Susan Jacoby in the NYT: Weiner's Women

[cali]

THERE is something missing from the endless moralizing and sophomoric jokes aimed at Anthony D. Weiner. That something is the role of women in a coarse and creepy Internet culture dedicated to the fulfillment of both male and female desires for virtual carnal knowledge.

These women are not victims of men like Mr. Weiner (or of ordinary, obscure sex seekers in the digital world) but full and equal participants. There is no force involved here; people of both sexes are able to block unwanted advances. Women are certainly safer on the Web than they would be going home with strangers they meet in bars.


<snip>

I actually have no nostalgia for the double standard of sexual morality under which I was raised in the 1950s, when women were supposed to be the gatekeepers of sexual propriety while they waited for Prince Charming. But the unfairness of the old expectations does not justify a new double standard, which pretends that only men are responsible for virtual sex that may prevent or wreck real-life relationships.

<snip>

The morality of virtual sex, as long as no one is cheating on a real partner, is not what bothers me. What’s truly troubling about the whole business is that it resembles the substitution of texting for extended, face-to-face time with friends. Virtual sex is to sex as virtual food is to food: you can’t taste, touch or smell it, and you don’t have to do any preparation or work. Sex with strangers online amounts to a diminution, close to an absolute negation, of the context that gives human interaction genuine content. Erotic play without context becomes just a form of one-on-one pornography.

<snip>

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/31/opinion/weiners-women.html?_r=0

[djean111]

1. Wow. The Weiner attacks are getting really excessive. Just let the voters decide.

"Virtual sex is to sex as virtual food is to food" yes - you can't get fat from virtual food, you can't get pregnant or catch a venereal disease from virtual sex.
But IMO any sexual expression between two consenting adults is okay and nobody else's business.

[cali]

2. sure, it's nobody's business, but the phenomenon itself is

worthy of discussion as an aspect of human sexuality, or don't you think that human sexuality in all its myriad expressions is worthy of discussion? Jacoby is giving her opinion on an aspect of human sexuality. I think she brings up interesting points that I haven't really thought about.

This isn't remotely an attack on Weiner- in fact he's tangential to the article. I suspect you didn't read it if you think it's an attack piece.

[djean111]

4. Oh, yes, I realise it is not an attack piece in and of itself.

It is just the barrage of Weiner jokes and aspersions that are getting to me.
It seems like she doesn't want to discuss this aspect of human sexuality, she wants to deplore it. Don't know why you would leap to my thinking aspects of humans sexuality are not worthy of discussion, really.

Equating it to virtual food seems silly at best - and, anyway, I just look at "virtual food" for ideas and inspiration and to decide what to buy, where to eat, how to cook, get new ideas - following her train of thought, the Food Network and the Cooking Channel and Top Chef are bad because we are not really eating the food or something. Good grief, half of Pinterest would disappear!
Perhaps exchanging erotic emails about how to eat a peach might just be interesting. Two birds with one stone.

At least, it seems to me, virtual sex is not going to involve getting beaten or abused or stalked when one decides to break off the relationship in person. Or having to explain that sore on one's lip for the rest of one's life. (Not speaking from experience there, just considering that aspect of sexuality!)

[cali]

6. I disagree. she's not saying that people shouldn't engage in virtual

sex, for pity's sake. and one is not obligated to toss laurels at all aspects of human sexuality. she doesn't deplore it, she finds it lacking. I don't think her comparison to virtual food is particularly good, but I get her drift.

[djean111]

5. Upon further consideration - virtual sex is not a phenomenon, really.

Just, I believe, not publicized as much as it is right now.
I believe some people have been writing erotic letters to each other for a long long time.

[cali]

7. sure they have- some great ones. I wouldn't equate that to

online jerk off sessions.

[djean111]

8. "online jerk off sessions"

See, labeling virtual sex like that does shut down any discussion, methinks!

[B Calm]

10. +1

[cali]

12. what would you prefer? Online sexual gratifcation encounters?

Writing erotic letters is a meditative process, not an instant thing. Going on line with someone to have a sexual encounter is not about reflection or process or thinking- and those qualities are important to writing. I've seen some of Weiner's exchanges and they were all about getting off. Fine, but that's not about writing. It's not Henry Miller to Anais Nin. And I'm not saying they should be. It is what it is and what it's about is getting off.

[djean111]

13. Who knows what Henry Miller would have done if he was online.......

Anyway, obviously you believe virtual sex is just about getting off, so - discussion over.
I think analyzing or even reading Weiner's exchanges is creepy and intrusive and infinitely more "soulless" than some believe virtual sex to be, so I am just going to leave the discussion there.

[B Calm]

3. It's getting very old!

Too bad they don't attack sick republicans with the same enthusiasm!

[Logical]

9. It is the voters business if they think he is a pervert. And you will....

Soon see what the voters think. He is done!

[allin99]

11. oh no! It's pornographic! lol.