4 ms·

Yeah. Also disappointing is the tendency to be completely oblivious (it would seem) to the difference between correlation and causality. For example: At the

Yeah. Also disappointing is the tendency to be completely oblivious (it would seem) to the difference between correlation and causality. For example: At the 2003 American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers meeting, two-thirds of lawyers reported that compulsive Internet use played a significant role in divorces over that year, and 56 percent of those divorce cases included a partner who had an obsessive interest in pornographic websites. i.e. one of the partners was using porn as a band-aid to ease the pain of a much deeper problem -- which typically takes one of 3 forms: (1) both partners love each other and are doing "everything right" but one has discovered, before the other it would seem, that they just aren't really compatible sexually; (2) they're still hot for each other, but other distractions (fighting, money, kids) are getting in the way; or (3) one of the other parts has "discovered" that they have a different chromosomal preference. Nasty and potentially intractable issues, indeed. But porn watching by itself -- even excessively so? In comparison, not so much.

Tichy 13y ago
Also perhaps "porn addiction" is a good argument in a divorce case?
cookiecaper 13y ago
While it's true that porn use is often motivated by deeper emotional problems, that doesn't mean it's an acceptable outlet. Pornography use obviously does cause serious emotional strife to many partners, or they wouldn't report it as a major factor in their divorce. One may enjoy breaking the windows of adjacent corporate complexes with a golf club to blow off frustration from a day at work, but that doesn't mean it's an acceptable outlet. Pornography can cause much, much deeper, personal emotional damage than acts of petty vandalism.
cookiecaper 13y ago
I hate mention of marriages failing due to "compatibility issues". It's a total mockery of the intent of the institution. When you marry, you covenant to society that you will make yourself compatible with your spouse, even when it's difficult to do so, as long as these terms do not breach a handful of fundamental contractual obligations implied by the marital covenant. If one is "sexually incompatible" with his/her spouse, they should talk about it, recognize the issues, make compromises, and move forward. They should also recognize that while sex is meaningful and important, it can't be a deal-breaker for a marriage -- what happens when a partner contracts a medical condition that precludes their participation in intercourse? This should be recognized as a possibility going in, and people should realize that they can't allow sexuality to overwhelm and consume larger, more important pieces of their relationship. Pornography can cloud this crucial perspective.
- lotharbot 13y ago
  Medical conditions that preclude participation in everything should be recognized as a possibility going in. For example, I know a couple that was involved in a serious automobile accident. The husband walked away with minor injuries, but his wife was comatose for about a year. She couldn't uphold her marriage vows in any way during that year. Part of the covenant to society is that you will weather difficulties and remain committed to your spouse. A lot of types of "quick fixes" can cloud that perspective.
- hedonist 13y ago
  When you marry, you covenant to society that you will make yourself compatible with your spouse, even when it's difficult to do so, [...] That's fine for you. Other people have different priorities in their lives. And elevating the sanctity these abstract entities known as "institutions" to the point where they feel miserable, trapped, and unfulfilled do not count particularly high among them. If one is "sexually incompatible" with his/her spouse, they should talk about it, recognize the issues, make compromises, and move forward. That's fine for you, if those are your priorities. But what's fine for you isn't necessarily fine for other people. They should also recognize that while sex is meaningful and important, it can't be a deal-breaker for a marriage ... Again, maybe not a deal-breaker for you. But for other people... I think you see what I'm getting at here.
  - sergiosgc 13y ago
    People do not have to marry to be together. Marriage should be regarded as an important step, where you promise to your peers that you will be with your spouse until the end of life. This is valid even without religion. Have a different view? Can't commit to such a long time? That's OK. Marriage is not mandatory in a relationship (and for some people it's in fact detrimental). Just don't marry and live happy.
    - gohrt 13y ago
      That's a proposition. Is there an argument to back it? Why should marriage be life-long, vs time-limited?

Tichy 13y ago

Also perhaps "porn addiction" is a good argument in a divorce case?

cookiecaper 13y ago

While it's true that porn use is often motivated by deeper emotional problems, that doesn't mean it's an acceptable outlet. Pornography use obviously does cause serious emotional strife to many partners, or they wouldn't report it as a major factor in their divorce. One may enjoy breaking the windows of adjacent corporate complexes with a golf club to blow off frustration from a day at work, but that doesn't mean it's an acceptable outlet. Pornography can cause much, much deeper, personal emotional damage than acts of petty vandalism.

cookiecaper 13y ago

I hate mention of marriages failing due to "compatibility issues". It's a total mockery of the intent of the institution. When you marry, you covenant to society that you will make yourself compatible with your spouse, even when it's difficult to do so, as long as these terms do not breach a handful of fundamental contractual obligations implied by the marital covenant. If one is "sexually incompatible" with his/her spouse, they should talk about it, recognize the issues, make compromises, and move forward. They should also recognize that while sex is meaningful and important, it can't be a deal-breaker for a marriage -- what happens when a partner contracts a medical condition that precludes their participation in intercourse? This should be recognized as a possibility going in, and people should realize that they can't allow sexuality to overwhelm and consume larger, more important pieces of their relationship. Pornography can cloud this crucial perspective.

lotharbot 13y ago
Medical conditions that preclude participation in everything should be recognized as a possibility going in. For example, I know a couple that was involved in a serious automobile accident. The husband walked away with minor injuries, but his wife was comatose for about a year. She couldn't uphold her marriage vows in any way during that year. Part of the covenant to society is that you will weather difficulties and remain committed to your spouse. A lot of types of "quick fixes" can cloud that perspective.
hedonist 13y ago
When you marry, you covenant to society that you will make yourself compatible with your spouse, even when it's difficult to do so, [...] That's fine for you. Other people have different priorities in their lives. And elevating the sanctity these abstract entities known as "institutions" to the point where they feel miserable, trapped, and unfulfilled do not count particularly high among them. If one is "sexually incompatible" with his/her spouse, they should talk about it, recognize the issues, make compromises, and move forward. That's fine for you, if those are your priorities. But what's fine for you isn't necessarily fine for other people. They should also recognize that while sex is meaningful and important, it can't be a deal-breaker for a marriage ... Again, maybe not a deal-breaker for you. But for other people... I think you see what I'm getting at here.
- sergiosgc 13y ago
  People do not have to marry to be together. Marriage should be regarded as an important step, where you promise to your peers that you will be with your spouse until the end of life. This is valid even without religion. Have a different view? Can't commit to such a long time? That's OK. Marriage is not mandatory in a relationship (and for some people it's in fact detrimental). Just don't marry and live happy.
  - gohrt 13y ago
    That's a proposition. Is there an argument to back it? Why should marriage be life-long, vs time-limited?