Re: Slappy: I'm up for your challenge!
nimh wrote:Welcome to A2K, Kyrian. We're gettin' serious here! Great ;-)
Kyrian wrote:Your words: It (porn) doesn't mean he's cheating on you
On the contrary: if one defines adultery or cheating as being activity that one engages in outside of a committed relationship in order to procure emotional and/or sexual satisfaction, I submit to you that viewing porn passes the litmus test easily.
But that is
one scary-ass definition of adultery or cheating you got there! Every thing "one engages in outside of a committed relationship in order to procure emotional and/or sexual satisfaction" is cheating?
This is pretty much the logic that brought me into this (otherwise rather unattractive) discussion in the first place - I find it eerie, up to the point of veering into the controlling/abusive. Your partner is not to receive any "emotional satisfaction" away from you? What are you of each other, each other's property rather than two individuals who resolved to be with each other?
My point is if one
continuously seeks emotional and/or sexual satisifaction outside of the relationship
with the same venue (porn, in this case) then, yes, I believe it passes the definition for cheating. Let's not play this down to the level of reading a book or talking to a friend. After all, many here have harped that porn is just an indication that there is another problem in the relationship, not sex, right? So, if one seeks to have those meets met outside of the relationship, it's as much cheating as not. Since when is cheating defined solely through sexual action?
nimh wrote:
I am very happy indeed to have always found a degree of emotional satisfaction outside any relationship I had, in various healthy ways. A heart-to-heart talk with a good friend. A hug from a close colleague, when I felt upset about a project gone wrong. The chance to honestly talk about something that bothered me in my relationship with a friend who might give some sensible input from outside - or hell, could provide a little comfort if I'd had a fight or something.
Is any of that cheating? If you think so, my objections along the controlling-up-to-abusive line apply, IMHO. If you don't think so, fine - so, it means you need a different definition of cheating.
If you want to take out the word "emotional", fine by me. Who am I to split hairs. But, I'll bet that if your wife told you she was in love with someone else, even if she hadn't engaged in sexual activity with the other man, you'd still feel cheated on... :wink:
nimh wrote: If you go dancing (whether in a disco or on your local community ballroom dancing course), and the dancing heats you up a little inside and it's part of what has you extra fired up when you then make love with your man at night - have you cheated?).
There is sexual
arousal and there is sexual
satisfaction. Suffice it to say that I look at the latter as the end result of the former. Also, one can't usually predict sexual arousal on a regular basis. Unless, of course, they
plan the arousal which is exactly what porn permits.
nimh wrote:The thing we're talking about here, though, is not finding sexual satisfaction with someone else - there is noone there, no real-life contact with anyone (unlike, for example, in some erotic online chat). It's finding sexual satisfaction in your head. Whether you just close your eyes and fantasize about something, someone, and get off on that, or whether you look at the picture of a girl in a sexy ad and do the same, the sexual activity you're engaging in is one by yourself, of yourself, fired by your own imagination and fantasy.
I think I've already established that one can achieve sexual satisfaction without benefit of physical contact with another person. Therefore, saying that porn isn't cheating because there isn't physical contact with another person is moot. In the eyes and mind of the one who views porn, all the elements are there that
are necessary for sexual satisifaction to be achieved. If that weren't the case, why would men bother with porn at all? Physical contact is not a requirement so let's not treat porn as if it's exempt from the definition of cheating. It simply isn't.
nimh wrote:Do you ever masturbate? Do you ever think about someone-not-your-husband while doing so - Keanu Reeves, say, or the guy featured in that novel you were reading, or a random handsome man you saw walking past that day, or simply some fictitious guy who exists nowhere but in your fantasy?
Yes...and No, respectively. I've personally never felt the need to fantasize about another man. But, remember, women aren't as visual as men are, right? So, it shouldn't be surprising that many of us aren't dependent on that kind of image.[/quote]
nimh wrote:
Does one's vow of marriage extend to never ever thinking about anyone else while fantasising? If not, isn't there a double standard here that sets porn apart from any other form of sexual fantasy?
I don't know. Don't the vows say something about "forsaking all others"? You tell me.
nimh wrote: We've been talking about, like, Playboy here (I dont like it, but hey, thats the standard). How do children "suffer" as a result of Playboy? Are you equating something like Playboy with, say, kiddieporn? Wouldn't there be an essential difference in terms of consent, there?
Children suffer when the relationship between mom and dad suffers. When mom and dad are no longer intimate and loving toward one another, for any reason, bet your bottom dollar that the kids pay a price for that. If porn contributes to the breakdown of the marital relationship, then children can suffer from its effects.
nimh wrote: The one needs to sometimes just be able to dream away a bit into an (erotic) dimension that, for one moment, does not include wife, kids, work or household. And the other gets mighty insecure/hurt/suspicious if he does that, and needs him to stop. How does the need in marriage to "acknowledge that one is an extension of the other" equates necessarily with the conclusion that he'll just have to give up his emotional need to satisfy hers?
But, it's ok for HER to give up her emotional needs so that HIS are met? Same difference.
nimh wrote:Heh - who woulda thought - an actual serious discussion on this thread ... ;-)
Yes, and I thoroughly enjoyed your comments! Thank you!
) 
