When does self pleasure, become cheating

[Serpent]

Serpent,

Some relationships are ok with pornography and even flirting.

But IMO the point where it gets physical is when it becomes cheating, even if some couples are ok with it.

VR experience is just another version of TV.
It's just more in your face.

So then I think it fair to say "morally", couples who aren't ok with pornography, won't be ok with VR and vice versa.
But neither are cheating.

No act that falls within the confines of a contract can be cheating. To cheat means to break a rule that was known and agreed-to; it is the practice of deception to gain an illegitimate advantage of some kind.

But that's not what your last question was about.
It was about making a virtual copy of a real person and abusing it. I believe the phrase was "sex slave".
If that does "no harm" in your idea of a marriage bond, or in your idea of society, then so much harm has already been done that society that it's no longer viable anyway - in which case you would, of course, be correct.
The two mainstays of a social contract (as distinct from a business or legal one) is mutual trust and respect. The forms, distribution and expressions of those social glues may vary greatly: I can only respond in light of the mores with which I am familiar. In any social contract I know, if you debased your neighbour's wife - even if only in effigy, that couple would no longer be prepared to risk their own safety to rescue you from a flooded house, or share their bread with you in dire need.
To me, that seems like a lot more "harm done" than some trivial infidelity; hence the moral rejection.
(My personal repugnance is to the whole scenario: the desire for abusive sex; taking pleasure in the the humiliation of another person; the fantasy of doing this to a person of one's acquaintance; the surreptitious acquisition of that person's image and its objectification. I can't remotely imagine ever again being intimate - or in the same room with - someone who had done those things.)

As to what Dawkins thinks our "natural being" is, I couldn't comment. Seems to me civilization itself is so far from natural that whatever natural is, it doesn't affect civilized moralities very much.

[edy420]

Serpent,

Can you differentiate for me, fantasy and 3D virtualization.
I think of them as being the same thing, only instead of your brain doing the processing, a computer does it for you.

No act that falls within the confines of a contract can be cheating. To cheat means to break a rule that was known and agreed-to; it is the practice of deception to gain an illegitimate advantage of some kind.

Valid point.
In my first post, I said I'd talk with my wife first, before trying porn in VR.
But I don't like the idea of hacking my PS4, opening the door to viruses and account hacks etc.
I do agree, so long as the experience is discussed prior, and fine with both parties, then it is ok.

But that's not what your last question was about.
It was about making a virtual copy of a real person and abusing it. I believe the phrase was "sex slave".
If that does "no harm" in your idea of a marriage bond, or in your idea of society, then so much harm has already been done that society that it's no longer viable anyway - in which case you would, of course, be correct.

Im trying to figure out, just how much harm would be done.
The example I used was a guy who was caught using his VR to watch porn, and his partner lost the plot, slapping him and screaming.
My question is, was her reaction necessary or did she go too far?

Watching porn is a grey area for me.
Theres a common saying, its ok to look but don't touch.
If its not ok to look, then I cant watch any music videos post 2000s.
I have to close my eyes for 50% of T.V commercials.
Id need tunnel vision goggles when walking downtown, because some woman are hard not to notice.

The term I used was 3D virtual sex slave.
I'd equate the "abuse" of this title with watching a porn star, the experiences are similar.

The two mainstays of a social contract (as distinct from a business or legal one) is mutual trust and respect. The forms, distribution and expressions of those social glues may vary greatly: I can only respond in light of the mores with which I am familiar.

On a personal level, I'd agree with you here.
But looking at any society in general, trust and respect are replacement words for submission and fear.
This can be demonstrated in the example where some guy got caught using porn VR, and his partner turns aggressive.

In any social contract I know, if you debased your neighbour's wife - even if only in effigy, that couple would no longer be prepared to risk their own safety to rescue you from a flooded house, or share their bread with you in dire need.

If I'm honest, I'm guilty of fantasizing.
Sometimes just a flash of an idea, and other times more thought is put in, a fight with Wonderwoman for example..
Most I would never tell anyone.
Why would you tell your neighbor, if you fantasized/virtualized.

To me, that seems like a lot more "harm done" than some trivial infidelity; hence the moral rejection.
(My personal repugnance is to the whole scenario: the desire for abusive sex; taking pleasure in the the humiliation of another person; the fantasy of doing this to a person of one's acquaintance; the surreptitious acquisition of that person's image and its objectification. I can't remotely imagine ever again being intimate - or in the same room with - someone who had done those things.)

Interesting.
I don't understand why such a distaste for something that is seemingly harmless.
I hope to get to the bottom of this!

As to what Dawkins thinks our "natural being" is, I couldn't comment. Seems to me civilization itself is so far from natural that whatever natural is, it doesn't affect civilized moralities very much.

Its a wonderful thought, to think that we are more than animals.
But with all the police brutalities, wars, murders, gangs, etc etc etc... I think the term civilized is fraudulent.

[Serpent]

Serpent,

Can you differentiate for me, fantasy and 3D virtualization.
I think of them as being the same thing, only instead of your brain doing the processing, a computer does it for you.

Two differences stick out:
- in fantasy, you didn't have to do anything (thought only); in external processing, something had to be done in the real world (thought, followed by deed.)
- nobody else can see inside your head, while the contents of your computer may become public, and thus affect other people, in ways that neither you nor they can control.

In my first post, I said I'd talk with my wife first, before trying porn in VR.
But I don't like the idea of hacking my PS4, opening the door to viruses and account hacks etc.
I do agree, so long as the experience is discussed prior, and fine with both parties, then it is ok.

In any case, certainly not cheating. I thought that was covered adequately.

Im trying to figure out, just how much harm would be done.

By the neighbour's image sex-slave scenario? I explained that as best I could.

The example I used was a guy who was caught using his VR to watch porn, and his partner lost the plot, slapping him and screaming.
My question is, was her reaction necessary or did she go too far?

That would depend on the agreement - explicit and implicit - between the partners, as well as the nature of the pornography being watched.
An emotional reaction is rarely assessed for degree of necessity before it is expressed.

The term I used was 3D virtual sex slave.
I'd equate the "abuse" of this title with watching a porn star, the experiences are similar.

Then I'm not sure what you mean by "slave".
Even the most benign possible definition doesn't cover the use of a real person's image.

But looking at any society in general, trust and respect are replacement words for submission and fear.

I guess you can't harm such a society.

Why would you tell your neighbor, if you fantasized/virtualized.

Because imagined and programmed are not the same thing. See above.

Interesting.
I don't understand why such a distaste for something [abusive, demeaning, objectifying sex] that is seemingly harmless.

You don't need to. It's my personal attitude and we're not likely to be in a relationship.

[seems to me civilization itself is so far from natural that whatever natural is, it doesn't affect civilized moralities very much.]
Its a wonderful thought, to think that we are more than animals.
But with all the police brutalities, wars, murders, gangs, etc etc etc... I think the term civilized is fraudulent.

On the contrary: all those brutalities are the products of civilization, rather than natural animal behaviour. Civilized man has been lying about what civilization actually is, from the very beginning; his lies have become ever more complex and sophisticated over time, so that many words have taken on an Orwellian cast. For example, "civilized" really just means codified by laws; organized into speciliazied social classes; centrally governed - but is used as if it meant genteel and considerate. In fact, pre-civilized peoples are far more sensitive and polite to one another within their membership group - they have to be, or the group breaks down; the considerate behaviour is impelled. In civilized societies, the codified 'good' behaviour is compelled.
Harm can be done to either, but on different levels. In the pre-civilized, harm is always personal; in the civilized, anything that's not explicitly unlawful is relegated to the no-harm-done pile: small personal damages are discounted, since they don't threaten the power-structure.

[edy420]

I see your point now,

Then I'm not sure what you mean by "slave".
Even the most benign possible definition doesn't cover the use of a real person's image.

Lets apply this term to fantasy.
Rather than virtual sex slave, we have a fantasized sex slave.
I don't think either is more or less than the other, but I guess it is a sour term to use.

[edy420]

We decided to sell our VR and PS4s as I’ve quit my 30 year addiction to playing childish games!

I lied in the OP.
I decided to try VR porn, but I didn’t ask my wife first.
When I told her I had tried it, she didn’t mind as we sometimes watched porn together anyway but she did suspect me of using it multiple times.
I felt like I’d lost her trust, because it took a few times to convince her it was just the once.

To me, losing her trust for a few minutes, was painful.
I wish I did talk to her first, but we were fighting that night and I was up late by myself, thinking it’s my last opportunity to try it.

This was before turning Catholic.
We’ve since given up porn altogether and are learning how damaging any porn was to our relationship.

It really does come down to how your marriage is defined.
If it’s closed (or Catholic) then simply fantasising is a form of cheating.
If it’s open, then sleeping with the neighbor is acceptable(at least in the open relationship.)

The biggest problem with modern atheist relationships, is there are many types to choose from.
Some are open to bisexuality, multiple wives, porn, flirtatious attitudes etc etc.
It’s hard to actually define your relationship with regards to what is acceptable.
Being Catholic makes it easy understanding your relationships boundaries because they are already predetermined.

But for an atheist relationship, I can’t figure out how they’d come about building definitive rules to their relationship.
Perhaps food for thought in another thread.