Over at Slate.com, William Saletan uses the recent scandal involving Anthony Weiner to explore the propriety of online flirtation with people one has never met. Does this sort of activity constitute cheating on one’s significant other? Saletan offers a thoughtful and serious discussion that meshes well with another recurring question these days: to what extent are those Facebook “Friends” I’ve never met my friends? If not much, then it would seem that our time with them amounts to social masturbation, and not any meaningful expression of friendship.
In the case of Weiner, I do think it’s telling that that he claims that he was not cheating, and he was not engaged in “relationships,” yet he was willing to lie to cover up what he was doing. But maybe that raises another provocative question: Just because one would rather not be exposed for doing an activity, is that any evidence at all that the activity is morally wrong? Is social condemnation always an indicia of moral lapse. After all, quite often the crowd is simply judgmental. Or maybe the onlookers are simply permeated with schadenfreude.
I know people who have been married for decades who don’t talk to each other, and who don’t really know each other, yet they officially have a marriage. Why is this situation not condemned? Isn’t it a farce? On the other hand, I know many people who are married, who sincerely admit that they can’t and shouldn’t expect that they could have all of their diverse needs and interests met by only one other human being. Hence, in the face of a strong relationship at home, they have a wide variety of outside friends (often friends of both sexes) that they spend time with regarding those things their significant other isn’t passionate about, whether it be photography, history, raising dogs or whatever. Sometimes that interest is flirtation; sometimes even sex. I’m not suggesting any sort of lesson here, but what gives the crowd the right to judge a particular marriage that, in its own crazy-seeming way, seems to work?
And how could anyone concerned about this country not be dismayed, once again, when a sexually-tinged side show takes 90% of the media’s attention, such that real issues are not given proper coverage. Could this be solved by requiring members of Congress to stand up naked while they give speeches on important topics? How could we focus media attention on Wall Street corruption or the massive amount of money we spend of discretionary warmongering and, instead, encourage viewers to talk about these things intensely, to the same extent that we are all now jabbering about a horny man who has otherwise done an admirable job of being a thoughtful representative? I have no answer to this question.
I don't think of online relationships as "social masturbation" — they're just as real as meatspace relationships, which also have varying degrees of shallowness.
Chip: I agree that many people limit their Facebook "Friends" to people they really know, but there are quite a few people who revel in being "friends" with people they collect as purported proof of their own value.
As far as how many Friends people have on face book, The Economist offers this:
http://www.economist.com/node/13176775
Here's another bit about Robin Dunbar and Facebook, from All Facebook:
http://www.allfacebook.com/think-you-can-handle-o…
The St. Louis Post-Dispatch raises questions about media priorities:
http://www.stltoday.com/news/opinion/columns/the-…
I wish Will Saletan had also mentioned the flexibility and subjectivity of the term cheating. For some people, a kiss at a party is a violation of trust. For others, the line is having sex with someone else and not telling one's primary partner about it. For others, online correspondence is acceptable but in-person encounters are taboo. For others still, a degree of physical/sexual contact with a third party is OK as long as the partner is present. And all conceivable combinations exist- maybe certain sexual or flirtatious acts are 'cheating' while others are fine. Et cetera.
I'm not just talking about relationships that are sexually open versus closed; many monogamous couples have widely varying definitions of 'cheating'. And considering the prevalence of infidelity of one sort or another, unconsummated dick-pics seem utterly benign. Wives and husbands the world over have forgiven much worse.
Weiner's actions for me raise only one concern: that he was sending these sexts to women who weren't interested. If he were trading pics over an online dating site or Craigslist (which is so common as to render Craigslist nearly unusable for in-person encounters, I've heard), I'd see nothing wrong with his actions whatsoever. But sharing these shots with women out-of-the-blue, unprovoked seems like a creepy boundary violation, albeit minor.
One of my close friends joined one of those match websites and is doing well. I, for one, would be appalled if women just started sending me suggestive photos out of the blue.
Rachel Maddow is furious that the Democrats piled on to kick out Anthony Wiener:
"Congratulations, Democrats," she said. "In an era of unhinged, ideological, big money conservative media that is wholly and admittedly divorced from the precepts of journalism, in hounding Anthony Weiner into resigning … you have just fed and unleashed this beast onto yourselves, probably for a generation."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/06/17/rachel-m…
I didn’t quite know where to put this telephone sex worker video but I found it both funny and interesting. An Australian comedy show called two telephone sex workers and conferenced them together, not telling either of them that the other was a telephone sex worker. I have never before (really!) called such a service and found it interesting how the conversation opened up and progressed. This doesn’t actually even get R rated, and the segment is worth a laugh or two. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I_dy4HJ8_L8#t=95s
Here’s a well-written and thoughtful article on whether strict monogamy should be assumed to be an aspect over the full course of a marriage. This article, written by Mark Oppenheimer, focuses on the advice given over the years by sex guru Dan Savage.
What is Savage’s perspective on monogamy?
Savage recognizes that there is far more binding together a couple than sex. Therefore, extramarital sex should not necessarily be a deal-breaker, though it often is.
Oppenheimer does a great job of recapping many of Savage’s opinions, as well as adding his own thoughts to the mix.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/03/magazine/infidelity-will-keep-us-together.html?_r=1&pagewanted=all
A good deal of Savage’s attitude seems to be “If you’re going to have a picnic, clean up your mess afterward. If you’re not willing to do that, eat at home.” Behind the often hilarious way he writes, there is a grounded pragmatist at work who will not forgive those who seek only to have their own party at everyone else’s expense. Recall my post on this and that I said sex must be consensual, but consensual means a whole lot more than just two people saying yes.