When does self pleasure, become cheating

[edy420]

According to some, simply watching porn is cheating.
Self pleasuring is cheating in the eyes of God, but controversial to others.
Dishonesty is a part of cheating, but without another person involved, self pleasuring with the intent of hiding the fact from your partner is at worse, only dishonest.

With the advances in virtual reality and realistic sex toys, we can fool all our senses into believing we are really doing something.
I watched a video on Facebook where a woman caught her partner using virtual reality to watch porn, and she was quite upset.

At this point, is it still controversial, or is it officially cheating?

On a side note, I have virtual reality for PlayStation and the way it fools your senses is amazing.
Drifting a car, feels like your sliding sideways, and when your about to crash, you feel your body brace for impact.
Your tummy drops as you jump from 4 stories high, and you expect to feel the shock when you hit the ground.
Roller coaster rides are dizzying, and objects in front of you make you believe you can reach out and grab them.

Using virtual porn on PlayStation takes a bit of hacking, but I'd feel wrong trying it without talking to my partner first, even the I wouldn't feel right, hence the topic.

[Serpent]

It's not so much a question of cheating (by which I suppose you mean sexual infidelity) as of insulting. If the partner knows you need outside gratification, they must infer that sex with them failed to satisfy, is insufficient in quantity, quality, duration or variety: that they are falling short.
Fantasizing about someone else during sex has the same connotation.

Of course, it's all 'cheating' - falsifying, forgery; some alteration to the authentic experience - to some degree. It's not adultery unless another sexual partner is involved: at third degree, imagining and/or wishing that that other person were with you; at the second degree, using an image of that other person; in the first degree, being with that other person.

So, virtual sex would be second degree adultery. Discussing it with the real partner might make you feel honest and vindicated, but would be a first degree insult to the real partner. Inviting your partner to share in a virtual experience would be honest - and something of a risk to the relationship.

[Athena]

According to some, simply watching porn is cheating.
Self pleasuring is cheating in the eyes of God, but controversial to others.
Dishonesty is a part of cheating, but without another person involved, self pleasuring with the intent of hiding the fact from your partner is at worse, only dishonest.

My goodness, it takes a human to think that one up. Does it matter if the partner is gone for long periods of time? Are there exceptions to the rule that make masturbation acceptable? What if one just wants a lot of more sex than the other? It is a bodily function and I see no reason to make a big deal out of it.

However, having sex with another can lead to bonding and this might concern us.

Social interaction and bonding[edit] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-repro ... in_animals
Lions are known to engage in sex to create bonds and interact with each other. Lions live in a social group known as a pride that consists of 2-18 females and 1-7 males. The females found in these prides were born into the pride. The males enter the pride from other prides. The success of reproduction for each individual lion is dependent on the number of male lions found in their social group. Male lions create coalitions and search for prides to take over. Successful coalitions have usually created a strong bond with each other and will take over prides. Once winning in a competition, all current males in the pride will be kicked out and left to find another pride. While in search for another pride these males will often engage in sexual behavior with each other; creating a strong bond in this new coalition created.[7][8]
Sex is a basic form of communication in bonobos’ life. It seems to infuse everything from simple expressions of affection to the establishment of dominance. Female bonobos have been observed to engage in sexual activities to create bonds with dominant bonobos. Having created this bond with the male, they will share food with each other and not compete with each other.[1] All members of the group are potential sex partners, males participate in sexual activity with other males, as do females with other females. These bonds made between females are for protection against male bonobos. If a male bonobo attempts to harass a female bonobo, the other females will help the female defend herself because of the strong bonds they have with each other.[9]

[Serpent]

I never thought of bonding with a virtual or fictional character. Of course, it happens in movies and probably does in real life, as well. That'd be a monkey-wrench!

[edy420]

Bonding with A.I is possible

[someguy1]

Bonding with A.I is possible

Yes but will it respect you in the morning ... in the morning ... in the morning ...

[Dave_Oblad]

Hi all,

We already have many instances of people bonding with their Robotic Pets. Someday, not long from now, AI will be somewhat commonplace and you can buy a customizable Mate Program. Design your perfect soul mate from trait settings and pseudo background choices. Gamers already do this for their personal Avatars.

The sad part is the physical separation from your idealized mate.. but never fear.. New Models of articulated Robots (stemming from a robust Sex Robot Market) will become available. So then you and your ideal AI Mate can shop for the perfect body you both want. Then upload your AI mate into said robot and now you can get Physical.

But do you own your Mate.. since you paid for everything? What rights do such a created Mate possess? What if you cheat on it or it cheats on you? Are you allowed to Kill your Robotic Mate? Or Sell it?

Many would say this is just Science Fiction fantasy and not to worry about such. Those people have their heads stuck deep under the sand and need some light brought into their lives before it's too Late.

We need to start thinking "Now" about the ethics we will soon face in regards to AI, Robots and Androids. Had we been a bit less stupid, perhaps plane hijackings would never have been an issue.

Sorry, didn't mean to hijack your thread. So back on topic.. both my Wife and I enjoyed porn. Was a definite pleasurable asset in our married/sex lives.

Best wishes,
Dave :^)

[someguy1]

both my Wife and I enjoyed porn.

Dave, You are the king of TMI!!

But this is an interesting question. When a person forms an erotic bond with an inanimate object, we call that a fetish or a paraphilia. Isn't forming an erotic bond with a chatbot pretty much the same? Or if different, in what ways?

[wolfhnd]

In general I would agree with Serpent that there is no particular reason to single out masturbation as an instance of being unfaithful. The reason that having some sex with someone other than your partner is considered a more serious infraction than fantasy are the practical ramifications. Marriage as an institution should primarily be about the nurturing of children. Sex is about reproduction first and relationships second. In this age of gender fluid norms and sexual liberation it is easy to forget that the instinct we call love has a biological purpose.

The genders have different instincts and different reproductive strategies. The male to some extent "benefits" by having sex with as many females as possible. The female reproductive strategy is more complicated. For the female having sex with an alpha male for fertilization and having a good provider beta male as a partner is an ultimate strategy. Cheating in other words is good for the species. One need only consider humans having an intermediate levels of sperm competition most likely are not entirely monogamous in terms of instinctual evolution.

What is good for the species is not likely to be good for you. Evolution works at population levels not that of the individual. It is also true that instincts and culture are unlikely to have an optimized relationship. In other words if happiness is your goal it may not be a good idea to follow your instincts. For example how many alpha males do you know that live a happy life.

Social institutions are in place to diminish the destructive forces of the dominance hierarchy for males and to insure paternity females are expected to be faithful. Keeping in mind that life is not fair nor purposefully in the abstract sense our ideals about relationships are unlikely to coincide with physical reality. We do the best we can to meet the needs of our biology, culture and psychological imperatives. If you have a partner that expects perfection you most likely will not be happy when reality raises it's ugly head.

Masturbation is an imperfect solution to a complex problem. The alternatives however are likely to be worse. Western philosophy has been poisoned by the idea of perfect abstractions. While it may be true that perfection is only possible in the abstract that doesn't mean that pursuing abstract solutions will make the world a perfect place.

If you resent your partner masturbating ask yourself what the alternatives are. Everyone may have a different answer but in general unless it interferes with normal sexual relations it seems better than the alternatives.

[Serpent]

Masturbation is not a problem, though it - usually - ought to be a private matter, not a subject of discussion between partners, because people do have different emotional reactions and what they say in an unguarded moment may become a point of contention or a snowball of hurt feelings and recriminations.

But that's not what Dave is talking about. He's talking about a surrogate partner; one that's better that's more nearly ideal than the real person one had to 'settle for' - or at least, that's how a great many spouses of any sex would see it. There is no way I'd stand for my SO having one of those - whatever its rights were! Nor would I ever subject someone I loved to the humiliation of being displaced by a robot, or a virtual fantasy caricature; even if I should dream about a movie star, I'd have the courtesy to refrain from mentioning it at breakfast.

Long-term human pairings are about so much more than sex, but that's exactly why they are complicated. We are a long-lived species with a relatively short reproductive phase, so we invest heavily in partnerships. Not just for the rearing of young, but for navigating society, surviving vicissitudes, succeeding in endeavours; mutual support and defense; getting by, getting through. Not everyone is suited to mating for life, but for those who do, an awful lot of trust and ego and effort and time is on the line. The bonds can sometimes be fragile - just like the people involved.

I don't think the external ethics are particularly important in this matter - what God frowns upon, what Plato said, what the law opines - it's too personal for them to know what's right in each case.
If your long-time companion thinks it's cheating and would feel hurt, angry, insecure or insulted - don't do it. If you've already done it, stop - and don't talk about it.

[wolfhnd]

I think it would be a mistake to think that pair bonding is about more than sex. Here we are not talking about the sex act but the biological roots.

Sex exists for reproduction which is easy to forget because the complexity of biological evolution and the disconnect between instincts and cognition. Pair bounding itself is a reproductive strategy. The fact that sex is culturally elaborated tells us little about sex and a lot about culture. As society becomes more complex cultural adaptations may even add to the apparent disconnect between reproduction and pair bonding.

No one should need reminding how powerful sexual instincts are. The way the ego interprets those instincts can easily become dysfunctional. The fact that we do not have enough information to definitively examine our own instincts or understand their origins should not prevent us from recognising instincts are the seed from which consciousness grows. If our egos are fragile it is because we fail to understand that our purpose is super imposed on physical reality.

Emotionally we can become like a salmon swimming up stream to spawn and die. Our conscious mind unaware of biological imperatives that put biological imperatives for the species ahead of what is best for us. The answer is not to double down on the ego's interpretation of the instinct but to accept both our physiological and intellectual limitations not only for ourselves but others.

The third piece of the puzzle is the culture in which the ego grows out of it's instinctual origins. It would be easy to believe that culture is layered on top of instinct and ego. The evidence is however that culture unable the evolution of a brain that could contemplate itself. Culture and physical reality are thus so entwined that they could never be unraveled. We seek pair bonds for physiological, psychological and cultural reasons. We cannot be masters of these forces but can to the extent we have free will minimize both internal and external conflict. In recognizing the roles that all three play we can minimize the suffering we inflict not only on ourselves but others.

We don't want to become slaves to our instincts or our egos or societal standards. All things in moderation including how we act out our commitment to people we love. If masturbation makes you even tempered then it can be an act of compassion for the people around you. There is nothing more toxic or subliminal than pent up resentment. Suppression of normal urges is a dangerous thing to play with. Don't be fooled into thinking that unnecessary suffering is noble.

[Athena]

Hi all,

We already have many instances of people bonding with their Robotic Pets. Someday, not long from now, AI will be somewhat commonplace and you can buy a customizable Mate Program. Design your perfect soul mate from trait settings and pseudo background choices. Gamers already do this for their personal Avatars.

The sad part is the physical separation from your idealized mate.. but never fear.. New Models of articulated Robots (stemming from a robust Sex Robot Market) will become available. So then you and your ideal AI Mate can shop for the perfect body you both want. Then upload your AI mate into said robot and now you can get Physical.

But do you own your Mate.. since you paid for everything? What rights do such a created Mate possess? What if you cheat on it or it cheats on you? Are you allowed to Kill your Robotic Mate? Or Sell it?

Many would say this is just Science Fiction fantasy and not to worry about such. Those people have their heads stuck deep under the sand and need some light brought into their lives before it's too Late.

We need to start thinking "Now" about the ethics we will soon face in regards to AI, Robots and Androids. Had we been a bit less stupid, perhaps plane hijackings would never have been an issue.

Sorry, didn't mean to hijack your thread. So back on topic.. both my Wife and I enjoyed porn. Was a definite pleasurable asset in our married/sex lives.

Best wishes,
Dave :^)

Don't worry Dave, humans survived thousands of years without ethics, and I don't think adding IA to our lives will be more demanding of ethics than our last several thousand years, when women and children were as property and to some capitalist/industrialist we are all exploitable. I have heard rumors in non industrialized countries women are still as slaves to the men. But I don't know if being a single Mom in an industrialized country is a whole lot better for women trying to support a family on low wages.

[Braininvat]

Really like Serpent's observations on partners working out what's right for them, without too much invocation of cultural norms and ethical rules. Some couples may feel that masturbation draws energy away from sex, others may feel that it enhances sex. Truly a YMMV situation, seems to me. As a general guideline, I've found it useful to view touch as a basic human need and sexual activity is just one category of that. My impression has been that many people have sex more for the cuddling and caressing than the "happy ending." I've gone so far as to wonder what proportion of our sexual drive is really just wanting to be touched, but in a highly sexualized culture we are trained to interpret that yearning as always about getting laid.

21 year old me would not have written the above posting. :-)

[wolfhnd]

Really like Serpent's observations on partners working out what's right for them, without too much invocation of cultural norms and ethical rules. Some couples may feel that masturbation draws energy away from sex, others may feel that it enhances sex. Truly a YMMV situation, seems to me. As a general guideline, I've found it useful to view touch as a basic human need and sexual activity is just one category of that. My impression has been that many people have sex more for the cuddling and caressing than the "happy ending." I've gone so far as to wonder what proportion of our sexual drive is really just wanting to be touched, but in a highly sexualized culture we are trained to interpret that yearning as always about getting laid.

21 year old me would not have written the above posting. :-)

We have gone down the whatever consenting adults want to do road and people are still not happy. The sexual revolution resolved some of the neuroticism of the Victorian era but created new problems. As I said it is question of taking into consideration all three relevant drivers, the physical, psychological, and social. The sticky issue is how the lower half of the IQ range seems to be missing out on long-term happy sexual relationships.

[Athena]

Really like Serpent's observations on partners working out what's right for them, without too much invocation of cultural norms and ethical rules. Some couples may feel that masturbation draws energy away from sex, others may feel that it enhances sex. Truly a YMMV situation, seems to me. As a general guideline, I've found it useful to view touch as a basic human need and sexual activity is just one category of that. My impression has been that many people have sex more for the cuddling and caressing than the "happy ending." I've gone so far as to wonder what proportion of our sexual drive is really just wanting to be touched, but in a highly sexualized culture we are trained to interpret that yearning as always about getting laid.

21 year old me would not have written the above posting. :-)

We have gone down the whatever consenting adults want to do road and people are still not happy. The sexual revolution resolved some of the neuroticism of the Victorian era but created new problems. As I said it is question of taking into consideration all three relevant drivers, the physical, psychological, and social. The sticky issue is how the lower half of the IQ range seems to be missing out on long-term happy sexual relationships.

We once had a notion of family duties and in China where Confucius was strong on family duties, sex and love were not always seen as the same thing. In fact, during the Victorian period, women got circumcised if they liked sex. In the 1933 book "Eugenics and Sex Harmony" by Herman H. Rubin, M.D. argues in favor of teaching birth control to wives, saying this would increase mortality because then they would stop sending their husbands to prostitutes. Before we had birth control, and penicillin, women had good reasons for avoiding sex. Being okay with a man relieving himself with another woman, was also a stress reducer for women. So when writing about China Tom Doctoroff says...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/tom-doctoroff/sex-in-china-prurience-an_b_524499.html

Wives often turn a blind eye to sexual activities outside the home as long as they pose no threat to cohesion. Tolerance, of course, varies but women, more often than not, endure philandering spouses so long as dedication to family is not in question. They grin and bear an hour with a prostitute or a trip to the massage parlor. A mistress - i.e., a de facto threat to solidarity — is more likely to be a deal breaker, but not necessarily so. According to Xu Xinjin, the owner of marital-advice hotline, divorce due to extramarital affairs is still relatively uncommon. Many go on for years because no one wants to hurt the family’s only child. Yes, the number of men — and women - tempted into “dangerous liaisons” is on the rise. But those who have them, particularly after a child is born, are scorned by society, shamed by family and friends. (Twenty years ago, they would be demoted at work.)

[wolfhnd]

Really like Serpent's observations on partners working out what's right for them, without too much invocation of cultural norms and ethical rules. Some couples may feel that masturbation draws energy away from sex, others may feel that it enhances sex. Truly a YMMV situation, seems to me. As a general guideline, I've found it useful to view touch as a basic human need and sexual activity is just one category of that. My impression has been that many people have sex more for the cuddling and caressing than the "happy ending." I've gone so far as to wonder what proportion of our sexual drive is really just wanting to be touched, but in a highly sexualized culture we are trained to interpret that yearning as always about getting laid.

21 year old me would not have written the above posting. :-)

We have gone down the whatever consenting adults want to do road and people are still not happy. The sexual revolution resolved some of the neuroticism of the Victorian era but created new problems. As I said it is question of taking into consideration all three relevant drivers, the physical, psychological, and social. The sticky issue is how the lower half of the IQ range seems to be missing out on long-term happy sexual relationships.

We once had a notion of family duties and in China where Confucius was strong on family duties, sex and love were not always seen as the same thing. In fact, during the Victorian period, women got circumcised if they liked sex. In the 1933 book "Eugenics and Sex Harmony" by Herman H. Rubin, M.D. argues in favor of teaching birth control to wives, saying this would increase mortality because then they would stop sending their husbands to prostitutes. Before we had birth control, and penicillin, women had good reasons for avoiding sex. Being okay with a man relieving himself with another woman, was also a stress reducer for women. So when writing about China Tom Doctoroff says...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/tom-doctoroff/sex-in-china-prurience-an_b_524499.html

Wives often turn a blind eye to sexual activities outside the home as long as they pose no threat to cohesion. Tolerance, of course, varies but women, more often than not, endure philandering spouses so long as dedication to family is not in question. They grin and bear an hour with a prostitute or a trip to the massage parlor. A mistress - i.e., a de facto threat to solidarity — is more likely to be a deal breaker, but not necessarily so. According to Xu Xinjin, the owner of marital-advice hotline, divorce due to extramarital affairs is still relatively uncommon. Many go on for years because no one wants to hurt the family’s only child. Yes, the number of men — and women - tempted into “dangerous liaisons” is on the rise. But those who have them, particularly after a child is born, are scorned by society, shamed by family and friends. (Twenty years ago, they would be demoted at work.)

I think you could make a good case that humans are happiest in the aggregate during the pursuit of "duties" given adequate material resources and short periods of relaxation. A social species requires a social structure.

[Serpent]

The sticky issue is how the lower half of the IQ range seems to be missing out on long-term happy sexual relationships.

How do you know they are? I'm not doubting, just asking where the information comes from.
Seems to me there must be approximately the same number of eligible individuals of each sex and orientation in every percentile. It's longer odds for people on the skinny ends of the Bell curve to find a compatible partner, because fewer of them are scattered through the population.

So, if people of median and below average intelligence have difficulty with lasting marital bliss, I would imagine the reason is neither sexual nor psychological, but economic and perhaps cultural. Since both persons and partnerships have a finite capacity to withstand stress, I would look for the causes of stress - on adolescents, couples and families.

[wolfhnd]

The sticky issue is how the lower half of the IQ range seems to be missing out on long-term happy sexual relationships.

How do you know they are? I'm not doubting, just asking where the information comes from.
Seems to me there must be approximately the same number of eligible individuals of each sex and orientation in every percentile. It's longer odds for people on the skinny ends of the Bell curve to find a compatible partner, because fewer of them are scattered through the population.

So, if people of median and below average intelligence have difficulty with lasting marital bliss, I would imagine the reason is neither sexual nor psychological, but economic and perhaps cultural. Since both persons and partnerships have a finite capacity to withstand stress, I would look for the causes of stress - on adolescents, couples and families.

Did you consider that people who have trouble with delayed gratification may have difficulty with finance and relationships. You may also want to consider how stressful a career is.

The relationship between poverty and successful marriage at least historically muddies the water a bit. In 1960 22 percent of black children were born to single moms in 2006 the percentage had risen to 65 percent. Figures for other impoverished groups are similar.

Blaming poverty an ignoring social devolution is the easy way out.

People with higher IQs I would argue were able to negotiate the pit falls of the sexual revolution and drug culture introduced in the 60s more successfully than those less gifted. Economic incentives in fact would seem to dictate a more conservative life style for those with lower earning potential if they had the wisdom to predict consequences.

[Serpent]

Did you consider that people who have trouble with delayed gratification may have difficulty with finance and relationships.

No, I didn't consider that trait to be linked to IQ. Is it? Because, then, we have the whole other problem of figuring out why lower IQ is related to religiosity, and all the shalt nots that entails.

You may also want to consider how stressful a career is.

Yes, of course, that's one of the main sources of stress on a marriage. Which career? How many per household? (Lots of divorce in two-career households; lots of infidelity in single career households. Fun fact: the first dirty book I ever read was titled "Sin in the Suburbs" - a disappointingly uninformative litany of quickies between career men and the housewives next door. That was in the late 50's) There are some variables and unknowns at every income level.
Of course, I'm not sure what specifics to infer from this comment - there are several interpretations, and I don't want to leap to the most facile conclusion.

The relationship between poverty and successful marriage at least historically muddies the water a bit.

What range of history? Europe, c 1500? Medieval Japan? Where? When? How many?

In 1960 22 percent of black children were born to single moms in 2006 the percentage had risen to 65 percent.

Globally, or just in the USA? Because the socio-economic factors vary considerably. So do circumstances.

Figures for other impoverished groups are similar.

How closely are these figures related to unemployment, incarceration, educational opportunities, common-law status and welfare rules?

Blaming poverty an ignoring social devolution is the easy way out.

There is no way out. Situations exist and have to be dealt-with. Looking at all the factors for which we have data is the only way to address any situation. Blaming is rarely the most productive approach.

People with higher IQs I would argue were able to negotiate the pit falls of the sexual revolution and drug culture introduced in the 60s more successfully than those less gifted.

You couldn't prove it by the rate at which my percentile self-medicates. The famous 60's cultures were brief and restricted to a small minority of the 17-25 age group. I don't see that it made any lasting impression on any society - except for bringing sex into the open. We didn't invent it - we just did it in the road - for about five years. Then we got clean, got degrees, suits, bank accounts and marriage licenses.
The only lasting change we can take credit for is more liberal birth control laws.* (I sincerely hope you're not saying more marriages would last longer if working-class women had to get pregnant every Saturday night.)

Economic incentives in fact would seem to dictate a more conservative life style for those with lower earning potential if they had the wisdom to predict consequences.

More conservative than what? Than Alfred Doolittle? Than clever people? Than 1850?

*And wheelchair ramps. I'm claiming that one.

[wolfhnd]

You see blaming poverty as the rational explanation for crime and broken families I see as an excuse. Not just as an excuse for the behavior of the less fortunate but as an excuse to throw money at societies problems and not having to deal with the spiritual sickness. If Frederick Nietzsche could predict the societal issues that the "death of god" would induce almost two hundred years ago you should be able to see them as they unfold around you.

[wolfhnd]

Serpent. "More conservative than what? Than Alfred Doolittle?"

I don't mean politically conservative. I mean using the resources available to you with the maximum efficiency. If you are unable to predict the consequences of not delaying gratification your life will be a mess.

[wolfhnd]

This thread has obviously gone astray but the issue of self control is remotely relevant.

Pornography and masturbation as an alternative to healthy relationships is a somewhat common theme for discussion today. There is even a growing fetish involving sex dolls in Japan perhaps culminating in the recent marriage of one man to his doll. There is also the MGTOW phenomenon. The issue of IQ and reduced stability in marriage. While poverty was suggested as an explanation for the last issue I suggested a common thread. The break down of traditional moral standards and the inability of many of societies members to recognize the necessity or at least the benefits of delayed gratification.

I want to address the poverty explanation first in more detail. From a cultural perspective poverty is relative. While there are some exceptions absolute poverty is rapidly disappearing world wide and has almost been eliminated in the first world. The consequences of relative poverty and it's effect on social cohesion I don't discount but wish to leave for future discussion.

I want to first focus on what we can observe in societies where poverty could be said to be a way of life. I'm referring to the few remaining hunter gather societies found in places such as the Amazon Rainforest.

By any comparative standard hunter gathers are materially impoverished. Yet studies have shown that happiness is not a commodity relatively lacking in these societies. What they lack in material wealth they make up for in tribal bonds and mutual commitment. In societies lacking material wealth commitment to societal duty, and conservation based on foresight are not abstract moral obligations but a matter of necessity. Contact with materially wealthy cultures almost always leads to moral decay.

The conclusion that can be drawn is that moral decay does not result from poverty but from the break down in bonds within society. Humans are not ants who mechanically carry out their social duties. Free will is a double edged sword. It can be used for good or evil.

Increasing our society has eliminated the necessity of commitment to duty, what could be called Roman virtue. More and more people are finding that they cannot compete for a shrinking number of employment opportunities. At the same time the welfare state offers an easy alternative to being a productive member of society.

It is not surprising that a society that fosters alienation of classes and places no demands on it citizens is becoming increasingly unhappy. Having no place in the societal structure and having no commitment to that structure could be expected to make a social animal unhappy. Worst still for those unable to predict the consequences of their actions a structureless social fabric is devastating.

[Serpent]

You see blaming poverty as the rational explanation for crime and broken families

Why do you think that's what I see? And how did crime suddenly get in here?
A socio-economic structure is structure - not a single naked datum.
However, on one hand, I admit that poor men are far less likely to cheat with an android than rich men are (unless the houseboy runs off with the mechanical "maid"). They have more access to pornographic movies. Unfortunately, many of these are violent, which may or may not influence their subsequent actions and attitudes toward their spouses.

I see as an excuse.

For what? Masturbation? Prostitution? Wives taking off, rather than take another legally sanctioned assault? The decline in shotgun weddings? Deserting husbands, deadbeat fathers?
The deserving and undeserving poor we have always with us, at least since Victorian times. Hence the mention of Alfred Doolittle and his observations on middle-class morality.
Presumably, the deserving ones are the church-goers I mentioned earlier, who demand chastity vows from teenagers and beat their daughter if they catch her with a boy (Better than strangling or stabbing, I suppose; it's harder to be a fundamentalist Muslim. But their wives can't leave them, so that's okay.)

[Serpent]

I don't mean politically conservative. I mean using the resources available to you with the maximum efficiency. If you are unable to predict the consequences of not delaying gratification your life will be a mess.

If you can predict, and figure you can afford gratifications; either buy whatever you want or hire someone to get you out of the consequences, your life will still be a mess, but in a nicer house where everyone can't see it.

Seems to me, the person with big resources needs to practise less delay in gratification, less efficiency in every aspect of their deployment and less conservative planning than someone with small resources, who will not only be held to a higher standard of self-discipline, but also be dealt more severe punishments for failing to meet that standard. A tilted yardstick for an unlevel playing field.

[Serpent]

The issue of IQ and reduced stability in marriage. While poverty was suggested as an explanation for the last issue I suggested a common thread.

I still haven't seen any correlation between IQ and marriage stability.
And poverty was not suggested as an explanation. I suggested looking at the stresses in people's lives. Unemployment has a far greater impact on family life than simply not having enough money. It entails a whole c-f of psychological damage, altered personal dynamics, living conditions, children's environment, a demands and adaptations for which people may not have the material or emotional resources. Smart people don't cope all that well with sudden loss of income and status, either.

The break down of traditional moral standards and the inability of many of societies members to recognize the necessity or at least the benefits of delayed gratification.

I'm cognizant of the theme. I don't see the thesis proven. Nor do I see it proven that "traditional moral standards" fostered better marriages. Sure, lots of people were stuck in a union for life - but is long, silent suffering really the best foundation? Cannot stability be achieved with less pain?

The consequences of relative poverty and it's effect on social cohesion I don't discount but wish to leave for future discussion.

But absolute poverty was never in this discussion, except as you keep dragging it across the path to confuse the stress-hounds. Disparity is certainly an issue in economic structures. So is economic volatility, insecurity, disappearing work, disappearing occupations, disappearing pensions and savings; crumbling urban infrastructure, schools and neighbourhoods; so are selective policing and incarceration; the difficulty of finding work after incarceration, so are drugs, guns, gambling, street-crime and whom they target; physical crowding; popular culture; the altered family dynamics of service jobs that preferentially hire women and adolescents; the low expectations of youth; welfare regulations that discriminate against families with fathers in residence; legal loansharking, church, blame, incendiary politics, hypocrisy and lies.
An unstable social structure won't promote stable relationships.

In societies lacking material wealth commitment to societal duty, and conservation based on foresight are not abstract moral obligations but a matter of necessity. Contact with materially wealthy cultures almost always leads to moral decay.

"Contact" of that kind is usually followed by the wealthy society carting off the poor society's resources in exchange for missions. Moral decay in indigenous populations can be attributed directly to the almighty triad: Capitalism, Christianity and superior firepower.

The conclusion that can be drawn is that moral decay does not result from poverty but from the break down in bonds within society. ... More and more people are finding that they cannot compete for a shrinking number of employment opportunities.

But that's what I said in the first place!

At the same time the welfare state offers an easy alternative to being a productive member of society.

Have you tried it? Not all that easy! And if you are categorically denied productive membership, what are the alternatives?

It is not surprising that a society that fosters alienation of classes and places no demands on it citizens is becoming increasingly unhappy. Having no place in the societal structure and having no commitment to that structure could be expected to make a social animal unhappy. Worst still for those unable to predict the consequences of their actions a structureless social fabric is devastating.

How the hell can anyone predict the consequences of their actions in a structureless social fabric?
And just how are unemployed working-class people of average IQ supposed to restructure a broken society? The guy who broke it sailed off on a beautiful white yacht, with his fourth-generation decorative wife on deck, caskets of jewels and robotic mistresses in the hold.

[Athena]

[quote="wolfhnd » July 18th, 2017, 4:11 pm

I think you could make a good case that humans are happiest in the aggregate during the pursuit of "duties" given adequate material resources and short periods of relaxation. A social species requires a social structure.[/quote]

I do not think everyone agrees with what you said but for me, I rather live with a sense of duty than not. I am not sure if we all desire to live with a sense of duty but I am studying ancient civilizations at the moment and all civilizations functioned around a sense of duty. The great pyramids are only one example of citizens performing their duty to the collective. Such acts were inspired by a notion of god rulers but Athens began toying with logos (reason, the controlling force of the universe) and the US is the manifestation of this line of reasoning, however, our culture now appears to be in decline. I am not sure if liberal education could correct this problem or not, but I think that is the only chance we have of defending our democracy from mindless consumerism and corporate oligarchy, and apathy, and feelings of worthlessness and powerlessness, demanding we stay in the rat race running faster and faster, but not feeling the happiness of the good life of which Aristotle spoke.

Smile, we could argue today's self-pleasure is cheating our democracy and future generations and this is not sustainable. I know this is as a shift in the OP but really is it so different? When we start cheating, how do we feel and what concerns us? Here is a reason for not cheating..

No man's feelings were ever hurt by doing his duty. -On the contrary, one good action, one temptation resisted and overcome, one sacrifice of desire or interest purely for conscience's sake, will prove a cordial for weak and low spirits far beyond what either indulgence, or diversion, or company can do for them. Paley

In short, to not cheat is to be virtuous and to be virtuous is to have a strong character and we are foolish to not honor and follow those with virtues and strong character, so there is also a social and possible financial benefit to being virtuous. Today, I don't expect much agreement with the quote and my line of reasoning so I will return to "our culture now appears to be in decline". In fact, some may say we are in a race to the bottom.

To be more on topic when I lived with a younger man who was into role playing with his friends, he was the king and I was the queen because I owned the house and had money. Everyone wanted to sleep with the queen, but doing so would have diminished the status of the king, and that in turn would have diminished my own status. Nothing was worth diminishing our status as king and queen.

[Athena]

How the hell can anyone predict the consequences of their actions in a structureless social fabric?
And just how are unemployed working-class people of average IQ supposed to restructure a broken society? The guy who broke it sailed off on a beautiful white yacht, with his fourth-generation decorative wife on deck, caskets of jewels and robotic mistresses in the hold.
Serpent
Resident Member

Posts: 2311
Joined: 24 Dec 2011

How in hell can anyone predict the consequences of their actions? This is done through the powers of reason and it is because we have the powers of reason that we have democracy. Also is there any doubt how I will react if someone disrespects me? There is a direct relationship between respect, liberty, and equality and education is how to establish a culture that makes liberty possible and raises the human potential for all to achieve their potential and enjoy the happiness of which Aristotle and Jefferson spoke.

Unfortunately, education for technology has left the masses ignorant and we are suffering from that ignorance.

[Serpent]

[How the hell can anyone predict the consequences of their actions in a structureless social fabric?]


How in hell can anyone predict the consequences of their actions? This is done through the powers of reason and it is because we have the powers of reason that we have democracy. Also is there any doubt how I will react if someone disrespects me? There is a direct relationship between respect, liberty, and equality and education is how to establish a culture that makes liberty possible and raises the human potential for all to achieve their potential and enjoy the happiness of which Aristotle and Jefferson spoke.

All this may be so, but non-sequitur to my comment. In order to reason out a probable scenario, you need more than intelligence. You need some landmarks: constants that will still be in operation two weeks from now. When a social fabric is unraveling or being rewoven, there are no such constants. The consequences of your actions may well be beyond your control - or even any control at all. Your resources already are at the mercy of other people, can be bulldozed, seized or rendered worthless with a single stamp thumped onto a document you're not allowed to read, in a city you can't afford to visit. Your options as presented one month may have closed by the time you prepare to implement a plan.
Doors slam; bridges go up in smoke.

Anyway, until see compelling evidence, I still take exception to the claim that responsibility, reliability, caution - and particularly marital fidelity - are proportionate to intelligence.

[wolfhnd]

"So, if people of median and below average intelligence have difficulty with lasting marital bliss, I would imagine the reason is neither sexual nor psychological, but economic and perhaps cultural."

Serpent

You can argue against almost any position by saying correlation does not equal causation.

I would argue that while it would be easy to overstate the relationship between IQ and success in general

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source= ... kcGReFB11g

it would be hard to argue that the advantages of social economic success do not mitigate the cost of failed marriages. The statistics are in fact skewed by not considering the practical ramifications of failed marriages on the poor. The wealthy can provide childcare and multiple homes with little personal sacrifice. The practical incentives to remain married are simply not an issue for the high end of the SES group.

PM me if you want to continue this line of discussion as I think we have adequately explored our positions.

I'm mainly concerned here with delayed gratification so will address that in more detail at some future time unless there is no interest.

[Serpent]

I'm mainly concerned here with delayed gratification so will address that in more detail at some future time unless there is no interest.

Well, this is what hasn't been made clear.
What gratification needs to be delayed, and for how long, in order to promote a stable relationship? What has self-control got to do with IQ?

I've already mentioned religion. The most intelligent and best educated segment is less religious in general, and of the self-professed religious, the less clever and accomplished people are more sincerely observant.
So why would not-so-bright people with limited means exercise less restraint in gratifying their desires than clever people with surplus income?

BTW - "economic factors" does not automatically translate to "poverty". I tried to indicate the complex of situations, relationships and social effects that stem from economic arrangements, and these effects are not manifest only in the lower income brackets. It just happens that, at this particular juncture, all of the working and lower middle class are insecure and anxious at the same time, with the middle-middle soon to follow.