adultery and the holodeck

[dirtnap]

Many of you are probably familiar with the "holodeck". This is a room on the starship enterprise (Star Treck the Next Generation) wherein one can experience a fully realized virtual experience of any sort. My question is this, is a sexual fantasy built around someone who isn't your partner in such a device "cheating".

This question assumes that you are not polyamoroous and that the person or persons who "star" in the fantasy are not replicas or real people but completely "synthetic" entities. This last stipulation is added to militate against the complications that the insertion of copies of actual people would engen=der.

I thoought this was an interesting ethical excercise, I hope others do as well. As usual, I hope this question is not offensive to anyone, it isn't intended to be.

[Alatar]

Personally I see no problem with it. No more than fantasising about imaginary (or real) women during masturbation, or indeed looking at glossy mags, vidoes or porn. Where do you draw the line?

[eborr]

don't know if this ogiliates too much, happy to split away if you like - the reason I found this was intersting apart from the cheesy notion of pole dancing per se is the way folk have differing views on the subject.

To an extent the opions are stereo-typical,

1. The excuse that it's just a fomr of exercise
2. The man-hating feminist
3. The lad who thinks that all wmone are gagging for it
4. The attempt to justify it as art with a bit of world music pulled in

This leaves me with a number of questions, are we as species no predictable, are the people questioned disembling, or is the whole piece just the Beeb ediatorialising in a Dailry Mail type way - use a bit of smut to draw in the readers, and then be very bourgois and "balanced" in our presentation of the information


from the Beeb

Pole dancing is now promoted as a legitimate form of exercise, and dance, but is it really just about keeping fit?

When I first told my friends I had taken up pole-dancing classes - all in the name of fitness - I expected, apart from a few raised eyebrows, general cheers of encouragement.

Instead I was given a three-hour lecture on why I was "perpetuating the culture of pornography that we live in". Perhaps it was optimistic of me - most of my friends are feminists.

Despite my protestations that this was purely about toning up and doing a bit of acrobatics in a fun, supportive environment, it did start me thinking.

Are classes like these - now booming in popularity - really breaking ties with their historical stereotype, or are they only serving to further the image of women as sex objects?

Degrading

For me, it was the lure of doing something acrobatic and a bit different that drew me in to the classes. And when I joined I found a group of like-minded girls.

Annis Kooshesh, a 27-year-old HR coordinator, and Brigitta Busak, a 31-year-old graphic designer, both say they take the classes to get fit.

"I took the class mainly for a fun way to build up my upper body strength, boost my confidence levels and also to make myself feel sexier," says Brigitta.

And although many may not believe it, the classes are tough. They're more awkward than sexy, requiring solid concentration and a lot of strength.


It requires 'a lot of strength'
But despite my good intentions I was still selective about who I told - and rightly so. Most of the male reaction I got was "so when do I get a show?" I had to confess, it wasn't like telling people I'd taken up tennis. But should it be?

Simon Hinks, deputy director of sport at the Bristol Centre for Sport, Exercise and Health says while pole dancing is not a traditional form of exercise, it's still something that strengthens most of the muscle groups.

"We don't see it as a sport but we do see it as a valid form of exercise," he says.

But he adds: "I don't think you can do pole dancing as your only fitness. It could form a small part of an overall exercise programme."

Alison Hudd, the 28-year-old owner of Pole People - a London based pole-dancing school - sees pole dancing as "an art form in its own right".

"I've always loved ballet and other forms of dance. When I first saw pole dancing I realised what a beautiful art form it is and it's a really fun way to get fit.

"When I set up Pole People the main point was to provide a space to learn to dance, free of the context of what it had been known as."

Art form

But feminist Sheila Jeffries, author of Beauty and Misogyny: Harmful Cultural Practices in the West, says this new dance craze has nothing to do with fitness. She sees it as degrading to women and an excuse to allow pornography into the mainstream.

"Often when pornography is normalised it comes in the form of art," she says. "The same has happened with burlesque. We are now in what I call the 'pornographication' of culture."

She says women are being told that "correct exercise" is something that has its roots in prostitution.

I don't think the feminist cause has reached its end but I don't think denying ourselves the fun of pole dancing is going to help

Alison Hudd
Pole People

"Pole dancing is perpetuating a culture of prostitution. It's not actually prostitution because they're in a class but it's the codes of prostitution and practice that they are engaged in."

Ms Jeffries says over the last two decades the divide between music, fashion and pornography has been broken down, to the point where the "codes of pornography are now in".

"How have we come to this, where a vicious industry that does something so horrible to women and girls has become so normalised? It's desperate. What it shows is that women are far from being equal."

It's a tough argument. Are we really letting the female side down this strongly? Ms Hudd doesn't think so.

Fake

"We are teaching it as a form of dance, not as a way to please men," she says. "The consideration I made when I set up the course was that it was a way of people dancing and expressing themselves.

"I don't see why a woman dancing in a more sensual way has to be something that's wrong. Why can't it be something to celebrate? I would love to take these feminists to a class and ask them if it's perpetuating prostitution."

But what do men think of all this?

Peter Howarth, former editor of Esquire, where he was famed for taking women off the front cover, says pole dancing could be perceived as a step forward for women in terms of allowing them to be more open about their sexuality.


Pole-dancing clubs are big business
He says it falls in line with the "Sex and the City phenomenon" and women who have taken sex retail out of the hands of the "dirty male brigade and out into the open".

"It kind of makes sex less scary and less taboo and possibly you could argue pole dancing is similar and you could see that as being positive," he says.

But Steve Beale, editor-at-large of Arena magazine, says we are "in a culture in which everybody is told to love sex", that pressures people to follow the trend rather than be honest about what they enjoy.

"Personally, I think girls are buying into [pole dancing] because it's trendy," he says. "We call them 'fake dirty' - it's a big men's saying because there are so many of these girls [doing pole dancing] who are not actually very sexual. There's something very cold about that.

Shallow

"It's disingenuous in that the same person that goes to a class would turn their noses up at a pole dancing club. It's very shallow."

But Ms Hudd says it's "frustrating" when others criticise something that is boosting people's fitness and confidence.

"I don't think the feminist cause has reached its end but I don't think denying ourselves the fun of pole dancing is going to help," she says.

At the end of the day, I'm feeling stronger and proud of the tricks I can do, despite the bruises, although I can't say my conscience is completely at ease.

But for the moment I've convinced myself that this is perfect training for my next challenge - trapeze.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I can empathise with the woman who says that she took pole dancing classes to make herself feel sexier (amongst other reasons). But that in itself is slightly worrying to me; why is it that "feeling sexier" should result from an activity designed to titillate men? And, why should this lead to a boost in confidence levels?!
Sarah, Sheffield


Surely the point of feminism (for me) was to allow and empower women to do what they want, when they want - regardless of what men think. I've done a pole dancing class and there was nothing sexy about me landing in a heap on the floor! As an exercise class it's great fun and very difficult.
Carolyn Mitchell, Manchester


Just another sign of the degradation of society. Any woman desperate enough to argue that pole dancing improves their confidence and fitness, needs to urgently address why they are so unfit and unhappy to turn to a practice commonly regarded as smutty. A young male, im far from the grumpy old man era, all i see and recognise here are women needing reassurance in a culture perpetuating vanity.
Christopher , Oxford


On what basis do feminists decide whether something is degrading or not? Surely, it all depends on whether the person in question feels degraded by the activity she or he performs?
Jonathan Davies, London, UK


I'm sure I read somewhere that we lived in a society of choice and freedom...? How can this be seen to be exploiting women when women choose to go to the class? Are the classes watched by men sitting in tables and giving money to the women dancing? Erm .. no! People who say it's exploitation really need to get a life and focus on more important things that really ARE exploiting women across the world. Pole Dancing classes don't fall into that category.
Sian Healy, Fleet


Steve Beale's opinion that it is disingenuous for someone to go to a lesson but who turn their nose up at a pole dancing club is not clearly thought out. I would love to go to a lesson, but also think that 'attached' men who go to pole dancing clubs are being unfaithful by watching other women in that environment. The difference for me is that going to a lesson is not a sexual experience, whereas the men who go to pole dancing clubs invariably are going for the sexual aspect of the dance.

[dirtnap]

Pole dancing can mean what ever the dancer wants it to mean. What is a may pole dance all about?

The problem is that meaning becomes embroigled in the political and that isn't necessarily a bad thing BUT,k no one should be aboe to tell a person "I don't care what you think it means, it really means-----)

I think there is clearly something erotic about it though but it seems like its just girls , excuse me, women in this class so whats the harm of doing something a little naughty and a lot of fun with congenial friends. People like to play w/the edge.

To answer Alatar

Your comments beg the question about the role of fantasy in general.

Suppose a person is actually "in love" with the person they are fantasizing about. Is this different than just enjoying a glossy mag?

If it is different, what is the difference?

Why (beyond the obvious danger of STDs) is real sex with someone other than your regular partner different than imaginary sex?

Is it the emotional contentg of the relationship or the physical content (assuming one can seperate these)?

If it is merely the emotional content than why is casual sex with someone other than one's partner considered bad form?

If it is merely the p;hysical aspect then shouldn't one feel comfortable saying to their SO "guess who I was fantasizing about today".?

I'm with holding a judgement on the issue but I thing the questions are interesting.

[Primula Baggins]

Here's my view: if you're in a committed relationship, then anything that hurts that relationship is wrong. Casual fantasy makes no conceivable difference. But if it has a real focus that is becoming more and more important, and the fantasies more elaborate, I think damage is being done to the existing relationship.

And I think there is a reason many religions believe it right to confine the physical act to marriage, a reason that still applies even in these days of birth control and some protection and treatment against STDs. It's easier to keep your feelings where your body is.

The "emotional content" of infidelity is real to the partner being cheated on, too. I suppose there are some people who would accept "But it didn't matter to me—you're the one I love!" at face value, but I think most human beings I've known would be devastated.

To me the holodeck thing would cross a line, if I were married to a man who did that regularly. I would feel certain that I was inadequate somehow and that he was going elsewhere for something I would rather give him. It would hurt almost as much as if he were in love with a real person. And the implied insult would be exactly the same.

[Cerin]

Pole dancing can mean what ever the dancer wants it to mean. What is a may pole dance all about?

I disagree. Comparing pole dancing to a may pole dance strikes me as just silly. Pole dancing is about sex, and I submit that is immediately apparent to anyone performing or watching it.

As to the holodeck, I think it would be more like cheating than porn, because it is interactive and the holodeck beings were found to have a certain sentience. So it is a step beyond the kind of fantasizing currently available to people.

Incidentally, porn can be very damaging to some people's ability to relate to real life partners in ordinary sexual interactions. It can also be addictive in the way that drugs are, requiring stronger and stronger 'doses' to have the same effect. I would agree with Prim, the assessment of harm of any type of habitual fantasy activity would be in the way it is affecting the real life relationship.

[eborr]

Sorry but in a sense I was trying to move the conversation somewhere else, we will each have different views as to what consitute fidelity and infidelity, and at what point thought-crime becomes actual crime, the thing I find more interesting is the type of mealy mouthed language that is used, and how the media tends to focus on shall we say people who express opinions in a stereo-typical manner.

viz in the BBC article we had the spectrun of opinion from

1. It is terrble and all men should be castrated just in case they might look at a women.

2. through to get you top off for the lads.

Now I really don't think that many people fit into that category and that our view of fellow human beings is a whole lot more complex than that.

[Faramond]

Is it a scientific fact that holodeck beings have sentience? Star Trek counts as a source of science facts, right?

Did Minuet have sentience, or just Moriarty?

Well, would having relations with an inflated simulacrum count as cheating? What if someone had a steady relationship with one inflated simulacrum and then had a fling with a second one ... would that be cheating?

No, that's not just a joke. Would it be cheating in the twisted mind of the lover of inflated simulacra?

To define cheating one must look into the mind of both partners, not just the one potentially being wronged.

I think holodeck nookie falls into the category of "cheating unless both partners agree that it isn't". There are objective and subjective elements to cheating, I think. Some things simply can't be objectively cheating, though some might think they were. Simply looking at another woman or another man isn't cheating, though it may hurt, and some might want to call it cheating. Cheating has to involve some level of interaction with the third party, whether the third party is living or not. A holodeck simulacrum will interact with one physically just like a real person, so it meets the objective test of cheating. The subjective test is then how the partners feel about it.

[Primula Baggins]

(generic "you" here)

And if your partner calls it cheating, it is cheating, no matter what you may believe about it. The damage is the same. You have to deal with your partner's real feelings, not with how he or she "rationally" "ought" to feel.

[Faramond]

No, a partner just can't call anything cheating and have it actually be so. Sure the feelings still have to be dealt with, but words don't get redefined because of someone's feelings.

[eborr]

(generic "you" here)

And if your partner calls it cheating, it is cheating, no matter what you may believe about it. The damage is the same. You have to deal with your partner's real feelings, not with how he or she "rationally" "ought" to feel.

the logical extension of your argument strikes me as dangerous Prim - If I have a partner who "real" feeling is of a pathological hatred for someone else, then do I do the "right" thing and kill them

[Primula Baggins]

I said "deal with" the feelings, not blindly obey them. Obviously a homicidal partner needs confinement and treatment.

Faramond, my point is that if A's partner believes that something he is doing is cheating, then even if A disagrees, A has exactly the same problems as if he were cheating—the same damage to his relationship with his partner. However this is dealt with, it needs to be dealt with; A can't just say, "Well, I don't think I'm cheating," leave it at that, and expect everything to be fine.

[anthriel]

eborr, I guess it depends on what type of relationship you are talking about.

If you have a sexual relationship with someone, then their romantic feelings about you ARE germane to the subject, and will affect the relationship. If your hope is to keep your romantic relationship intact, you MUST take into account the point of view of your partner, whether their thoughts make sense to you or not. Their feelings are going to affect your unique relationship.

If you have ANY kind of relationship with someone who wants to commit murder, then affecting the relationship is not your primary concern. Your primary concern is keeping someone from killing someone else, whether that harms your sexual relationship or not.

-------------------------------

I was out watering the plants, thinking about this, and wondering if there would be any real difference to me whether my partner went to a holodeck for "nookie", or had gone to a prostitute.

If he had gone to a prostitute, I would be worried about sexually transmitted diseases, and the possibility of dealing with some Fatal Attraction whacko. Holodeck bimbos probably wouldn't sneak in to boil the bunny, if you get my drift.

But as far as feeling betrayed: well, I think I would, either way. Holodeck bimbos would be designed to react/act/look exactly like a woman would in a sexual encounter.

What would be the difference between that and a sexual encounter with a prostitute? Both are likely to be seen as anonymous sex. Both are deliberate choices to "encounter" someone other than me, sexually.

Both choices would be painful to me, I think.

[dirtnap]

Wow, these are great answers, I hope everyone else is finding it interesting.

I'll show some of my hand and say that I pretty much give ascent to the idea that if your partner thinks its cheating, it is. Now you have choices, you can leave the relationship, try to come to some understanding or say you don't care letting the partner just deal (what ever form this takes).

I think the whole idea of "rational criteria" for some one feeling cheated on is a kind of bankrupt idea-what sort of paradigm would measure the rationality?

As a side note on the pole dance subtopic I would like to defend my comparison of pole dancing with may pole dancing on the grounds that it has been my understanding that the latter has its roots in spring fertility rituals. Wripping a pole with colored ribbons while dancing around it in a field seems at least potentially sexual to me any way. The fact that it devolved into a kindergarten activity doesn't change where it come from. Or maybe the latter makes my point, which is that in many spheres, things mean what people think they mean. consensus only makes a meaning look correct. Anyway, I don't really want to defend thei thesis, if such it is, I just didn't want to be thought of as offensive OR silly.

[Pearly Di]

I could go into an extended rant about holodeck sex and cybersex, but you can all heave a sigh of relief that I intend to do no such thing.

Primmy and Anthy have said it all for me.



dirtnap, you are quite correct about the pagan origins of maypole dancing. Indeed, the Puritans of 16th century England banned it!! But if you've ever seen English Morris Dancers (very charming and quaint), then you'll know that their charming rustic dances (a bit like the Springle Ring!!) bears no comparison with pole-dancing, whatever the origins of morris dancing may be ....



PS. Link about morris dancing HERE:

http://web.ukonline.co.uk/conker/conker ... morris.htm

[yovargas]

Perhaps this may sound naive, as I've never been in a romantic/sexual relationship, but isn't 'cheating' essentially defined as breaking the rules? If so, isn't cheating entirely dependant on what rules have been agreed to? If a rule has not been agreed to, then it cannot be broken, can it?

[Primula Baggins]

Except that a lot tends to be unspoken between people in love, yov, and sometimes that includes the most important things. Sometimes the partners are living under different assumptions: for example, whether the relationship is exclusive or not.

A partner who breaks a rule he didn't know about or agree to still has a problem to solve. Probably starting with clarifying and agreeing on the rules of the relationship.

The main thing is, when it comes to love, if your partner says he is hurt, he's hurt. Getting knotted up in arguments about whether he ought to be hurt or has a right to be hurt only makes it worse. You deal with the hurt, and then (if you're still together), you deal more calmly, later, with the rules.

[yovargas]

A partner who breaks a rule he didn't know about or agree to still has a problem to solve.

True, but that problem can't be called cheating, can it? Cheating should be doing something that you are aware would hurt your partner. Thus, cheating would result in a loss of trust, where hurts caused unaware really shouldn't.

[nerdanel]

You all know that I speak from a lack of experience. But here are my somewhat clinical thoughts.

A romantic relationship is defined by the participants, even outside of polyamory. Monogamous relationships exist in which partner A is comfortable with partner B directing some of his or her sexual thoughts and energies away from partner A in different senses – for instance, masturbation, simple fantasy, viewing pornography, reading erotica, cybersex, etc. It is as obvious that these activities cause trouble for others; some people feel that there is something deficient in their relationship if their partners need to watch pornography on a regular basis (for instance).

I’m not familiar with Star Trek, but this “holodeck” seems to rank somewhere between masturbation and cybersex. That is, partner B is interacting with something else to reach sexual fulfillment (contrast masturbation), but the something else is a “synthetic entity” rather than a “real person” (contrast cybersex). I would say that there is a risk of cheating any time another entity is involved – thus, holodeck and cybersex, but not masturbation.

Having established that, (a) if it is inherent in your relationship that this sort of external sexual fulfillment is permissible according both of you or (b) you have explicit consent from your partner, then it’s not cheating no matter how often you resort to this “holodeck”; if neither of these two things are true, then it is, even to try it once.

Faramond states, “To define cheating, one must look into the mind of both partners, not just the one potentially being wronged,” and I think that’s true. That is, one must ask how the partners think of their sexual relationship: do both partners, or neither believe that they are the exclusive source of each other’s sexual fulfillment?

If both do, then a holodeck would be cheating no matter which partner resorted to it.
If Partner A does, then for Partner B to go behind his/her back and resort to a holodeck is cheating. At the least, there should be openness; if it’s not cheating, then why would there be anything to hide?
And, if neither holds this belief, then obviously, both partners can go to holodeck heaven if they so choose.

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. There’s my naïve and inexperienced speculation for the day.

[eborr]

I could go into an extended rant about holodeck sex and cybersex, but you can all heave a sigh of relief that I intend to do no such thing.

Primmy and Anthy have said it all for me.



dirtnap, you are quite correct about the pagan origins of maypole dancing. Indeed, the Puritans of 16th century England banned it!! But if you've ever seen English Morris Dancers (very charming and quaint), then you'll know that their charming rustic dances (a bit like the Springle Ring!!) bears no comparison with pole-dancing, whatever the origins of morris dancing may be ....

)

PS. Link about morris dancing HERE:

http://web.ukonline.co.uk/conker/conker ... morris.htm

I guess there are not too mnay pole dancers who make judicious use of a pigs bladder tied to a stick.

I would guess that most dances have their origins in some kind of either display or fertility ritual - unfortunately the pole dance seems to exploit the worst features of are society being both tawdry and pretty un-erotic -