We’re all getting old…
The era of electronic entertainment has given rise to all sorts of interesting moral questions, questions that bring shades of gray to hitherto black-and-white issues of right or wrong. Here’s one:
I was going to file this silly thing under INSIGNIFICA when I decided it wasn’t that silly, after all.
We might think that this is a modern morality question, but of course it isn’t. People have been sending “love letters” to each other pretty much as soon as we discovered writing, only now the communication is electronic over the Internet rather than on paper and by messenger / through the mail. In days gone by, therefore, a husband discovering racy love letters from another man in his wife’s possession would justifiably, in my opinion, be suspicious of his wife’s fidelity — and certainly so if the other man was a mutual acquaintance, or someone living close by.
Of course, the further the distance between writers, the less likely would actual adultery take place — but, to address the above question, is virtual adultery any different from actual adultery?
Note that I’m not talking about flirty communication here; there’s an enormous difference, in my opinion, between “I’d love to take a walk on the beach with you someday” to “I want to suck your penis”, although some might argue that the difference is only in degree.
The arrival of the telephone added sound to the situation — and one has only to see how many “phone sex” lines there are to see the effect of that. Still, I suppose that one might argue that such activity is purely impersonal — I’m reminded of a scene in some movie of a young woman having phone sex on one of these lines while doing her ironing and watching her baby play on the kitchen floor — and it’s all just fantasy, not adultery.
What has changed, of course, is that communication nowadays can include video, where love letters never did. Now we are talking about a whole different ball game, aren’t we? Or are we?
Does adultery have to require actual physical contact to be classified as adultery?
I have to say “yes” to the above — although that said, I understand that virtual adultery has all sorts of “moth and candle” implications, especially if it’s between people who know each other. As one woman of my acquaintance once put it: “Virtual sex has replaced foreplay when it comes to fooling around”, and she’s absolutely right — if, that is, the couple are not just strangers getting a cheap thrill out of the thing.
And there, I think, is the crux of it. It’s not the virtual aspect of it; it’s who you’re talking to. Which is more dangerous to a marriage: talking sex to a complete stranger in a chat room, on a phone sex line or on a video call, or talking sex with a neighbor, a guy from the office or a friend’s husband?
I think we all know the answer to that.
With an estimated surface area of over 600,000 square miles, the Great Pacific Garbage Patch (GPGP) is the largest plastic accumulation zone in the world.
Scientists are desperately trying to clear the build-up, and this month have been able to extract 10 tonnes (10,086kg) of plastic, bringing the total of plastic removed to 145 tonnes (145,518 kg).
So the job is about .006% done? Okay, whatever. Keep on going, then.
What I object to is that the junk is being offloaded onto U.S. soil, when in fact it should just be returned to its principle point of origin: China (with an assist from the Japs).
Of course, being the assholes that they are, the ChiComs won’t destroy or recycle any of it, but just dump it all back into the ocean.
Asia wins again.
By the way, I see no reason why this cleanup effort shouldn’t be funded in its entirety by Green billionaires and their woke corporations.
After yesterday’s post featuring Emma Mackey, here’s an even better caterpillar-to-butterfly series, this time about mousy erotic-artist-clarinettist Lily, played by Tanya Reynolds. Here’s Lily:
…and here’s Tanya:
More of the Sex Ed totties will follow as more are revealed, so to speak.
Out of pure curiosity, I recently picked up a second-hand copy of J.K.Rowling’s (non-fantasy) novel, The Casual Vacancy.
What a delight.
The story involves an enormous cast of characters getting involved in a fairly mundane matter — the filling of a vacant town council seat — and its profound and often tragic consequences for the people of the town. It’s not an easy read — Rowling writes in the Russian style, where characters are introduced and never again explained — but it is very well written.
This is also a novel for grownups and not a Harry Potter book. It’s a searing and bleak sketch of modern British small-town life, and I can recommend it wholeheartedly to any of my Readers (especially of the Brit genus ) who want a decent few hours’ entertainment.
I’m definitely going to read it again, in the not-so distant future. Thanks, J.K.
In a shocking development:
Fox News announced Wednesday that Trace Gallagher will be the new anchor of Fox News @ Night, replacing Shannon Bream, who now hosts Fox News Sunday.
Now I have nothing against Gallagher, whom I recall as a decent enough sort, back when I used to watch cable news shows, and Fox in particular. But let’s just consider what’s happening here:
I mean… seriously?
Shannon is one of the foxiest [sic] anchors on TV, and to relegate her to a Sunday-only position is not A Good Thing. (I’m thinking of the welfare of Fox News regular viewers, here.)