adultery and the holodeck

[yovargas]

That’s way too clinical, but oh well. I think that I would be fine with a partner of mine trying such a room out, and I think I would be fine with trying it out myself, as long as we were both on the same page – i.e. had discussed the matter beforehand and were both comfortable with it. I would be pretty upset to find out that there had been holodecking going on without my knowledge, and I would consider it cheating if I holodecked without mentioning it beforehand. Now, if either of us felt the need to resort to this room on any sort of regular basis, I imagine that we would have questions about our sexual compatibility (or else, our interest in monogamy) to address.

That's exactly how I feel about it. Exactly. Saved me the trouble of having to type it myself.

[Cerin]

Re the Maypole, it may be that dancing around a pole in a field has to do with sex (fertility), but that isn't obvious by watching the movements of the dancers; whereas I contend that watching a pole dancer, one knows immediately that she and those she is dancing for have sex on their minds.

My point was that the may pole dance is so different in nature from the pole dance we're talking about, as to make the comparison less than useful. I'm happy to withdraw the word 'silly' if it gives offense.

[dirtnap]

My point was that the may pole dance is so different in nature from the pole dance we're talking about, as to make the comparison less than useful. I'm happy to withdraw the word 'silly' if it gives offense.[/quote]

Point taken, no offense at all. I didn't want to give the impression t hat the comparison was just arbitrary but I see the clumsiness of the comparison

[anthriel]

All that having been said, I wouldn't mind at all learning how to pole dance.

I would just have an audience of one.

[Alatar]

Not to osgiliate this further, but just because Morris Dancing and Maypole dancing are twee and unsuggestive now does not for one second mean that they were always so. They have simply been refined over the years into a folk dance. I would not be at all surprised to find that the original Maypole dances were rather more suggestive, at least according to the mores of the time.

[Angbasdil]

Well, we seem to have reached a fair amount of consensus on this issue. That's boring. Let me see if I can't fix that.

I used to wear a button on my denim jacket that summed up why I really don't like legalism. This button said, "How much can I get away with and still get into heaven?" Sure, we may start a technical discussion on the finer points of morality with the best of intentions. But, human nature being what it is, we all end up trying to figure out exactly how much we can get away with without quite doing something really wrong. Okay, I know I'm a bad person if I actually have sex with someone else, but what if it's not really a person but a hologram? What about pictures of nekkid people? Or Just flirting? Where is that line exactly, so I can put my toes right up against it. Do I have to actually step over the line, or does it count if I reach my hand across it? What if I just touch the edge of the line? This edge or the other edge? That line is at least a millimeter wide, and I need to know if that millimeter counts as the right side of the line or the wrong side. Because I want every little scrap of shallow carnal pleasure I can get while still maintaining this warm fuzzy feeling that I'm a good and moral person. Or maybe I'm the only one who ends up thinking that way. But I doubt it.

So I prefer to take a more comprehensive and pragmatic view of morality, focusing on the spirit and intent of the law rather than on the technical letter of the law. So let's start with a few questions. What is the purpose of monogamy anyway? And what is the purpose of sex (besides the obvious procreative purpose)?

I think most of us would agree that sex is (or at least should be) more than just a physical act. Ideally, sex is an emotional and spiritual union as well. It is an act of the heart more than of the genitals. And that level of spiritual intimacy is difficult. It takes time, effort and most especially, trust. The kind of trust that comes most easily (for most people) in the context of a longterm committed relationship. So if you want to have the best sex possible, you need to commit all of your romantic and sexual efforts and energies into this one relationship. It's choosing quality over quantity.

Looking at it this way, anything that diverts your romantic and/or sexual energies or efforts away from your partner counts as infidelity. Which makes sense, because if sex is an act of the heart, than infidelity must also be an act of the heart. This is what Jesus was getting at when He said that if you look at a woman with lust in your eyes, you have committed adultery in your heart. Yeah guys, I know we all do this - I do it too - but that's kinda the point. Strictly speaking, anything at all romantic or sexual that doesn't serve to deepen your relationship with your partner is adultery. Is this level of fidelity humanly possible? No, not really. But it's a good ideal to strive for.

Yes, I realize that this is a very broad view of adultery. But I take a broad view toward all sin. You want to know where the line between moral and immoral is exactly? It's all the way over there at "perfect", and you were born on the wrong side of it. Morality is not a state to be acheived, but rather an ideal towards which to strive, knowing that it is ultimately unattainable. And as bleak as this world view may be, it is offset by an even broader view of grace. For I believe in a compassionate and merciful God whose love is far far bigger than any sin I could ever commit. That knowledge frees me to strive towards that unattainable goal of perfection. Not because I'm afraid of being wrong, but because I want so badly to be right.

So does does holographic nookie count as adultery? Of course it does. That's why the idea is so appealling. It feels like cheating, but we can still tell ourselves that it isn't, really.

That, and the fact that you can program them holograms to be anybody.

edited for spelling

[Whistler]

This guy is good.

[yovargas]

We shoulda trained monkeys to type ages ago.

[Angbasdil]

Eventually, me and my infinite friends will do Shakespeare.

[Meneltarma]

What Ang said.


*swoons for Ang*

[Primula Baggins]

Eventually, me and my infinite friends will do Shakespeare.

You always say that, but the last complete Shakespeare you guys turned out had a typo in Act II of Coriolanus.

[Angbasdil]

Hey, let's see you type with your feet and not make typos.

[MithLuin]

Thank you, Ang. Something about the direction of this conversation was unsettling to me, and I think you've cleared up what it was. If you're asking, "How far is too far?" you've already gone too far! Run away! It's the wrong question.

I also think it is dangerous to think that the couple can define things however they want. Well, sure, they can. They can set their own rules. You can agree that the relationship isn't monogamous, or that some things are okay, while others aren't. But....you don't get to define human nature or sex...those kinda already exist, and they work a certain way. Thus, even if you both agreed that infidelity would be okay (thus making it not cheating), that doesn't mean that you won't hurt each other by having other relationships.

There was a CSI episode in which they were investigating a murder...which revealed a social gathering of suburbanites in which the couples would get together, swap partners, and have sex with the neighbor that evening. There were some "rules" in place to keep it all above-board... the affairs had to be limited to the parties (you couldn't take it outside that context), and you couldn't let any of the kids know about it. Well...do you think that worked? Do you think no one started ann affair that involved sneaking over some other day? Do you think they could hide everything so the kids wouldn't find out? (Or that keeping it secret prevented any problem?)

Things just don't work that way. Making such arificial 'rules' only lasts if everyone plays by them....and even if everyone does play nicely....can you really prevent hurt and damage? I do not think that wedding vows are artificially imposed rules - I think they are the natural order of things. I don't think people 'invented' marriage.

I also think that everyone should read the late John Paul II's 'Theology of the Body.'


As for the holodeck, they had a ST:TNG episode that dealt with this issue (well, kinda). Geordi had pulled up a routine diagnostic program to fix some technical difficulty....and she was kinda cute . He started "visiting" her, and maybe tweaked with the program a bit to make her act a bit sexier...she became his fantasy (they didn't imply anything about what kind of encounters he was having with her). Problem? She was based on a real engineer, who came to visit the ship for some reason. Because this is a TV show, the real person found her pornographic counterpart and was duly upset with him for acting that way.... I think it turned out she was already married, or something. Geordi realized the error of his ways and (I think) deleted the program. His character never had a decent romance, that I remember - oh well.

[yovargas]

But....you don't get to define human nature or sex...those kinda already exist, and they work a certain way.

I don't believe that those are universal and do believe that they can be different from person to person or relationship to relationship.

[MithLuin]

I think there are a myriad of variations, and I wasn't suggesting that I know all about human nature! But I also don't think that the couple's agreement will always 'make something true.'

[yovargas]

Ah, true, but, I think, that's mostly because people often don't know themselves as well as they think they do (or do what they know is best for them).

[Primula Baggins]

<geek>

I believe that in the series finale of ST:NG, Geordi was married to the real engineer.

</geek>

yov, there are individual exceptions to everything, but I'm with MithLuin that the traditional rules about fidelity are there for a reason*—that they can preserve most people from hurt, that they're a good match for most people's needs.


Edited for total syntactical meltdown

Edit again: *besides the fact that (I believe) they are morally right.

[yovargas]

But "traditional rules about fidelity" don't say anything about holodeck fantasy. Or internet porn. Or masturbation. Or probably other stuff I'm not gonna bother thinking about right now. To some people, those would be hurtful, to others they'd be nothing of worry.



(On a side note, "they can preserve most people from hurt" and "they are morally right" are IMO redundant statements in most any practical cases.)

[vison]

Sexual mores are culturally specific, although most human societies share some in common. Some are very, very different from what we think of as "moral", yet are "moral" by the standards of their place and time. (The Inuit of former days really did "share their wives" with strangers, for instance, shocking generations of explorers, missionaries and government officials.)

But I live in southern Canada and live by the rules I was brought up with and those rules include a prohibition on adultery. (I don't define "adultery" as "any sex outside the lawful and sanctioned sex between a man and a woman married to each other", I define adultery as a partner being unfaithful.)

I think holodeck sex would be cheating. It is perfectly possible that a partner could agree to it, perhaps even participate. These are decisions that are intensely personal, and I will admit the possibility that there are people who would be "fine" with it.

I wouldn't be.

Yes, I realize that this is a very broad view of adultery. But I take a broad view toward all sin. You want to know where the line between moral and immoral is exactly? It's all the way over there at "perfect", and you were born on the wrong side of it. Morality is not a state to be acheived, but rather an ideal towards which to strive, knowing that it is ultimately unattainable.

I think Angbasdil has two things mixed up here. I don't strive for perfection, myself. I want to do and be good -- moral -- yet have terrible difficulty in even imagining a "perfect" human being, never mind trying to be one myself. I think that to strive constantly for perfection, knowing it to be impossible, knowing that you are constantly failing, is self-destructive and wicked.

Why would anyone wish to live in a state of constant failure and guilt?

Since I don't believe in god, I can't see "sin" as either breaking god's commandments or wounding god by my bad behavior. I think it is "sin" to cause pain. That pretty well covers it.

(And I don't mean my dentist sinned when she drilled my tooth and hit a nerve.)

The old Maypole dance is being practiced by a bunch of kids right now about two miles from my house, as we "speak", in preparation for the Mayday celebration in our neighbourhood on Victoria Day. We combine May Day with Victoria Day now. It is a pretty dance to watch and quite difficult to learn and perform. Few people nowadays can teach it and I suppose it will soon have died out completely.

Maypole dancing was a fertility dance, yes. Pole dancing is not fertility dancing. The difference, as Cerin points out, makes the comparison silly.

[MithLuin]

Don't they?

I mean, yes, I realize you are not going to find a parable about the man who neglected his wife while surfing the web in the Bible

To quote Cardinal Arinze, if you do, "I will give you a donkey."

No system of morality covers all particular cases, any more than any system of law does.

But I do think that a traditional understanding of fidelity speaks volumes on the topic. What is the purpose of love and sex and marriage and human life? Answer that, and you'll have a pretty good idea on whether or not internet porn is a good idea .

And yes, I know the big questions are much harder to answer than the little questions, but it works out better that way. I'd rather follow a system of morality that works from a few basic universal principles that can be intrepreted in any new situation, rather than memorize a list of seemingly arbitrary rules about what is (or is not) okay.

The reason we like to think some things are okay (when they really, really aren't) is because it is more comfortable to declare things neutral so long as they aren't (seemingly) hurting anyone. But....that doesn't mean that all such things really are okay. This is all caught up in the Fall... if we knew what it is like to be Unfallen, things would be different. But we don't even know, we have no perspective on that. At least there is redemption....

A Christian understanding of what a man's relationship with his wife ought to be could be illuminated by this passage:

Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ also loved the church and gave Himself up for her, so that He might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word, that He might present to Himself the church in all her glory, having no spot or wrinkle or any such thing; but that she would be holy and blameless. So husbands ought also to love their own wives as their own bodies. He who loves his own wife loves himself; for no one ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, just as Christ also does the church, because we are members of His body. FOR THIS REASON A MAN SHALL LEAVE HIS FATHER AND MOTHER AND SHALL BE JOINED TO HIS WIFE, AND THE TWO SHALL BECOME ONE FLESH. This mystery is great; but I am speaking with reference to Christ and the church.
Nevertheless, each individual among you also is to love his own wife even as himself, and the wife must see to it that she respects her husband. Ephesians 5: 25-33

Hmmm, he has to be willing to die for me, doing everything in his power to help me become perfect; I have to respect him. I can live with that

And in case that isn't clear, there are always the rules:

• Therefore be imitators of God, as beloved children; and walk in love, just as Christ also loved you and gave Himself up for us, an offering and a sacrifice to God as a fragrant aroma. But immorality or any impurity or greed must not even be named among you, as is proper among saints; and there must be no filthiness and silly talk, or coarse jesting, which are not fitting, but rather giving of thanks. For this you know with certainty, that no immoral or impure person or covetous man, who is an idolater, has an inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and God. Ephesians 5: 1-5

Holodeck play-bunny compatible with that? I'm thinking....no. Porn of any sort? No, not really. Standards impossibly high? What Ang said.