavior that does no harm. There are many ways that people harm each other besides betrayal
of unrealistic "forever promises of fidelity". It's human nature.

Wouldn't it be interesting to have community members reveal their own actions which would be
judged as "cheating"- (sexual or otherwise). Or maybe just have people take a stand and state
that they've never "cheated" in any way. I couldn't do it myself....:wink:

As for the behavior of politicians, we can judge them all we want, from our blame free positions.
I think it's unrealistic to expect perfection from anyone, in any position. But judging other's
behavior does give us something to do with our free time, and certainly helps us to feel
superior.

Whatever you think is o.k. is o.k. with me unless it affects me directly. If you hurt someone with
force, we have laws about that. If you hurt me physically I will do whatever I can to defend myself.

Hurting someone emotionally can be unintentional, and can happen if a partner even looks at or
speaks to another. Emotional pain can result from jealousy over a partner's interest in anything
besides the ONE. It can even be experienced if a partner "imagines" actions that
aren't even happening.

Who will stand and be counted as free of cheating in any way, ever? Remember, it's all
recorded somewhere by some one.


With the range of male indiscretion on full display lately, from possibly harmless (Anthony Weiner) to definitely harmful (DSK rape), I thought it would be worthy to take the pulse on cheating and the internet from our exceptional community.

For the sake of this discussion, lets say one person, typically the man, is involved in a committed monogamous relationship (as rare as that may be in these parts....:wink:). And lets say the other person, typically the woman, participates in a fully consensual manner. And lets further say the monagomous one doesn't tell their partner. And lets say it doesn't lead to an intimate physical encounter.

So what's OK and what's not? And how do you decide?
Is it always based on what your agreements are?
How many of you have agreements about cyberflirting and cybersex?

For instance, is it ok to send flirtatious emails to someone that you have either met or not met?
Is sending suggestive or erotic photos, of either your self or "nude art" ok?
What about skyping with them? What about cybersex?

What if other people find out about this? Is it any of their business? What if you are a public person?
Is it OK to keep a very constrained non-physical level of sexually oriented interaction private from your partner?
Should this be generally acceptable? Is it healthy or not?

:hmmm:

[edie]

With the range of male indiscretion on full display lately, from possibly harmless (Anthony Weiner) to definitely harmful (DSK rape), I thought it would be worthy to take the pulse on cheating and the internet from our exceptional community.

For the sake of this discussion, lets say one person, typically the man, is involved in a committed monogamous relationship (as rare as that may be in these parts....:wink:). And lets say the other person, typically the woman, participates in a fully consensual manner. And lets further say the monagomous one doesn't tell their partner. And lets say it doesn't lead to an intimate physical encounter.

So what's OK and what's not? And how do you decide?
Is it always based on what your agreements are?
How many of you have agreements about cyberflirting and cybersex?

For instance, is it ok to send flirtatious emails to someone that you have either met or not met?
Is sending suggestive or erotic photos, of either your self or "nude art" ok?
What about skyping with them? What about cybersex?

What if other people find out about this? Is it any of their business? What if you are a public person?
Is it OK to keep a very constrained non-physical level of sexually oriented interaction private from your partner?
Should this be generally acceptable? Is it healthy or not?

:hmmm:

First, I can't see how the Weiner affair is a sex scandal. If I would have been these six or so women I would have texted him back that he is in public eye how can he be so dumb, on top of it he should keep his bony spare ribs at home where they belong. That's it. You think he wouldn't stop texting? If not he is really dumb. He did not offer himself physically anyway- or did he? If he did not, nobody should say he might have, cause nobody knows...'twas private, just dumb, sick texting.

So what? That depends on his relationship with his wife. Should I want my partner to trust me, then I wouldn't prickle away on that with stupid behavior or at least I would try not to. At this point as his wife I would say how dumb can you get when you know that the media will love to make mincemeat out of you, your carrier and myself... and you thought texting is private? You Idiot... nothing is private- especially in your position! That would mean he is dumb and thoughtless, in my eyes it does not make it a sex scandal, just bad dumb ugly pictures published privately, did he think it was funny?

About all them real sex scandals in politics and public life, I would try to make the media shut up about it (in concern about family and taxpayers money) but have all them"open zippers" pay a "magic" amount of fine to pay off our debt- wouldn't it be paid off quickly? Privately I wished I could just put him (W) for a day inside with the monkeys- caged...

And you wonder about all that? Sex is everywhere, this is a hypersexualized society even kids can watch porno on TV and the Web. Many shows on TV show more naked then dressed females, the male mostly dressed up to their neck?? One female juror at one of the dance competitions said not long ago to a topless oily super muscle competitor "to put his shirt on or she might get thoughts in a direction she should not get them" (it was in jest), does that mean the male has to be dressed but it's so "normal" now that the female is half naked? I was reading there is a new female group calling themselves "sluts" to show man that woman can run around half naked looking ready for sex BUT DON'T DARE TOUCH ME, RESPECT ME! It reminds me on a bullfight- drive the beast slowly wild and crazy then kill him- it's supposed to be an art form. I could call it playing with fire, the flirting on the other hand is an innocent play of gaiety, I guess where and how to draw the line, to find the balance of trust is the excitement.

The texting and the camera are a new tool, make you belief it's a private distant play, not really personal- as we are learning it can turn spiteful, hateful, painful, costly and embarrassing for many involved and the media loves that- it sells- that's the game of it... the snowball turns into an avalanche.

All that said, I wished the media would make such a stink about all the guys that stole the people's money, started the housing crises still sitting at the office desk with high paychecks and even higher bonuses! Would that not be more important? WHY is it so quiet about that when it shouldn't be at all!

[occihoff]

My opinion involves a question to myself. How does it affect my personal life? I don't expect
anyone to live up to my personal morality, or any morality that stands in judgement of another's
behavior that does no harm. There are many ways that people harm each other besides betrayal
of unrealistic "forever promises of fidelity". It's human nature.

Wouldn't it be interesting to have community members reveal their own actions which would be
judged as "cheating"- (sexual or otherwise). Or maybe just have people take a stand and state
that they've never "cheated" in any way. I couldn't do it myself....:wink:

As for the behavior of politicians, we can judge them all we want, from our blame free positions.
I think it's unrealistic to expect perfection from anyone, in any position. But judging other's
behavior does give us something to do with our free time, and certainly helps us to feel
superior.

Whatever you think is o.k. is o.k. with me unless it affects me directly. If you hurt someone with
force, we have laws about that. If you hurt me physically I will do whatever I can to defend myself.

Hurting someone emotionally can be unintentional, and can happen if a partner even looks at or
speaks to another. Emotional pain can result from jealousy over a partner's interest in anything
besides the ONE. It can even be experienced if a partner "imagines" actions that
aren't even happening.

Who will stand and be counted as free of cheating in any way, ever? Remember, it's all
recorded somewhere by some one.


One thing's for sure here: if you feel you have to be hiding something from your partner, whether it's a sexual encounter or anything else, the intimacy and trust that is the basis of a deep relationship has been seriously compromised, and replaced with fear. Fear and love do not mix well together. Would you be okay with your partner also having an affair? If so, at least you are consistent. If you want an open relationship and your partner does not, you have a fundamental difference that will undermine your relationship as long as you are unable to work things out.
Too often jealousy is taken for granted as a natural and inevitable emotion. But jealousy is an emotion arising from an underlying feeling of insecurity and inferiority. If I have confidence in myself as an attractive and lovable person who is a desirable lover, why would I feel jealous of someone else? If I am getting my needs for love and erotic fulfillment met, what's the problem? If I have complete confidence that you love me and are attracted to me, why would I care if you also feel attracted to someone else? Am I never attracted to anyone else? And if you are okay about me being open to other relationships, why should I hold you back from other relationships? If our relationship is based on shutting our eyes and gritting our teeth to avoid being open about our attraction to other people, how can we feel confident that we are truly desired, that we are special? Is that love or obligation? And why couldn't we all be friends?
The fact is, of course, few of us have this kind of self-confidence and feeling of fulfillment, so feelings of jealousy are inevitable. We then have the choice to take either of two courses: we can clamp the lid down on our desires for other relationships, in order to avoid the painful feeling of jealousy, or we can summon the courage to face that pain and discomfort in order to work our way toward dealing with our emotional needs and problems on a deeper level, because our desire to expand our limitations is more powerful than our need to avoid unpleasant feelings.
I see this dilemma as the fundamental dilemma of our spiritual life: the ongoing conflict between fearful contraction into an armored spirit, and courageous expansion into the unknown for the sake of a fuller, richer life.
<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /><o:p></o:p>

[Shandi]

One thing's for sure here: if you feel you have to be hiding something from your partner, whether it's a sexual encounter or anything else, the intimacy and trust that is the basis of a deep relationship has been seriously compromised, and replaced with fear.

I agree that HIDING equals FEAR, whether it's in an intimate relationship, or just living in fear of any number of things.
I agree that Fear and love do not mix well together. FEAR and LOVE are on opposite ends of the spectrum, and all emotions stem from them.


Would you be okay with your partner also having an affair?
Most of my relationships, including my marriage of 19 years evolved into an open one, because after studying
human sexuality, I realized that we as humans seek variety.....or contrast. I introduced my husband
to women friends, and loved seeing them together. I felt secure in our love, and not threatened at all. I ended my
marriage because values that I had acquired, changed.....my husband remained chained to dictates of others that
had nothing to do with sex.


An affair with a person, a thing, work, a hobby? Again, I have to ask how do I choose to have it affect me. Am I getting what I want from the relationship? Only I know that. If I'm not, it may be that I'm relying on my partner to
fill my every need, which is unrealistic. Or my has partner changed, which is almost a given. But maybe we haven't
changed in the same ways, and that creates new perspectives and challenges. It's up to the people involved to make new decisions about how they want to relate.

I worked for a woman who shared that she thought that relationships (marriages) should be reviewed every so many
years to see if changes were wanted. I thought that was very conscious and realistic to accept changes that will
occur over time.

How can I control another person's feelings and actions? With a contract? We all know that isn't the answer.
Feelings by nature, change.

I agree that jealously comes from insecurity, which we all feel at times about various things, not necessarily from
our sexual partner. I remember feeling very insecure when I lost a job, and my therapist told me that I didn't have
to feel that way. I couldn't believe he was saying that!! How else could I feel? He told me that I could see it as
an opportunity. Yeah right, tell that to all the people who've lost their jobs. After a time, I realized what he was
saying, and I try to remember that when things happen that most people consider a reason to feel fear and insecurity.



If so, at least you are consistent. If you want an open relationship and your partner does not, you have a fundamental difference that will undermine your relationship as long as you are unable to work things out.Any fundamental difference in values will undermine a relationship.



Too often jealousy is taken for granted as a natural and inevitable emotion. But jealousy is an emotion arising from an underlying feeling of insecurity and inferiority. If I have confidence in myself as an attractive and lovable person who is a desirable lover, why would I feel jealous of someone else? If I am getting my needs for love and erotic fulfillment met, what's the problem?

The problem arises when your confidence shifts to feelings of insecurity. I've never known anyone who had
"complete confidence" all the time. Feelings by nature, change.

We are all "special" in our own way, and are attracted to other "special" people who reflect ourselves and create
feelings of being desired.

I think the nature of most "couplings" is based on a kind of "ownership". "You're mine, and I'm Yours"
It gives a false sense of security, which most people yearn for.



If I have complete confidence that you love me and are attracted to me, why would I care if you also feel attracted to someone else? Am I never attracted to anyone else? And if you are okay about me being open to other relationships, why should I hold you back from other relationships? If our relationship is based on shutting our eyes and gritting our teeth to avoid being open about our attraction to other people, how can we feel confident that we are truly desired, that we are special? Is that love or obligation? And why couldn't we all be friends?
The fact is, of course, few of us have this kind of self-confidence and feeling of fulfillment, so feelings of jealousy are inevitable.

We then have the choice to take either of two courses: we can clamp the lid down on our desires for other relationships, in order to avoid the painful feeling of jealousy, or we can summon the courage to face that pain and discomfort in order to work our way toward dealing with our emotional needs and problems on a deeper level, because our desire to expand our limitations is more powerful than our need to avoid unpleasant feelings.
I think that we have more than 2 choices, the third being to do what we desire and hide it from our partner. I've had women
friends who told me that they don't want to know if their partner is being sexual with others. They are "hiding" too, but in
a different way, but as we agreed in the beginning, hiding is about fear.


I see this dilemma as the fundamental dilemma of our spiritual life: the ongoing conflict between fearful contraction into an armored spirit, and courageous expansion into the unknown for the sake of a fuller, richer life.I agree with you. We can contract into an armored spirit, and still have to face the inevitable unknown.

[podfish]

I agree that HIDING equals FEAR, whether it's in an intimate relationship, or just living in fear of any number of things.
really? I don't... how 'bout FEAR -> HIDING, but so does SENSE OF PRIVACY -> HIDING

there's lots of other logical symbols beyond the equal sign and they're useful if you don't want to be overly simplistic in the generalizations.

[Shandi]

I think that our desire for privacy is rooted in fear, although it may not be conscious.
Consider the cultures that live in close contact, and have very little privacy.

I don't believe that we're born with a need for privacy; it comes from what we are
taught, and I think it's a wise thing, especially in our society.

If you're speaking about privacy in a relationship, I'm not sure what you're referring
to. Do you mean if you're doing something that you don't want you're partner to
know about, and consider it privacy not to tell? An example is how women tend to
buy things, and not tell their partner because they know it will be met with anger
or disapproval, or worse.... (in other words, FEAR)

Or do you mean that sexual activity (in person, online, phone, etc.) outside a relationship
is a private matter? If so, then it is, for you.

There are so many choices to explain our behavior. I'm just glad that we have those
choices, and can accept the consequences.

Thanks for sharing....





really? I don't... how 'bout FEAR -> HIDING, but so does SENSE OF PRIVACY -> HIDING

there's lots of other logical symbols beyond the equal sign and they're useful if you don't want to be overly simplistic in the generalizations.

[podfish]

I think that our desire for privacy is rooted in fear, although it may not be conscious. think what you like - but projecting that to all mankind seems a bit of an overreach to me. And this "may not be conscious" response is getting way too common as a way to dismiss the ideas of others. It's such a blanket dismissal too - personally I find it offensive when applied to a specific individual. Of course people have a rich set of thoughts and feelings that they're not particularly "conscious" of at any given time. But when it's extended to deliberately expressed ideas, I think it's wise to assume that they've taken the time to become conscious of their own thought processes. By the way, this is a general observation, I'm not just reacting to your response. It's just turned into such a cliche; someone who's bothered to construct an argument of at least a couple of thoughts strung together rejects the opinions of a huge class of people who disagree by claiming they're acting unconsciously. Or ignores evidence that challenges their position by denying the validity of the objections.

[occihoff]

I agree that HIDING equals FEAR, whether it's in an intimate relationship, or just living in fear of any number of things.
I agree that Fear and love do not mix well together. FEAR and LOVE are on opposite ends of the spectrum, and all emotions stem from them.


Most of my relationships, including my marriage of 19 years evolved into an open one, because after studying
human sexuality, I realized that we as humans seek variety.....or contrast. I introduced my husband
to women friends, and loved seeing them together. I felt secure in our love, and not threatened at all. I ended my
marriage because values that I had acquired, changed.....my husband remained chained to dictates of others that
had nothing to do with sex.


An affair with a person, a thing, work, a hobby? Again, I have to ask how do I choose to have it affect me. Am I getting what I want from the relationship? Only I know that. If I'm not, it may be that I'm relying on my partner to
fill my every need, which is unrealistic. Or my has partner changed, which is almost a given. But maybe we haven't
changed in the same ways, and that creates new perspectives and challenges. It's up to the people involved to make new decisions about how they want to relate.

I worked for a woman who shared that she thought that relationships (marriages) should be reviewed every so many
years to see if changes were wanted. I thought that was very conscious and realistic to accept changes that will
occur over time.

How can I control another person's feelings and actions? With a contract? We all know that isn't the answer.
Feelings by nature, change.

I agree that jealously comes from insecurity, which we all feel at times about various things, not necessarily from
our sexual partner. I remember feeling very insecure when I lost a job, and my therapist told me that I didn't have
to feel that way. I couldn't believe he was saying that!! How else could I feel? He told me that I could see it as
an opportunity. Yeah right, tell that to all the people who've lost their jobs. After a time, I realized what he was
saying, and I try to remember that when things happen that most people consider a reason to feel fear and insecurity.


Any fundamental difference in values will undermine a relationship.




The problem arises when your confidence shifts to feelings of insecurity. I've never known anyone who had
"complete confidence" all the time. Feelings by nature, change.

We are all "special" in our own way, and are attracted to other "special" people who reflect ourselves and create
feelings of being desired.

I think the nature of most "couplings" is based on a kind of "ownership". "You're mine, and I'm Yours"
It gives a false sense of security, which most people yearn for.

I think that we have more than 2 choices, the third being to do what we desire and hide it from our partner. I've had women
friends who told me that they don't want to know if their partner is being sexual with others. They are "hiding" too, but in
a different way, but as we agreed in the beginning, hiding is about fear.

[FONT=Arial Unicode MS]I agree with you. We can contract into an armored spirit, and still have to face the inevitable unknown.

Shandi, I’m so delighted to hear that you were able to transcend jealousy to the point that you were even able to enjoy seeing your partner with other women! In my experience that level of freedom is so rare that it shakes my confidence in the possibilities of human emotional expansion. I also agree with you that no matter how much we may love our partner, it is natural and can even be refreshing to our relationship to relate erotically to others, as long as the specter of jealousy does not darken the situation.
<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /><o:p></o:p>
Although I am not exactly replete with feelings of confidence in myself as a great lover, I once had the experience of having my partner and a dear male friend who was visiting come to me with remorse and apologies for having “gone over the edge” and making love, and I actually felt fine about it, because I love them. On the other extreme, I have felt jealousy or at least envy for attractive women I have seen on the street or in the supermarket with other men.
<o:p></o:p>
The distinction between jealousy and envy is an interesting one. Envy is a painful feeling that arises when I see someone enjoying something that I long for but cannot have. I think the feeling of jealousy adds to that a tinge of resentment or even anger. People who feel that they own each other go the extra step and even feel righteous about their jealousy and anger. This is where the notion of “cheating” comes in: we have an agreement not to be sexual with anyone else, and now you break our pact behind my back! Hmm, if you do it openly, is it not “cheating” any more?
<o:p></o:p>
This thread has certainly proven to be a rich vein of interest, and I congratulate Barry for opening it up!

[2Bwacco]

haven't read all the posts here ... initial thought is if a man is taking pics of himself and posting them (or emailing them for someone to see) don't think that is much different than doing it person to person: the intent is for another person to see what is there -- or for many people to see what is there.

when i was a young girl i had a couple of experiences, near misses, with "perves." These guys would today probably be sitting behind a computer with their camera or smartphone snapping and emailing away!

the weiner activities seem to me to be the equivalent of FLASHING. does not bode well for him vis a vis his mindset and what he thinks is an acceptable activity; he has discovered how America feels about this.

[Barry]

the weiner activities seem to me to be the equivalent of FLASHING.
This is not the case for at least the majority of his contacts, if not all. They were consensual, whereas flashing is not.

[Barry]

think what you like - but projecting that to all mankind seems a bit of an overreach to me. And this "may not be conscious" response is getting way too common as a way to dismiss the ideas of others. It's such a blanket dismissal too - personally I find it offensive when applied to a specific individual. Of course people have a rich set of thoughts and feelings that they're not particularly "conscious" of at any given time. But when it's extended to deliberately expressed ideas, I think it's wise to assume that they've taken the time to become conscious of their own thought processes.

While I don't completely agree with Shandi's "it may not be conscious" comment, I don't take it as a "blanket dismissal". I think it is a valid possibility to bring up, and may apply even apply to "deliberately expressed ideas". I know for myself that this has been the case on occasion.

While there is definitely a relationship between privacy and fear, I think it's a partial overlap rather than the desire for privacy is always grounded in fear.

For instance, within the realm relationship and "others" something quite inconsequential, say a wink, could easily be considered to be private. I suppose you could say that fear is a reason to keep it private, but in most cases there is nothing to fear. It just feels nice to have some things that are private. :wink:

[Shandi]

This thread has certainly proven to be a rich vein of interest, and I congratulate Barry for opening it up!

Yes, I agree, and hope that more people are inspired to share.

[Shandi]

While I don't completely agree with Shandi's "it may not be conscious" comment, I don't take it as a "blanket dismissal". I think it is a valid possibility to bring up, and may apply even apply to "deliberately expressed ideas". I know for myself that this has been the case on occasion.

While there is definitely a relationship between privacy and fear, I think it's a partial overlap rather than the desire for privacy is always grounded in fear.

For instance, within the realm relationship and "others" something quite inconsequential, say a wink, could easily be considered to be private. I suppose you could say that fear is a reason to keep it private, but in most cases there is nothing to fear. It just feels nice to have some things that are private. :wink:

I'm curious what "nice" feels like?

[Barry]

I'm curious what "nice" feels like?
Come on over and I'll show you...:wink:

Seriously, I don't know that I could describe it. I just makes life seem sweeter. It shows up in innocent kids, too, when they keep something special just for them.

[Shandi]

think what you like - but projecting that to all mankind seems a bit of an overreach to me. And this "may not be conscious" response is getting way too common as a way to dismiss the ideas of others. It's such a blanket dismissal too - personally I find it offensive when applied to a specific individual. Of course people have a rich set of thoughts and feelings that they're not particularly "conscious" of at any given time. But when it's extended to deliberately expressed ideas, I think it's wise to assume that they've taken the time to become conscious of their own thought processes. By the way, this is a general observation, I'm not just reacting to your response. It's just turned into such a cliche; someone who's bothered to construct an argument of at least a couple of thoughts strung together rejects the opinions of a huge class of people who disagree by claiming they're acting unconsciously. Or ignores evidence that challenges their position by denying the validity of the objections.

https://mail.google.com/mail/?ui=2&view=bsp&ver=ohhl4rw8mbn4 Shandi wrote: https://mail.google.com/mail/?ui=2&view=bsp&ver=ohhl4rw8mbn4 (https://showthread.php/?p=135914#post135914)
I think that our desire for privacy is rooted in fear, although it may not be conscious.



think what you like Yes, I do, and I encourage you to do the same- It's such a blanket dismissal too - personally I find it offensive when applied to a specific individual.


I'm not sure what you mean. I can't presume to know if people are conscious of anything in particular, and it doesn't mean that I dismiss anyone's ideas. On the contrary, I'm openly sharing what I "think", and am glad that you are too! And that you encourage me to "think what I like". It's interesting to me that you "find it offensive when applied to a specific individual." Did I do that.....
unconsciously? Can you quote me on that?

Although it's not my intention to "offend" anyone, I realize that I have no control
over anyone's reactions to anything I say, and I would defend your right to be offended.



Of course people have a rich set of thoughts and feelings that they're not particularly "conscious" of at any given time. But when it's extended to deliberately expressed ideas, I think it's wise to assume that they've taken the time to become conscious of their own thought processes.

Assume is a key word for me.


By the way, this is a general observation, I'm not just reacting to your response. It's just turned into such a cliche; someone who's bothered to construct an argument of at least a couple of thoughts strung together

rejects the opinions of a huge class of people who disagree by claiming they're acting unconsciously.

I'm not rejecting anyone's opinions. I don't believe that an opinion can be rejected, but I certainly can have my own, as we all do.
I'm also not claiming that anyone is acting unconsciously. It's my opinion that it "may" be unconscious. How can we know what's
unconscious for ourselves or anyone?

Or ignores evidence that challenges their position by denying the validity of the objections.

I wish you could be more specific. I'm unsure how I've ignored "evidence that challenges anyone's position by denying
the validity of the objections." How have I denied the validity of anyone's objections? https://mail.google.com/mail/e/361

Can you elaborate, and share your thoughts on your desire for "privacy"?

I appreciate your willingness to stand up for your opinions and beliefs.

[Shandi]

Come on over and I'll show you...:wink:

Seriously, I don't know that I could describe it. I just makes life seem sweeter. It shows up in innocent kids, too, when they keep something special just for them.

I guess some feelings are indescribable!

[Shandi]

haven't read all the posts here ... initial thought is if a man is taking pics of himself and posting them (or emailing them for someone to see) don't think that is much different than doing it person to person: the intent is for another person to see what is there -- or for many people to see what is there.

when i was a young girl i had a couple of experiences, near misses, with "perves." These guys would today probably be sitting behind a computer with their camera or smartphone snapping and emailing away!

the weiner activities seem to me to be the equivalent of FLASHING. does not bode well for him vis a vis his mindset and what he thinks is an acceptable activity; he has discovered how America feels about this.

I don't think that America feels the same way about Weiner's internet activities. Maybe there will be a poll.
Two responses from friends are "A young girl might see it and be harmed" and "I expect more from my politicians".

As one woman on the Bill Mahar show stated. She thought that war was much more obscene than Weiner. I have to
agree on that one.

[podfish]

normally, I'd let this drop by now, since I expressed my point. But since you specifically ask, I'll see if I can clarify it more for you.
I'm singling out the phrase "may not be conscious" because it's a common Wacoon meme, that seems to show up in various forms in various threads. It's got two main contexts: first, applied to people who are evidencing behaviors the poster finds puzzling/offensive, and second, to individuals who repeat in voicing views in opposition to one of the poster's. Sometimes it's used to allow the poster to avoid either condemning others who act/believe in ways the poster judges offensive (since "father, they know not what they do") or to believe that if the group in question would only give some thought to the matter, they'd be in agreement after all. That point of view seems self-indulgent to me, but not particularly offensive in itself. I would say that your qualifier "although it may not be conscious" fits that mold.


https://mail.google.com/mail/?ui=2&view=bsp&ver=ohhl4rw8mbn4 Shandi wrote:
(original quote) " I think that our desire for privacy is rooted in fear, although it may not be conscious."
(quoting me here )... it's such a blanket dismissal too - personally I find it offensive when applied to a specific individual."
I'm not sure what you mean. I can't presume to know if people are conscious of anything in particular, and it doesn't mean that I dismiss anyone's ideas.... It's interesting to me that you "find it offensive when applied to a specific individual." Did I do that.....

no, and I did try to make that clear too - I said "By the way, this is a general observation, I'm not just reacting to your response". You didn't single out any individual. Your post falls into my first category.
Although it's not my intention to "offend" anyone, I realize that I have no control
over anyone's reactions to anything I say, and I would defend your right to be offended. kind hard to deny someone that right, isn't it???



(again, quoting me), I think it's wise to assume that they've taken the time to become conscious of their own thought processes.

Assume is a key word for me. ?? "I think it's wise" is important. It doesn't mean that the assumption is valid. It means it's a good idea to treat that "they've taken the time to become conscious ..." as if it were true. That concedes credibility and dignity to those of opposing views. I think it's dismissive to make excuses, or assumptions, that they don't know their own minds. Simple as that.

... (me again)rejects the opinions of a huge class of people who disagree by claiming they're acting unconsciously.
I'm not rejecting anyone's opinions. I don't believe that an opinion can be rejected sorry but I'll indulge in a little pedantry too. You're right, it should be phrased "the validity of the opinions..". Having an opinion isn't rejectable, you're right.


Can you elaborate, and share your thoughts on your desire for "privacy"? I appreciate your willingness to stand up for your opinions and beliefs. well, it seems unfair to bail without answering that too, but frankly I was less moved to respond to the core idea of the post than to the use of what I find as an unfortunate Wacco cliche.
However, it seems easy to consider an individual's desire for privacy as a personality trait. There's a spectrum running from extreme introversion to extreme extroversion; though I don't have goods terms for the two ends of a spectrum that describes a person's desire for privacy, I think it's easy to see it as a similar but distinct spectrum. Some people who travel from a small community like ours to a place like New York find a kind of loneliness in the anonymity they find there. Others find it liberating to be alone and savor the experience. Some writers are happy to create private journals and diaries that are never shared, some people might sing to themselves as they hike alone. Others hunt to find ways to get their writing published, and love to perform in front of a group. People also have a sense of space. In some cultures, you'll find that the person you're speaking to will want to touch you and put their head very close (by American standards) to yours. Now that I've worked my way to that: limits to physical touching may be the easiest manifestation of the concept of privacy, since no-one grants unlimited rights for any other to touch them.

[Shandi]

normally, I'd let this drop by now, since I expressed my point. But since you specifically ask, I'll see if I can clarify it more for you.
I'm singling out the phrase "may not be conscious" because it's a common Wacoon meme, that seems to show up in various forms in various threads. It's got two main contexts: first, applied to people who are evidencing behaviors the poster finds puzzling/offensive,

I didn't realize that it was a common Wacoon meme, but I'll take your word for it. I guess that means I'm in good company.
To my way of thinking if I found something puzzling in a post, I'd ask for clarification. If I found something offensive, which
I rarely if ever do, I wouldn't think the poster was either conscious or unconscious, I'd just take responsibility for my feelings
of being offended. But I'd rather be accused of unconsciously offending than consciously trying to offend.


and second, to individuals who repeat in voicing views in opposition to one of the poster's.

So, do I understand that a Wacco who voices views in opposition to a poster, is dismissed by some
as "unconscious" because they don't agree? Again, I'll have to take your word for it. I'm just not
that familiar with the ongoing communications of disagreement.

Sometimes it's used to allow the poster to avoid either condemning others who act/believe in ways the poster judges offensive (since "father, they know not what they do") or to believe that if the group in question would only give some thought to the matter, they'd be in agreement after all.

I think that it's a positive step to find ways to avoid condemning people who act/believe in ways we may find offensive.
The feeling of being offended lies within.

That point of view seems self-indulgent to me, but not particularly offensive in itself. I would say that your qualifier "although it may not be conscious" fits that mold.

I really don't think that a point of view can be offensive in itself; it needs a receiver that views it that way. In thinking about it, any point of view is self indulgent in a way.

no, and I did try to make that clear too - I said "By the way, this is a general observation, I'm not just reacting to your response". You didn't single out any individual. Your post falls into my first category. kind hard to deny someone that right, isn't it???

Yes, and that's what's so great about this forum.

? "I think it's wise" is important. It doesn't mean that the assumption is valid. It means it's a good idea to treat that "they've taken the time to become conscious ..." as if it were true. That concedes credibility and dignity to those of opposing views. I think it's dismissive to make excuses, or assumptions, that they don't know their own minds. Simple as that.

And I'm glad that you hold people in a way that gives credibility and dignity to those of opposing views. Maybe after reading
this, more people will too.

sorry but I'll indulge in a little pedantry too. You're right, it should be phrased "the validity of the opinions..". Having an opinion isn't rejectable, you're right.

And everyone's opinion is valid, even if it's offensive to some.

well, it seems unfair to bail without answering that too, but frankly I was less moved to respond to the core idea of the post than to the use of what I find as an unfortunate Wacco cliche.

I'm going to be more aware of watching for this kind of thing, even though cliches are so popular and easy to use.

However, it seems easy to consider an individual's desire for privacy as a personality trait.

I never thought of it that way, although our personalities are formed by early experiences and programming.


There's a spectrum running from extreme introversion to extreme extroversion; though I don't have goods terms for the two ends of a spectrum that describes a person's desire for privacy, I think it's easy to see it as a similar but distinct spectrum. Some people who travel from a small community like ours to a place like New York find a kind of loneliness in the anonymity they find there. Others find it liberating to be alone and savor the experience. Some writers are happy to create private journals and diaries that are never shared, some people might sing to themselves as they hike alone. Others hunt to find ways to get their writing published, and love to perform in front of a group. People also have a sense of space. In some cultures, you'll find that the person you're speaking to will want to touch you and put their head very close (by American standards) to yours. Now that I've worked my way to that: limits to physical touching may be the easiest manifestation of the concept of privacy, since no-one grants unlimited rights for any other to touch them.

Well said. I hadn't thought about privacy in that way, but it makes sense.