But cheating is about violating a deeply personal agreement between two people. If the person you’re with doesn’t care if you sleep with other people, it’s not cheating. It’s all about an agreement that you decide between yourselves, and like all such agreements, the only people who should care what you do are people who your behavior directly affects. It’s not the business of the world at large.That's the second-to-the-last paragraph, the serious point. The final paragraph serves up some cheap political amusement:
Unless you’re Josh Duggar, of course. Or anyone else who fights publicly to use government interference to mess with the private sexual choices of consenting adults. If you fight for the government to limit or ban gay people’s marriages or women’s reproductive choices, then your sex life is our business. If only there were a way to do a targeted search of Ashley Madison data for that, while leaving everyone else alone.I sort of agree with that observation, even though I'm a big proponent of equal justice and think it's an important test of any rules we have that we want them to apply to people we like just as much as to those we despise. But the Ashley Madison data dump isn't a rule we've adopted as a group. It's something a small bunch of hackers inflicted on us, and, like a car accident or a falling meteoroid, we can, without hypocrisy, hope that it hits someone we didn't like anyway. And, speaking of hypocrisy, there is something special about exposing the hypocrites. Anyone who's made a public show of disparaging the sexual morality of others had better uphold high standards privately, because there will be little sympathy if we catch them sinning (which seems to happen so often that I always assume public perseveration about sexual morality is motivated by guilt about sexual sin).
I've almost talked myself out of my original premise that the second-to-the-last paragraph is more significant. It is what I started this post to talk about. I want to take issue with the idea that "cheating is about violating a deeply personal agreement between two people," that "It’s all about an agreement that you decide between yourselves," that "the only people who should care what you do are people who your behavior directly affects," and "It’s not the business of the world at large." Hello?! We're talking about marriage. Why was same-sex marriage recognized as a constitutional right? It wasn't — I've read the opinion — so that couples could get access to the economic benefits of marriage. It was because same-sex couples deserved equal respect from society as a group. If it were just a "deeply personal agreement between two people," then the legal status of marriage would not have mattered.
Obviously, married couples can and do work out their own relationship in private, and they may have understandings about sex with outsiders to the marriage. Sometimes it's because — in Marcotte's crude language — "the person you’re with doesn’t care if you sleep with other people," and sometimes it's because "the person you’re with" — that is, your husband or wife — has pressured or talked you into accepting nonexclusivity. Sometimes it's because you blind yourself to something that, confronted, would destroy what you want to keep.
But when you take on the legal status of marriage, you are including the rest of the world. You may have the idea — perhaps based on enlightened self-interest and choice — that marriage for you isn't exactly what marriage is for the general public. It may be a festival of polyamory for you and your spouse. But it is not a thoroughly private arrangement. You invited the world in. You interacted with the government and acquired a status of "recognition, stability, and predictability." And that made it the public's business. Flooding into your personal life came all these outsiders' ideas about what marriage means.
IN THE COMMENTS: Jane the Actuary said: "So Ann Althouse is publicly coming out as saying that marriage, by definition, requires sexual exclusivity? Good!" And I said:
How do you figure I said that?
I said that when you marry, you deliberately take on a status that is about public recognition of your relationship, and that closes off your argument that what you are doing is purely private. You've invited public judgment.
You could still say: 1. The public are jerks to express judgment especially where they don't know the details of our relationship. 2. I'll ignore what people say and do what I want and the govt still can't take away my marital status unless we seek divorce, and 3. Marriage ought to be understood to include the privately arrived at relationship between the spouses, including greater sexual freedom.
The Ashley Madison problem has to do with one's public reputation, which is based on the public's idea of what is good, and which tends to be that married couples should be sexually faithful. So, it's going to hurt your reputation to look like an adulterer. That doesn't say thing about what marriage is "by definition."
Analogy: It hurts your reputation (in present day America) to be known to be an atheist, but that doesn't establish that God exists.
पोस्ट्स
१३९ टिप्पण्या:
"You invited the world in. You interacted with the government and acquired a status of "recognition, stability, and predictability." And that made it the public's business."
Interact with the government and it becomes the public's business.
Show us on the doll where you touched Government.
I am Laslo.
I can't wait until they release all the names of the people in our government who signed up!!
I never understood people who get wrapped up in other people's lives. The People magazine crowd.
Who has time for that?
I have people posting their schadenfreude on Facebook about this. I could give a shit about the Duggars, or anyone else for that matter.
So Ann Althouse is publicly coming out as saying that marriage, by definition, requires sexual exclusivity? Good!
My worry with all the discussion of polyamory and open marriage and all the other click-bait articles, and the very attitude that Marcotte expresses, is that it offers sexual exclusivity as an optional agreement made between the couple. Maybe the default expectation, maybe not. What if, by the time my sons reach adulthood, the default swings the other way?
Does the government even prosecute adultery anymore? Adultery is too common to be a big deal to those who aren't the spouses or children of the adulterers. It's a matter of morality, not law.
But you're just fine with using government to actually bankrupt bakers and florists for the private choices they make, eh, hypocrite?
The hacking story for me, is not so much about the victims dirty deeds (I think they are victims, no matter the actual lying, or cheating).
These victims should now be able to sue for damages, because they are damaged severely, and this company should no longer have any assets when the courts are done with them.
It is inconceivable that any data company, not have a secure system of storing their information. This goes for the government as well, who gave away all their data through incompetence.
The people should be demanding a right to privacy, and no company should be able to say "oops" and not be de-funded, and the victims compensated.
Coupe,
all the more so because liability insurance specifically designed to protect the company and its customers and vendors against these very kinds of data breaches is widely available now. We're about to see if AshleyMadison did the responsible thing and bought a policy beforehand. They had to know they were a target.
Otter: Flounder, you can't spend your whole life worrying about your mistakes! You fucked up... you interacted with Government! Hey, make the best of it! Maybe we can help.
I am Laslo.
There's open marriage, which is called marriage.
Marriage is about relationships between men and women and the ways they succeed and fail.
One way they typically fail is that the woman is no longer interested in sex and doesn't provide any, giving a typical man a problem. He's still wired to obsess over sex and she isn't. There results, in a subpopulation of these, cheating.
That's a standard marriage failure.
I have a problem with the idea that hypocrisy is a greater evil than other misdeeds. It leads to all kinds of contortions (like Marcotte here, excusing herself from her own behavior by explaining how it's not hypocritical because of some exception that she has created.)
At least Duggar explicitly admitted that he is a huge hypocrite. And really one could use the same kind of logic as Marcotte to excuse him- for instance, perhaps Duggar really believes that society would be better off prohibiting certain things, and he may even feel that he would be better able to fight his own moral battles if he lived in a society where there was less temptation. In that sense, he's not a hypocrite at all.
"Unless you’re Josh Duggar, of course. Or anyone else who fights publicly to use government interference to mess with the private sexual choices of consenting adults."
Which is totally different from using the government to force bakeries to make wedding cakes to supplement the private sexual choices of consenting adults.
The only choices that matter are sexual.
That lecturer on evolutionary psychology said that 90% of gossip (which they define very broadly to mean "informal speech") functions to identify and punish cheaters.
They also have a pretty good handle on the biology of altruism.
That's all I care to mention right now, except I'll add that I pulled that 90% number out of my ass, although it's certainly truthy enough for teh interwebs.
It's not as if anybody's paying me or anything.
Perhaps I should add, also, that "cheaters" is defined very broadly to mean pretty much anybody prone to act in bad faith; take more than their fair share of communal wombat meat, that sort of thing.
I see no reason why social cohesion can't be considered a scarce resource.
mccullough asked about prosecution of adultery. I think it is still a business in the military, where breach of trust, like in porking the spouse (mostly "wife") of your subordinate, and it becomes known, it is a big deal. I think there was a relatively recent case where a retired General was called back to active duty. Since it is a spouse it isn't quite sexual harassment, but it is a problem in society, as is sexual harassment.
It other news, isn't one solution to spousal straying forgiveness. People make mistakes. Sometimes the outcome is forgiveness and a second (or third) chance. What is that old line? "Cana is forever"?
Regards — Cliff
Hypercrisy is upholding high moral standards while not preaching them to others.
Add me to the list of the utterly uninterested in what the fascist left finds hypocritical.
Ann said:
It was because same-sex couples deserved equal respect from society as a group. If it were just a "deeply personal agreement between two people," then the legal status of marriage would not have mattered.
Respect does not come from a piece of paper or from a Judge. It comes from having earning it. Those that did an end-run around the "will of the people" to pass SSM by Judicial fiat did not earn it. They did not convince "hearts and minds" (or at least not enough). The only convinced "enough" Judges to make it so and that does not deserve respect.
Amanda Marcotte?
Really?
I'm having difficulty taking you seriously on this.
Why can't all the victims of the Ashley Madison hack be named Josh Duggar?
Because a lot of them are more like Anna Duggar.
"Why Can't All Ashley Madison Hacking Victims Be Josh Duggar?"
Cuz their names are different.
Under the UCMJ, there are three elements to the crime of adultry, and all three have to be proven to get a conviction:
1.) The service member had sexual intercourse with another individual
2.) At least one of those individuals was married at the time
3.) The act was, under the circumstances, prejudicial to good order and discipline or would cause discredit upon the services.
Adultry is a huge deal when a company commander is boinking the spouses of enlisted members. If the military didn't prosecute those cretins and at least drum them out of the service, they'd have to be fragged. For the good of the service.
However, the UCMJ doesn't obligate commanders to prosecute every little marital fling if it doesn't affect the mission or the unit. Indeed, the third element of the crime pretty much says "no blood, no foul" as far as the UCMJ is concerned. There may be some other articles to prosecute under, though, depending on the circumstances.
I have a hard time taking Marcotte seriously on anything.
Ah, Marcotte's got me twitter-blocked. Now THERE'S a sign of real intellectual rigor. Block your critics so they can't even read what you write, let alone respond.
I do this Prof Althouse is right about the risks of defining marriage as a purely personal agreement, but good luck getting agreement on that point. It isn't the first or last time that liberals choose to have things both ways, and destroy things in the process because the thing loses all meaning.
Governments should enforce marital contracts as they do other contracts. Partnership law provides the framework for division of property and other rights.
Why must the state be involved beyond that, beyond power and control?
Birkel said...
Governments should enforce marital contracts as they do other contracts. Partnership law provides the framework for division of property and other rights.
Why must the state be involved beyond that, beyond power and control?
One reason = children are often involved.
"So Ann Althouse is publicly coming out as saying that marriage, by definition, requires sexual exclusivity? Good!"
How do you figure I said that?
I said that when you marry, you deliberately take on a status that is about public recognition of your relationship, and that closes off your argument that what you are doing is purely private. You've invited public judgment.
You could still say: 1. The public are jerks to express judgment especially where they don't know the details of our relationship. 2. I'll ignore what people say and do what I want and the govt still can't take away my marital status unless we seek divorce, and 3. Marriage ought to be understood to include the privately arrived at relationship between the spouses, including greater sexual freedom.
The Ashley Madison problem has to do with one's public reputation, which is based on the public's idea of what is good, and which tends to be that married couples should be sexually faithful. So, it's going to hurt your reputation to look like an adulterer. That doesn't say thing about what marriage is "by definition."
Analogy: It hurts your reputation (in present day America) to be known to be an atheist, but that doesn't establish that God exists.
It's stupid to decry this "hypocrisy". Everyone has standards that they sometimes fail to live up to. That's a good thing. It would be a bad thing if our humanity means that we shouldn't have any standards at all.
It’s all about an agreement that you decide between yourselves, and like all such agreements, the only people who should care what you do are people who your behavior directly affects. It’s not the business of the world at large.
I think most people of Marcotte's age would agree with her.
At one time marriage was not simply a private arrangement where a couple of people (or more) decided to live together and, for some reason, they can get a certificate that privileges the living arrangement with certain benefits not available to people who did not bother to get the certificate.
Marriage existed primarily as a way for society to regulate the sexual impulses of the young and provide for the offspring that generally results from such impulses. A marriage was an economic unit where the woman exchangeed her fertility for the man's ability to provide for her. In the last 50-100 years, thanks to scientific advances in medicine and unprecedented prosperity, this fact has been forgotten, but that was its original purpose.
And any society that wished to continue to exist was very interested in those arrangements. If men could not be reasonably sure the children they were required to support were not theirs then they would not sire them (or support them if sired). If a woman could not be reasonably sure that a man would support her then she would not bear his children. Thus society disparaging men that had sex with woman who were not there wife as cads and the disparagement of wanton women.
Now, thanks to technology, that society has moved beyond such things, it's clear that "marriage" is as outdated a concept as whalebone corsets and religion.
I don't know why Marcotte and you want to perpetuate such an institution.
If people want to live together and have sex, it certainly isn't any of my business, that is as long as I'm not expected to foot the bills for any of the outcomes of such an arrangement.
So lets stop funding WIC, and food stamps, and section 8 housing, etc. and get society out of the business of regulating each others behavior.
which seems to happen so often that I always assume public perseveration about sexual morality is motivated guilt about sexual sin
Leaving aside whether or not this really happens that often or if we hear about it because of the gleeful expressions of schadenfreude from the likes of Marcotte....
Why not give people the benefit of the doubt and assume that they perseverate about sexual morality because they are struggling with their own guilt and probably have the genuine belief that their own struggle as well as that of others would be made easier if our society wasn't glutted with sexual temptation?
Tank:
Children are handled without marriage. The idea that something handled outside marriage is needed within marriage is a strange notion, indeed. Much less the idea that the state just be involved in every aspect of marriage!!
Part of the data dump included the names and email addresses of married men looking for other men...who live in countries where homosexuality is a capital offense.
Why have a grand wedding with a professional photographer to share the event with the world, if you really don't want to be married? What are we celebrating. Just have a house warming party. Is it the gifts? The 6 hours of attention? Make your parents happy, so they can show off to their friends?
Note: You do NOT need a wedding to be married. A simple ceremony/documented. Miss the days of potlucks & neighborhood function halls.
Why do we need to drive to the ocean to see you get married? Oh geeze... Another choreographed groomsmen dance.... Yay.... Whatever. I'll be at your second more low key wedding in about five years, with the bride 4 months pregnant with her new fiancé.
I'm thinking a lot of divorce attorneys have paid for the searchable database.
It's likely that 95% of those men who registered never actually hooked up with anyone. It's part of the scam. Does it matter?
which seems to happen so often that I always assume public perseveration about sexual morality is motivated guilt about sexual sin
I believe this is known as confirmation bias. You already believe that that, so when it happens you notice it.
@igv
They paid a subscription. So they pay to play, means they're serious.
It's likely that 95% of those men who registered never actually hooked up with anyone. It's part of the scam. Does it matter?
Nope, doesn't matter at all.
Analogy: It hurts your reputation (in present day America) to be known to be homophobic, but that doesn't establish that Gay exists.
It always comes down to who is sucking who's cock.
Always.
I am Laslo.
You lost me at "Amanda Marcotte." How she ever ascended from nobody-ness is one of the amazing untold stories of the Internets.
Laslo Spatula said...
Analogy: It hurts your reputation (in present day America) to be known to be homophobic, but that doesn't establish that Gay exists.
It always comes down to who is sucking who's cock.
Always.
I am Laslo.
8/21/15, 9:41 AM
All my life I have painted, am I known as a painter? No. But suck just one cock...
That is from an old joke, if you were unaware...
So when Jennifer Lawrence and others had their naked pictures hacked, we were told that we couldn't even look at them lest we be considered to have raped the subject of the pictures. Bad, bad hackers, impinging on people's private lives. Don't judge.
Now, its 'open season' on Josh Duggar (and I'm sure many people like Ms. Marcotte are anxious to see who else they can judge when the names are made public).
What happened to "bad, bad hackers, impinging on people's private lives?"
Did Ms. Marcotte just rape Josh Duggar?
"How she ever ascended from nobody-ness is one of the amazing untold stories of the Internets."
-- I see her, Ezra Klein and Matt Yglesias's success and think: If I had the right politics, I'd probably had a much better chance of entering political writing. But, then I remember, I don't want people talking about me, so I probably wouldn't have pursued it anyway.
I'm finding the update confusing.
I think the point is that marriage as a public institution involves reputation. The public frowns on adultery, and assumes that marriage involves fidelity, so cheaters exist but when caught they are generally shamed. We can't nullify that without diluting what marriage is.
All of this implies that marriage is what the majority of the public defines it to be, even if that definition seems too narrow for Anthony Kennedy.
Todd
Best Joke Ever. But the punch line I always use is:
"but you fuck one goat..."
"What happened to "bad, bad hackers, impinging on people's private lives?""
-- Humans are relatively inconsistent when targets of opportunity present themselves.
If you can't be faithful to a spouse, then who will you be faithful to? That explains the Clintons character. They are ever faithful to anyone or anything. Why should they be. It would limit them to a dull life like common people suffer under.
All my life I have painted, am I known as a painter? No. But suck just one cock...
I thought the saying was "Fixing one pipe doesn't make you a plumber."
But AM proves that Thoreau was right "The mass of men do live lives of quiet desperation."
Part of the data dump included the names and email addresses of married men looking for other men...who live in countries where homosexuality is a capital offense.
So while Marcotte and the rest of the SJW are cackling over the thought of embarrassing a few people who they don’t like who may have strayed in their marriages, the very people she claims to be advocating for are at risk of being rounded up by the State Police and imprisoned. Or worse.
Kind of says a lot about what their real priorities are, doesn’t it?
AlbertAnonymous said...
So when Jennifer Lawrence and others had their naked pictures hacked, we were told that we couldn't even look at them lest we be considered to have raped the subject of the pictures. Bad, bad hackers, impinging on people's private lives. Don't judge.
Now, its 'open season' on Josh Duggar (and I'm sure many people like Ms. Marcotte are anxious to see who else they can judge when the names are made public).
What happened to "bad, bad hackers, impinging on people's private lives?"
Did Ms. Marcotte just rape Josh Duggar?
8/21/15, 9:49 AM
I hope no child results or else he will have to pay child support!
I wonder if stupidity is grounds for a divorce.
If you want the societal benefits of marriage, you agree to live by the personal strictures. What happens when you accidentally create children with your outside partners?
Marcotte need not worry over this anyway. After exposing Duggar, the media is yet to expose anyone else. Hypocrisy indeed.
If it were just a "deeply personal agreement between two people," then the legal status of marriage would not have mattered.
You're absolutely right. But the whole post could have been shortened to: Josh Duggar admits hypocrisy; Amanda Marcotte still can't.
Why make this a story about fidelity and values? The hack was about exposing Ashley Madison as a bunko con-game. The membership is nearly all men and the women are either imaginary or webcam-girls working their own scam on the side. It’s unlikely that any AM members ever successfully consummated an affair. (paying to get laid does not constitute an affair) But if your spouse is spending money to flirt with online grifters, then you’ve got a lot of other problems. There is no inner wisdom to be gained here, other than a fool and his money…..
The core premise being argued is a bullshit double standard to solely benefit the politics of the left.
"It's ok when I fuck around, or those I agree with politically fuck around, but not when Republicans fuck around."
BULL
SHIT!
The left is very happy to be in your bedroom if they don't like you.
That hypocrisy will go unexamined and ignored.
I couldn't give a shit if Josh Duggar is on Ashley Madison.
The ONLY REASON the left want this info broadcast is because they think that conservatives will not support cheaters who are conservatives. It's a tactical decision. There are no principles involved.
I hope someone hacks Marcott and exposes her personal info online. That would be karma.
As usual for Marcotte, her argument is totally incoherent.
Let's say there was a preacher who advocated the sanctity of marriage in the sense of the sin of "open marriage" or generally of infidelity. If he was found to have cheated on his wife, would be be a hypocrite? Maybe or maybe not. He may believe in marital fidelity but find that he lacked the strength to resist temptation.
Let's say the same preacher advocated against new forms of "marriage" such as gay marriage but made no issue around "open marriage" What if he had Marcotte's view that it is a private matter between the couple. He would not, by any stretch of the imagination be hypocritical if he had an affair. How does having an opinion on gay marriage imply that you have an opinion on the virtue of fidelity, divorce, whether to have children, etc. Answer: It doesn't have anything to do with those things.
What Marcotte wants is what she always wants: Special permission to treat some people (the ones with wrong opinions) differently (worse) than everyone else.
How can Marcotte admit hypocrisy, when she has no standard to start with?
At least he admitted to being the biggest hypocrite.
I admit that I have not followed the Duggers before or after the controversy, but are they really advocates for traditional mores or do they get labelled as advocates because that is simply how they live their lives on their reality show? It's not the same thing. In real life we all sin. We all slip below perfection. Was Josh Duggar lobbying Congress for morality laws? Was he making television commercials promoting morality laws? I think it's wrong to call him a hypocrite just because he failed to live up to his standards, unless he was actively trying to force others to live to those standards.
The ONLY REASON the left want this info broadcast is because they think that conservatives will not support cheaters who are conservatives.
To a large extent they’re right. There are some conservatives who will forgive or reluctantly support a politician who was found to be unfaithful to their wife but there are a lot who take the position that someone who is unfaithful to their spouse cannot be trusted in other matters.
For progressives though, it comes down to what the meaning of the word “is” is and what does it matter anyway?
Was Josh Duggar lobbying Congress for morality laws?
Yes.
Re: Hypocrisy...
Note that she's *NOT* talking about people who have pretended to high moral standards on sex. She's talking about anyone who disagrees with her politically.
Believing that the abortion cutoff should be 20 weeks rather than 21 weeks is *NOT* claiming to be righteous and sexually pure. It's just not.
This is just a narrow fig leaf to cover her delight at the public shaming of the political unperson.
It's extremely ugly.
Marcotte presents an extremely hypocritical, narrow minded definition of sexual hypocrisy. Although to be fair, she'd probably be ok with outing anti abortion activists and climate change skeptics. She's inclusive that way........If you ever meet someone who isn't a hypocrite on sexual matters, ask him to say a prayer for me......Shaun Grant's mother isn't a hypocrite. She went out of her way to make sure that her son knew his father was a light skinned black man. Shaun Grant's mother is entitled to register on AM without further scrutiny or judgment.
Her rationalization for bad behavior goes like this:
Social conservatives should be held to the standards that they advocate for others, so, if one who publicly advocates standards of sexual morality has shown inability to maintain the standard he/she should be publicly humiliated.
This, despite the fact that it is her own value system that says that these acts should be private and the perpetrators not subjected to public shaming. By failing to uniformly live by this, her own value system, she demonstrates that it isn't really a standard but a cudgel she will choose to use selectively.
She trashes any possible claim to the higher moral ground.
In other words, Josh Duggar and Amanda Marcotte are basically two sides of the same coin. His personal value system informs him that people should feel shame for sexual indiscretion, and he failed to live according up the standard he advocates. Her value system says that these acts aren't shameful, but she is willing to inflict shame anyway so she clearly doesn't live up to her values.
Of the two though, only Duggar admits his failings.
Marcotte's article is just a long way around to the same old Lefty point that if you do not agree with them, you are evil and everything is fair game.
She writes:
"If you fight for the government to limit or ban gay people’s marriages or women’s reproductive choices, then your sex life is our business."
With respect to gay marriage that is a very odd way to describe what happened. Nobody started out fighting for the government to limit or ban gay people's marriages, because there were none. Rather, some people cam along and started fighting for the government to allow gay marriages and to limit anyone else's ability to have a contrary opinion. But note that Marcotte does not assert that those people's sex life should be anybody's business - no, that only applies to people who disagree with the correct position. Same thing with abortion, though we are a generation removed from Roe. If someone fought for legal abortion or for increased taxpayer funding - should that person's sex life be fair game? Of course not in Leftworld - only the wrongthinking people.
On the topic of fidelity, human rights, etc. Suddenly, principles are en vogue. Whatever happened to the pro-choice doctrine? Or is it always its own answer as in selective.
This has #CecilTheLion written all over it, while #CecileTheAbortionist continues to roam free.
The more important issue is if the individuals are caught in their own immoral muck or have they attempted to promote or normalize it (i.e. progressive morality) in society.
Don't fret, Josh Duggar isn't the biggest hypocrite ever, there are even worse hypocrites. Here they are.
The biggest hypocrites are those who say there is no morality but then get all moralistic about hypocrisy (or anything else).
Ambrose
"If you fight for the government to limit or ban gay people’s marriages or women’s reproductive choices, then your sex life is our business."
--- Marcotte
That's great. Equivalence proponents (e.g. "=") support selective exclusion on principle. And Marcotte has the audacity of believing that indiscriminate killing of [wholly] innocent human lives (i.e. abortion) is merely a reproductive choice and a private affair.
SGT Ted:
Well, that's the question. Do we sacrifice them, or permit them to repent? Is it reasonable and rational to allow them the latter opportunity? For instance, did they seek to promote or normalize their dysfunctional orientation and behavior?
It's telling that the Left believes in rehabilitation of murderers and rapists, and they believe that abortionists are normal and provide a service to society, but support evisceration of their religious/moral, political, and economic competitors.
Marcotte's a hack and her opinions would be dangerous if enough people were demented enough to agree with them. Adulterers deserve privacy too, you fascist! Even ones with abhorrent political views.
Does she think the Clintons deserve no privacy, because they supported DOMA until last year? I suspect not, but then expecting anything short of hawkish buffoonery from her is a bridge too far.
If you don't like what Duggar--not an elected official, by the way--has to say about gay rights or abortion, then argue on those merits. But if you think it's just fine to violate their privacy rights and make their loved ones suffer because you don't like their politics, then you're an awful person. I'm sure Marcotte would feel differently if some Republican used this reasoning on Al Gore or her former boss, John Edwards.
CStanley nails it.
I don't give a crap about the Duggars and their problems, but I will admit that I'm annoyed at his inability to practice what he preaches so publically. It further reinforces the leftists favorite talking point that all Religious people are closeted sexual deviants.
JD said...
Don't fret, Josh Duggar isn't the biggest hypocrite ever, there are even worse hypocrites. Here they are.
I feel bad for all these hypocrites at one level. If they had just gone into the porn or prostitution industries they would not have had these problems. Bad early career decisions have blighted their lives.
"The Ashley Madison problem has to do with one's public reputation, which is based on the public's idea of what is good, and which tends to be that married couples should be sexually faithful. So, it's going to hurt your reputation to look like an adulterer."
And cover up for it by making false accusations of vast right wing conspiracies. Did Althouse just get around to rebuking the Clinton's?
This reminds me of Michael Moore boggling at 9/11 because it was perpetrated upon New York and Washington which are full of liberals like him. I suppose if they had hit Dallas and Salt Lake City he would have got out the marshmallows.
The whole problem with hypocrisy is it does not allow you to say don't be like me, be good. As for it applied selectively, funny how Democrats are presumably on the hook for their principles as Republicans are, but when they...no, they don't stand for fiscal solvency...no, not for honesty or anti-corruption...not for honest elections...no, well, what do they stand for? I guess if you have no principles you can't be faulted for violating them.
@Birches- I think that talking point for leftists is self reinforcing anyway though. I used to cringe at these kinds of revelations, but I'm beyond caring what liberals think. It's not as though any standard of conduct would be good enough to convince them of the correctness of the moral positions held by pro-family conservatives. Now I still cringe, but it's more because I am aware of the public flagellation the person will receive and I think that's horrible for their family members.
Duggar is not a bigot or sanctimonious hypocrite. The evidence suggests that while he may be or was morally weak, he has not attempted to promote or normalize his dysfunctional/deviant orientation and behavior. In fact, he has made an extraordinary effort to discourage others from following the same destructive path. He recognizes his moral failure, privately repented, and publicly promoted a functional/moral alternative. He is not a pro-choice religious/moral doctrinaire.
"If you fight for the government to limit or ban gay people’s marriages or women’s reproductive choices, then your sex life is our business."
--- Marcotte
If you fight for the government to not limit the people's ability to perform (or receive) abortions, then your sex life is our business.
Seems fair.
Ann Althouse said...The Ashley Madison problem has to do with one's public reputation, which is based on the public's idea of what is good, and which tends to be that married couples should be sexually faithful. So, it's going to hurt your reputation to look like an adulterer.
I dunno, Bill Clinton's approval ratings might disagree.
I don't think adultery is the most important issue of out time. No, that issue is definitely global warming. I wish Amanda would join me and like minded activists in throwing cow dung at Al Gore, Leonardo Dicaprio , and other private plane users whenever they make a public appearance. Only by shaming such public hypocrites can we, with good conscience, demand the banning of SUV's. Also, as black lives matter, we should demand the incarceration of Suge Knight and divestment from South Africa Neil until such time as Winnie Mandela is brought to justice.
So an agreement between two people does not involve the rest of us? All contracts are fine? Sounds like Ayn Rand on steroids. It's okay for a cannibal and his dinner to conclude a deal, a poor man to sell himself into slavery, a 9 year old girl to prostitute herself, a voter to sell her vote?
So the lesson here is that if you are a public figure, hope to God that your parents respond to sexual deviancy with a giggle and rolling of eyeballs, rather than the long arm of the law. Teaching your toddler sister to implant marbles is just a charming way to pass the afternoon.
Because molestation is okay if you're a girl, and later make a few people laugh by comparing your male significant other to a dog.
And Josh Duggar had it coming, that square.
Marriage is a contract and it does involve sexual exclusivity, All contracts have public resonances. If a contract is not supposed to be honored then all trade and business stops since we don't have a common expectation that the contract will be honored. We do divorce based on adultery and the consequences are to the spouse, children and other family members are immense. Divorce also has other social consequences.
All society depends on trust and that includes honoring contracts. Infidelity is a breach of trust and contract .
William: I wish Amanda would join me and like minded activists in throwing cow dung at Al Gore, Leonardo Dicaprio , and other private plane users whenever they make a public appearance.
Exactly. Isn't it interesting that their social activism undoes the sin of their actions, while Duggar's social activism compounds the sin of his actions?
"If you fight for the government to limit or ban gay people’s marriages or women’s reproductive choices, then your sex life is our business"
And you sort of agree with that?
"If you fight for the government to raise test scores, then your college record is our business"
"If you fight for the government to increase taxes, then your financial records are our business."
"If you fight for the government to restrict speech, then anything you've ever said is our business."
"which tends to be that married couples should be sexually faithful"
Sorry, that sounds like heteronormative monogamy. Went out the door with SSM. Now you can be married and screw around. Gays lead the Prog transformation of "marriage" morality. AM "scandal" is only useful for Prog-shaming con heteros. Must be exploited to the fullest, of course.
Ah, Amanda! Still pining for John, I see. We all know that Rielle's baby should have been yours.
“public perseveration about sexual morality is motivated by guilt about sexual sin.”
Hitherto, could liberal perseveration about PC, i.e. the term “anchor babies” is demeaning, motivated by a sense of superiority?
@ william
Great point
If you say "Forsaking All Others" forsake all others. If you don't plan on forsaking all others don't say the words.
Marriage is a contract and it does involve sexual exclusivity, All contracts have public resonances. If a contract is not supposed to be honored then all trade and business stops since we don't have a common expectation that the contract will be honored. We do divorce based on adultery and the consequences are to the spouse, children and other family members are immense. Divorce also has other social consequences. All society depends on trust and that includes honoring contracts. Infidelity is a breach of trust and contract .
This comment by RAH also gets to the base of why Kennedy's decision was so completely wrong and botched. Kennedy assumes that marriage is about feelings and the emotional relationship between two people (and, by his reasoning, there's no reason to limit it to two). What Kennedy (and almost all of the SSM advocates) omit is the concept that marriage is an arrangement that expresses commitment and obligation to more than just the married parties - primarily to the children. Kennedy completely ignores the natural right of a child to have a mother and father.
Over time, progressives have moved society so that love = sex. They've said if you love someone you can have sex with them, because love and sex are the same thing. Historically, love is much greater than sex, but that gets in the way of having sex when you want to have sex. Then the SSM crowd came along and said marriage = love. Marriage requires love to be successful, but it's not about "love" in the sense that Kennedy's opinion suggests. Marriage is about the social order required to bring up the next generation. Why use marriage = love? Because the SSM supporters really wanted to get to marriage = sex. Marriage has been redefined to be a relationship about sex. The SSM crowd doesn't want to be judged for their sexual activity. And you get to have sex with the person you're married to... heck, you're supposed to have sex with the person you're married to.
Ms. Marcotte comes along advocating that marriage=love=sex=marriage and then pointing out that only if you're on the right side politically can this be true.
(For the record, I do not think that marriage=love=sex. That's a relationship far more complicated that Justice Kennedy would like to admit so he did some new math to get things to turn out the way he wanted them to.)
Speaking of hypocrites: Pro-Choice Group Slut Shames Pro-Life Activist
He admitted to being the biggest hypocrite, says Titus, before coveting his 1000th "strange" cock post marriage.
So when Jennifer Lawrence and others had their naked pictures hacked, we were told that we couldn't even look at them lest we be considered to have raped the subject of the pictures. Bad, bad hackers, impinging on people's private lives. Don't judge.
Now, its 'open season' on Josh Duggar (and I'm sure many people like Ms. Marcotte are anxious to see who else they can judge when the names are made public).
What happened to "bad, bad hackers, impinging on people's private lives?"
Did Ms. Marcotte just rape Josh Duggar?
This. 1000x this. But it won't matter. According to leftists, Josh Dugger has a penis prays to the "invisible sky god" and says sex should be regulated because a book said so. Therefore, the heretic must die.
Hypocrisy is an imbalance between one's beliefs and one's actions. Like any imbalance, it can be remedied by changing either side of the scales, or tinkering with both.
Social conservatives know that actions can't always measure up to the strictures of their beliefs, but they persevere and accept some imbalance (hypocrisy is not the greatest of all sins.) the imbalance, in some sense, is motivating and keeps one humble.
Social liberals feel that the imbalance itself is intolerable (hypocrisy is the greatest moral wrong) so they tinker with their moral code in order to neutralize and normalize actions that they don't want to stop doing. If everyone is doing it ican't be that bad. If it feels good, it can't be bad....etc.
Those are generalities, of course, and again, sometimes people tinker with both sides of the scales -rationalizing their specific actions to carve out exceptions without rewriting the entire moral code. Marcotte's rationalization here is a perfect example of that,
CStanley:
That's a robust definition of hypocrisy and characterization of two remedies. And, you're right, it is the rare individual who will exhibit one perspective uniformly and consistently, and perhaps a fantasy that anyone born will ever realize an internally, externally, and mutually consistent logic, let alone orientation and behavior. So, we strive.
Duggar isn't an example of what the laws on morality should be. He is an example of why the government is a really shifty tool for enforcing morality. Marcotte and the wedding cake Nazis are just emphasizing this lesson.
Hopefully enough "conservatives" learn this before we have the state arranging our marriages.
Jiminy Cricket.
I have given you people a day to figure out the obvious, and you wander off into the weeds.
Ashley Madison was about men getting anal sex.
Ashley Madison was about men getting anal sex.
Again: Ashley Madison was about men getting anal sex.
You want straight sex: there is a girl in your office, or neighborhood. There is a nation of MILFs wanting to borrow a cup of sugar.
You want a blow-job: plenty of college girls and waitresses and baristas. Sometimes: friends of your college-age daughter.
You want anal sex?
You want non-diseased non-contagious non-boulevard anal sex?
Ain't in your suburb, pal.
Online you could determine the details before you even met her: no anal sex? No credit card number.
Ashley Madison was about men getting anal sex.
There.
I am Laslo.
At which point I drop the mic.
I am Laslo.
"...the only people who should care what you do are people who your behavior directly affects."
Shouldn't it be "whom?"
And it is racist to claim one should not care about disparate impact.
In many cases I would not declaim a speaker is racist who makes the point above, yet in Marcotte's case the--racist--shoe fits.
I wonder if anyone reading here thinks n.n is promoting violence against gays?
That's what the article JD linked to says.
"... their organizations continue to perpetuate violence against the most vulnerable members of my community, condemning bad apple after bad apple, when it’s as clear as day that it’s their profoundly disturbed ideology that is to blame." The CIA under Bush created HIV/AIDS.
And the author talks about evil conservative beings, seemingly haven taken human form, "dehumanizing" his community. He doesn't mention the socioeconomic status of "his" community though for some reason...
Oh, but if a kid commits suicide it is because of THEM OTHERS OVER THERE, hence once we abolish THEM OTHERS OVER THERE, problem, in fact all problems we can concur, will have been solved finally.
Because all problems originate from GOP bigots and the damn-near omnipotent power they have over the culture. They have had this power since before all the RACIST Democrats magically switched over to the side that had fought the congenital Democratic racism tooth and nail for a century.
This extends worldwide of course, and if you didn't know that, you're mega-ignorance masquerading as considered nuance.
http://reason.com/blog/2015/08/21/pro-choice-group-takes-down-story-slut-s
"Her sexual practices would not themselves be of note, but for her decision to step forward as a moral arbiter of the private decisions of others." -RH Reality Check
"If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice." -Rush "Free Will"
Also, if you didn't condemn the rapes in China, the starving in India, the theft from the U.S. Treasury, and female genital mutilation worldwide, all of which occurred today, then your failure to step forward as a moral arbiter in these matters condemns you to Hell eternally and hopefully a well-deserved prominence temporarily as the Democratic's best and brightest.
Guildofcannonballs:
Strange. I am the first one to promote tolerance, consistently. Perhaps you need to recalibrate your sensors. But, yes, I am not a pro-choice doctrinaire. I do not support the selective-child policy or the selective exclusion of "equal".
More seriously, a lot of the people who say that their spouse has assented to the extra marital sex have used power and coercion to the the so-called consent. And it rarely works out well, even if the consent is not coerced. Mainly because the non marital partner will become a weapon in whatever struggles the marriage has, even if the sex supposedly does not matter.
People with user names like "nosexinmarriage" and "latinalover46" are not looking for an extramarital affair, they are looking for a hooker.
I have to admit indulging in some of the collective schadenfraude against the disgrace of Josh Duggar. But of course, even if Duggar is a person of poor character, it makes no difference to whether or not the arguments he is advancing or the social policies he is advocating are correct or not. Hypocrisy is actually a really good thing, and abandoning it for a tell all confessional culture has been a disaster. Even the most sexually decadent depraved hedonist should publicly advocate marital fidelity, strong committed marriages as essential for the raising of healthy, well adjusted children, etc. The reality is that higher functioning people (cognitively, emotionally, economically, etc.) can afford to engage in a lot of selfish, self-destructive behavior at a relative low cost to society, because their human capital helps insulate the effects of their behavior. A bohemian, sexually libertine ethos among the unwashed masses is a recipe for disaster. It's their offspring that tend to fill up the prisons and the rehabs at a tremendous cost to society.
n.n I used you as an example because I believe you are a great spokesperson for your, and in most cases my, viewpoints espoused on this blog. I was attempting to show how the haters are hating not firebrand drunkards like myself, or real people intentionally causing actual harm as their goal, but sober persons with a well-defined position based on probity such as you.
This doctor blames you and I for teenage suicides, which isn't only offensively stupid but advances any potential solutions away from being implemented.
Dr. Jay Michaelson can use the tools of hatred against me with some success, because I attempt to use those same tools against the racist, misogynist, unGodly Left. To me*, when he uses these tools against you he comes across as painfully unserious about relieving suffering of any kind but instead appears an uncontrolled hate hate hater.
*I am burning the kindling near the conflagration so as to starve the beast of its fuel.
Guildofcannonballs:
I wasn't familiar with your position. I'm just glad that I did not lose control in my response. That's one less thing to worry about.
The doctor proffers an unscientific opinion. The confirmed violence against trans individuals has been committed by minorities and other trans individuals. The fact that sex, and, to a large degree, gender, are exclusively determined by genotype, should be taught and accepted. The understanding that gender roles have both a natural and social cause should be taught and accepted. The presence of trans orientations and behaviors that do not exhibit a progressive expression and are not injurious to other individuals in society and humanity can be reasonably tolerated. Perhaps the doctor has missed a signal that is evidence of a correlation between trans orientations and depression, or he is just projecting his own fears and confusion on a scapegoat class.
I wonder if the doctor is pro-choice. With the public exposure of consequences from a selective-child policy, and pro-choice doctrine generally, individuals who subscribe to this irreconcilable religious/moral philosophy are under pressure to answer for their shifting/selective positions.
"So Ann Althouse is publicly coming out as saying that marriage, by definition, requires sexual exclusivity? Good!"
Ashley Madison was going by that premise. They were saying you can get around that restriction by anonymously having your tryst through Ashley Madison.
"So Ann Althouse is publicly coming out as saying that marriage, by definition, requires sexual exclusivity? Good!"
Ashley Madison was going by that premise. They were saying you can get around that restriction by anonymously having your tryst through Ashley Madison.
"A bohemian, sexually libertine ethos among the unwashed masses is a recipe for disaster."
But, but, but. That's the Democratic Party's basic position on almost anything !
@Michael K:
"But, but, but. That's the Democratic Party's basic position on almost anything !"
You're pushing on an open door with me. I'd be more than willing to embrace the Republicans (I don't even care that much about gay marriage), but (a) they're just as corporatist as the Democrats; and (b) they advocate an even stupider interventionist foreign policy.
I have to admit indulging in some of the collective schadenfraude against the disgrace of Josh Duggar. But of course, even if Duggar is a person of poor character, it makes no difference to whether or not the arguments he is advancing or the social policies he is advocating are correct or not. Hypocrisy is actually a really good thing, and abandoning it for a tell all confessional culture has been a disaster. Even the most sexually decadent depraved hedonist should publicly advocate marital fidelity, strong committed marriages as essential for the raising of healthy, well adjusted children, etc. The reality is that higher functioning people (cognitively, emotionally, economically, etc.) can afford to engage in a lot of selfish, self-destructive behavior at a relative low cost to society, because their human capital helps insulate the effects of their behavior. A bohemian, sexually libertine ethos among the unwashed masses is a recipe for disaster. It's their offspring that tend to fill up the prisons and the rehabs at a tremendous cost to society. [emphasis added]
The sentence that I would add to the above is one closely akin to the sentence to which I added emphasis, with just one or two words added or replaced and the teeniest of reshuffle (less than 1/2 a sentence).
What's missing from that otherwise quite on-point, well explained post?
"Unless you’re Josh Duggar, of course. Or anyone else who fights publicly to use government interference to mess with the private sexual choices of consenting adults. If you fight for the government to limit or ban gay people’s marriages or women’s reproductive choices, then your sex life is our business."
So then, by this rationale, if you are for the continuation of laws that keep polygamy, bigamy or incestual marriage illegal you are the self same person. Is amanda marcotte actually espousing support of legalizing or normalizing any of those things? Otherwise, she is endorsing govt interference that messes with the private sexual choices of consenting adults.
And also fighting to limit or ban polgyamists, bigamists, and adult incestual marriage.
If you don't have a govt out of the marriage business view how are you not also in support of said govt's policies in those other areas, which are definitionally interfering with the private sexual choices of consenting adults?
Thus, Amanda is revealed to be the self same hypocrite as Duggar.
But of course, even if Duggar is a person of poor character, it makes no difference [as] to whether or not the arguments he is advancing or the social policies he is advocating are correct or not.
But of course, even if Duggar is a conservative, it makes no difference [as] to whether or not the arguments he is advancing or the social policies he is advocating are correct or not.
But of course, even if Duggar is a liberal, it makes no difference [as] to whether or not the arguments he is advancing or the social policies he is advocating are correct or not.
But of course, even if Duggar is a conservative, it makes no difference [as] to whether or not the arguments he is advancing or the social policies he is advocating are correct or not.
But of course, even if Duggar is a progressive, it makes no difference [as] to whether or not the arguments he is advancing or the social policies he is advocating are correct or not.
[and so on, and so on, and so on, and so on it goes, and so it go9]
es
But of course, even if Duggar is a person of different politics, it makes no difference [as] to whether or not the arguments he is advancing or the social policies he is advocating are correct or not.
---
My, oh, my, oh, my, from my earliest days I have seen demanded: Address the issues, not the person. Address the concerns, not the person. Address the points, not the person. Address the ... oh, whatever demanded by all those fakers ...
Let's just all be clear with each other: It's about the sides. It's about the tribes.
Can we all agree on at least one thing?--It hasn't about issues, concerns, or arguments for *at least* 20 years.
"If you fight for the government to limit or ban gay people’s marriages or women’s reproductive choices, then your sex life is our business."
I don't see how this follows. It merely asserts the right to do to those you dislike what you would forbid anyone to do to you. Or did someone give Ms. Marcotte some special power or dispensation to meet out justice in her own special way?
I note that the possibility of being judged is what many people dislike about organized religion. How odd it is that they so often practice being openly judgmental themselves.
Sorry about the length, but this can't be said briefly.
"But cheating is about violating a deeply personal agreement between two people. If the person you’re with doesn’t care if you sleep with other people, it’s not cheating. It’s all about an agreement that you decide between yourselves, and like all such agreements, the only people who should care what you do are people who your behavior directly affects. It’s not the business of the world at large."
Unless you're married (as defined by history, not as defined by Anthony Kennedy). Marriage is in great part a public contract between the married party and society. Humans are unique in that they don't automatically behave according to the interests of their species - insanity separates us from the lower animals. When humans observe their lot and discern what is and isn't sane, they forge social contracts to incentivize desired behaviors and disincentivize the opposite.
Marriage is one of those contracts. "It is an institution in the maintenance of which in its purity the public is deeply interested, for it is the foundation of the family and of society, without which there would be neither civilization nor progress" (Maynard v. Hill, 1888). Marriage purports to be the sole blueprint for non-dysfunctional, civilization-compatible heterosexual relations. Universally it prods people into limiting sexual activity to life-mate relationships; in "prudent states" (Blackstone, Commentaries, Book 1, Ch. 15) it is monogamous by nature. (Inequities like polygamy and the Export-Import Bank are products of elitist-fellating imprudent states.) Such mating norms ameliorate strife in the market for mates (relevant to all heteros), provide the most ideal household for assimilating the replacement into sanity and the social contracts of civilization (relevant to almost all hetero couples), and by example teaches the Rules of Heterosexuality to the replacement population (relevant to all society's hetero couples.
SSM is based on the notion of "marriage" as little more than a companionship registry and a vehicle for earning government benefits. Virtually all its supporters are loyal to the Sexual Revolution, which rejects the assumption that heterosexual activity must be limited to life-mate relationships, and obviously wants no such expectations imposes on homosexuality. SSM is possible because of the Hegeliam synthesis of marriage and the Sexual Revolution, which reinvents marriage as Hallmark-movie mush with no civic responsibilities.
That Potemkin view of marriage has vastly fewer antibodies against Ashley Madison than real marriage does.
Anyone up for an anecdotal, true story about a marriage ceremony? Just wondering.
(Yeah, it will involve my and my husband's wedding in January of 1995.)
No lyin' or misrepresentin' here... .
@rcommal:
"My, oh, my, oh, my, from my earliest days I have seen demanded: Address the issues, not the person. Address the concerns, not the person. Address the points, not the person."
I have made this point repeatedly. A certain amount of tribalism is hard wired into our brains and part of the human condition. But I think we should try, as much as possible, to overcome it. I read a phrase somewhere (its origin escapes me at the moment) that I thought summarized this approach nicely: "human nature is precisely what humans were put on this earth to overcome."
J. Farmer wrote:
"I have made this point repeatedly."
I know the feeling. ashleymadison is a web site designed to connect johns with hookers. It is not a site designed designed to connect dissatisfied married people with other dissatisfied married people so they can "have an affair." Jesus, It is fucking obvious.
At any given point in time, there is always going to be someone who is determined to make life harder.
---
A life lesson forced on me since I was akin to 3 years old.
---
Thanks for the reminder, Terry. That said, I am not grateful for you.
Can we all agree on at least one thing?--It hasn't about issues, concerns, or arguments for *at least* 20 years.
That's a position of a member of your side in this, that there is no valid objection to your positions therefore any opposition must come from some other place than reason. It is wrong.
I think, not sure, that you misunderstood her, Tim. In the political climate, she's saying, the gotchas and bank shots matter more than telling and understanding the truth, and have for some time. Allegations ge 1, corrections page 34. Niggardly. Binders full of women. Everything has to be predigested because the people have been deprived of their ability to chew.
That's a position of a member of your side
On which side, what side, Tim, do you think I am?
Nichevo's on to at least a coupla somethings there, Tim, and so I freely say: I appreciate it. I am grateful.
To me? De nada. And pls do lay your wedding tale on us.
No, no "wedding tale". WTF, you think this is reality show?
----
It was very, very important to me and him and therefore we that in our marriage ceremony we acknowledged that we were not just marrying each other but also joining our families in supporting the two of us getting married precisely because both of our immediate parent families supported the "institution" of marriage and had for decades before the two of us "got married."
And, so, we did.
And to this day, all of us all are still married, and, to this very day, to the same people, with the exception of my father, who is now married to someone else--but only after he stayed with my mom, who ended up with ALS, until the day she died. A couple-so years later, he did remarry. And, also, ftr, just something akin to a month and a half after their marriage, he found her, in the middle of the night, on the floor of their bathroom, her having suffered a rather significant stroke. He's stood by her, from that to day to this, and that's no surprise to me. Despite all his artiness and professorship stuff (I'm saying that for the benefit of so many of you who...dislike...on mention anything having to do with that sort of thing), in his way he's a fundamental, loyal sort. Just sayin'... .
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा