quote:

---

Is it "workplace harassment" when I get 15 emails a day from a babbler calling me a whiny hippie bitch?

---

I'm not sure whether I agree with the idea that technology is changing our moral views on issues like "cheating" and watching porn, etc. There are a few new issues nowadays, like, "is it cheating if you've never met the person", but that's kind of a superficial moral question on the issue. Because the deeper moral assumption is the same - cheating is wrong.

I don't think new technology has changed anyone's underlying ideas on that matter. If you were of the opinion that "cheating" is definitely wrong under all circumstances, then I doubt whether you'd think differently because the delivery system for illicit communications has changed.

And I don't necessarily think that it's more difficult to be discovered surfing porn or starting an online relationship because of technology either - an argument could be made that it could actually be easier to get caught since people often don't know all the ins and outs of the programs they use.

Reminds me of a funny story - my ex, in a totally beginner computer class with a few buddies (as in, "this is the on switch") thought he'd be cute and type "sex xxx" into a search engine and pull up some nekkid ladies to amuse the guys. They were amused all right - even more amused when the instructor came walking around to make sure everyone had completed the instructions and weren't having problems. There was my ex, frantically trying to close all the pop-up windows with naked women in them before the instructor got there. He didn't make it, and was rather embarassed.

Anyhow. I don't think there are too many husbands or wives who would feel that an online relationship or online sex with another individual wasn't adulterous, even if there was no meeting involved. I know I would.

I'm reminded of Jimmy Carter's "lusting in his heart" admission from years ago. I thought that-- and still do think it-- rather silly. We are human and we are too hard on ourselves if we cannot forgive our visceral reactions that never fulminate into action.

I can't help but think that if one attempted to control one's thoughts to such a degree that one did not "sin in mind" that one would be killing a part of one's self-- sort of like a lobotomy. Even if we were successful in killing off the thought sins, what other elements of our being would be thrown out with the dirty bath water?

The internet makes it easy to believe it is but an extention of our imaginations. While I don't believe that to be so, I also think because it is a fairly new technology, the negative things associated with it are overblown.

I mean, what if it was your spouse's worst enemy? Is that better than best friend? What if it's a one-night-stand, rather than a longstanding affair?

IMO being cheated on is the worst kind of pain; being lied to over a long period of time or finding out it was with your best friend (or worst enemy) is just salt in a fatal wound.

So while I agree with you totally that online hanky-panky is at a definitely lower level when it comes to the fidelity measure, in my book when bodily fluids are exchanged, there aren't varying degrees of infidelity, just varying degrees of affrontery.

quote:

---

Flirtatious posts, e-mails, "on line" relationships are cheating, but I cannot believe they are on the same level as a long standing affair with your spouse's best freind, for example.

---

Actually, I don't know if I would classify even all three of those things in the same category. Online relationships? Yeah, to me, that's adulterous, because at that point there is generally emotional attachment. I think that's what is meant by "lusting in one's heart" as well. You don't have to have swapped body fluids to have an adulterous relationship with someone.

But simply flirtatious posts on a message board? I disagree if there's no one-on-one relationship going on. How many silly exchanges have the regular guys and grils on babble had? I'm thinking skdadl and Wingy, 'lance and skdadl and me...and yet, despite the fact that all of them (except me) are married, that certainly wouldn't be classified as adultery, not by me, anyhow.

E-mails? Well, depends on the content of the emails. I guess that can be a grey area, come to think of it. Again, thinking of my own experience on babble, regular emails get exchanged between married men and women who have gotten to know each other on here that are completely platonic.

But then, where is that line drawn? If you exchange 20 platonic emails a day with someone, is it really platonic, or is that an indication that the person is on your mind all day long and that there is likely a connection there that is not being acknowledged? Would I feel comfortable with my partner exchanging 20 platonic emails a day with another woman? Likely not - because I'd feel like he was connecting with her on an intellectual or emotional level that he wasn't with me.

But that's still really not that much different than how it would be if the method of communication were different. Would I feel comfortable with my partner talking all day on the phone with another woman? Doubt it. Or writing a couple of letters a day to another woman as a "penpal"?

I guess it would depend on how much he communicated with me, I suppose, but if he was communicating more with her than me, then I think I would likely feel at least somewhat betrayed.

quote:

---

How many silly exchanges have the regular guys and grils on babble had? I'm thinking skdadl and Wingy, 'lance and skdadl and me...and yet, despite the fact that all of them (except me) are married, that certainly wouldn't be classified as adultery, not by me, anyhow.

---

Well, whew! I'm glad you wrote that, Michelle. With whom have I not flirted on babble? And, I mean, what about the time writer proposed to me?

quote:

---

I'm reminded of Jimmy Carter's "lusting in his heart" admission from years ago. I thought that-- and still do think it-- rather silly. We are human and we are too hard on ourselves if we cannot forgive our visceral reactions that never fulminate into action.

I can't help but think that if one attempted to control one's thoughts to such a degree that one did not "sin in mind" that one would be killing a part of one's self-- sort of like a lobotomy. Even if we were successful in killing off the thought sins, what other elements of our being would be thrown out with the dirty bath water?

---

I think that quote needs to be understood in a broader context. President Carter was being honest about how he saw himself at the time. He was practicing humility as he understood it at the time. Initial pleasant mental feeling associated with seeing an attractive person aren't "lusting in the heart."

When Jesus talked about this kind of sin, he was addressing the very legalistic morality of his day. He was trying to demonstrate that the spirit of the law was as important as its letter.

Come up and see me some time, pax, Big Boy ...

quote:

---

At the other extreme, I know of a marriage that ended not much more than a week after the beginning of an intense email seduction campaign. I would have said that was a most strong marriage, too -- I can still barely believe what happened.

---

Wow. That's really something. But skdadl, I would put money on it that the marriage wasn't as strong as it may have seemed to outsiders. I remember when my parents separated, their friends were absolutely shocked. They figured my parents were an institution. Even I, living in their home, didn't realize just how "on the rocks" it was.

quote:

---

The question I have is whether E-relationships represent a spread of socialization , or a desensitizing and shallowing of inter-personal communications. Do we interact at the same level on-line that we would in person?

---

It has been my experience that interactions can often be much more intense online than in person. Online, there is nothing you can do other than share your ideas, emotions, thoughts, and dreams. In the space of a few long, detailed emails, you can learn a lot about another person - perhaps even more than you might learn over the space of weeks of introductory small talk conversations that progress to something more deep. It's true that people will put their best faces forward, but heck, you do that when dating too. People might feel less self-conscious and distracted by physical characteristics when communicating in this way and possibly be a lot more open about themselves. You could find yourself connecting to people that it wouldn't occur to you to stop and talk to on the street if you passed them by.

quote:

---

But simply flirtatious posts on a message board? I disagree if there's no one-on-one relationship going on. How many silly exchanges have the regular guys and grils on babble had? I'm thinking skdadl and Wingy, 'lance and skdadl and me...and yet, despite the fact that all of them (except me) are married, that certainly wouldn't be classified as adultery, not by me, anyhow.

---

And neither would I, because we understand the context in those instances.

quote:

---

But then, where is that line drawn? If you exchange 20 platonic emails a day with someone, is it really platonic, or is that an indication that the person is on your mind all day long and that there is likely a connection there that is not being acknowledged? Would I feel comfortable with my partner exchanging 20 platonic emails a day with another woman? Likely not - because I'd feel like he was connecting with her on an intellectual or emotional level that he wasn't with me.

---

That's interesting. There's many people who would consider a platonic, intellectual relationship with another person "adulterous" or at least unfaithful.

I don't think it is. Where it becomes surely unhealthy, and probably a serious breach of faith is when one starts telling the on line person intimate stuff you don't tell your real life partner, or worse, carping to the on line person about your real life partner. While the net doesn't create such breakdowns of communication, it exacerbates them.

Infedelity isn't always sexual in nature.

quote:

---

The question I have is whether E-relationships represent a spread of socialization , or a desensitizing and shallowing of inter-personal communications. Do we interact at the same level on-line that we would in person? I don't think that is possible without the interplay of so much of our other senses that for the rest of our evolution both socially and biologically formed the baseline for interpersonal relationships.

---

From the perspective of someone somewhat new to the net, it might be tempting to extrapolate changes to our inter-personal communications.

But, I think at some point, those who engage in some kind(s) of relationship(s) on line (and I would include message boards, everything) eventualy put it in context of "real life." And, I believe it's the lack of interplay with our other senses that eventually brings people, or at least I hope most people, to a point where they put things in the context of "real life."

That said, I don't care much for the existing definitions of sin. Do poly-amourous people live in a constant state of sin if they've always got lust for another in their hearts? Poly people on the internet must be twice the worse.

What makes the internet different from face to face communication is that you can remove yourself easily if you so please. In the aforementioned rape parallel, you could just press 'reset' and end it.

My yardstick for adultery is this: if you wouldn't do a certain action or say a certain thing in front of your significant other, then it isn't something you should do while they aren't around. You know, involving sex and related things.

So if you can't look at Hot Asian Babes.net while your girlfriend is in the room, should you be doing it at all?