When Dating..

Post Reply New Topic

*sigh* Okay, first off, a clarification:

Love, understanding, and compromise is assumed to be both present, and the goal, in any scenario that any of us has presented. So it does not need to be brought up in this exploration of how best to resolve the conflict. It's implicit. Speaking of it does not further anyone's point of view, nor make it any more persuasive. And for sure, no views have the monopoly, nor dearth, on love and understanding. It is not a viable platform for the purpose of the discussion. It's a 'nothing' statement, a piece of utterly hollow rhetoric, doused in syrup and marshmallows. My proposed ideas are wrapped in love and commitment, and so are yours.

So, yes, love understanding compromise and unicorns and rainbows. Let's just assume everyone's statements starts with something regarding love and compromise, and simply get on to the useful parts of the discussion that actually bare meaning.

....Moving on to the actual discussion.

Nope, you were not negative at all, merely un-detailed with way too many hollow, unsubstantial generalizations.
I am the only person being negative here.
I think that's cool. But you haven't succeeded in doing that. You said, in so many words, "I agree with michelle!" and then gave no substantive support.

Not quite: Yes, it has been quite one-sided, by virtue of the detail, and clarity of the points and perspectives that HopeGrows and I have put forth. We haven't had as much competitive counter-points with a depth of detail and clarity. MichelleRM78 has given a number of very good points after a while, but has not supplied quite as many specific points as as ours.
You could help remedy this imbalance, if you'd just state your case clearly, in detail.

This is sorta how debates work.....


Sweet, this must be where a good counterpoint is made, clarifying why you believe what you believe...
Gah! A massive, hollow generality.... what a let down.

This is why the debate got one-sided, Agape. This is why we persist in our point as if we "are definitely right." Because you do not give us reason to think otherwise. You make it out as if you could, but then you don't even try.

....Thus giving you free license to paint us as hard-headed, brazenly self-assured of our stance and it's correctness, just because it's ours. SURELY we would not accede to any other viewpoint... No, no, not a chance...
And then you get to play the "I'm not here to argue with you" card, the cherry on top, taking the high road! Good job!
No one will see through that one....

If you go out of your way to make your first posts on the site just to say that you can persist with your viewpoint, despite our argument, couldn't you at least elaborate the merits that allow your view stand, those nuggets of wisdom that cut through our argument?
You tease.

We are perfectly capable of changing our minds when presented with a rational, merited counterpoints. MichelleRM78 made a few points herself, and over the course of our debate, it seemed we might have found a bit of a mid-ground between our initial extremes as a result.
But here, you're providing nothing, as of yet. Chip in.

We're not debating for the sake of being right, Agape. Give us some credit.

Now this, I can agree with wholeheartedly.

Nice framing; This is yet another mis-characterization. It should be very, very clear from how the debate settled that both partner's emotions matter and deserve due consideration. No one said nor intimated that only one person's problems mattered. Either you're imagining things, and thus don't actually understand our overall stance, or you're just messing with me. And I don't know which it is, now.

There's that whole irony thing again.

By not acknowledging or conceding any of our points as-of-yet, you seem to be saying that if Partner A feels offended or jealous for any reason, then the answer is for Partner B to quit it, end-of-story. Is this incorrect?

Well to me, this is theoretical debate. When I heard this issue come up between people, I started thinking about it. My entire thought process has really been the same: If something is causing your partner to feel insecure, it should matter. Yes, the person with insecurity needs to do something about it-- but a caring, loving partner will help. For me, this is the case with ANY topic that brings up insecurity. To me, it has NOTHING to do with urges, sexual needs, or masterbation. It has to do with making your partner feel loved.

I would actually bet (and when I have time, I will look into it more) that in most of these cases, as Sound has said, Porn isn't the issue. It's feeling insecure with your partner. IF we want to talk actual statistics-- let's face it. Most men SUCK at communication. It's a huge issue in many, many relationships and a big cause of divorce. Lack of communication makes most women feel like crap and disconnected. I truly doubt (though I only know about the relationships surrounding my life) that porn or any other issue would be an issue if communication and openness was there.

During this debate, there was a lot of comments about {men just do it and women need to get over it} and {insecurity is their own problem}. I don't agree with either of those. And no- I don't think that just because one partner feels jealous over something that the act should be stopped, end of story. However, I see no issue with stopping the act and working on the insecurity together.

I have heard people blame women for their insecurities and that they should feel that way. The deep rooted issue, however, is very likely an absolute lack of communication-- often by the person watching the porn. They are *encouraging* the insecurity by not addressing it.

I am speaking in generals here because, while the topic I heard being addressed was porn, you could substitute porn with any topic and I would feel the same way. In my case, my bf was uncomfortable with me watching porn (long time ago). No biggie. What I needed was more variety and intimacy. Now the man is exhausted I made the mistake of not communicating that to him and made him feel less. It was not my intention, and it was my lack of communication that led to that feeling. He has watched porn-- and over the years stopped. Why? He says he felt like he was a dirty old man watching his daughter or her friends. I never felt that way. Is his feeling wrong? Nope. Does it make him less manly? nope. Its a visual in his head that makes him extremely uncomfortable. I get it.

If someone is purposely doing something that they know will hurt their partner, its a mistake.

Well, we've all hashed out our viewpoints pretty thoroughly, I guess.
I'm actually suspecting that we're in nearly full agreement, at this point. The problem is that we're both having trouble backing away from the extremes and really acknowledging the 'other side.' I can see that you recognize the potentially festering poison that is insecurity and jealousy, and it's variable nature(as opposed to being absolute, and immutable). Similarly, I see that if partner A is feeling uncomfortable, it will help things for partner B to back down a bit on the behavior that makes them uncomfortable. No one wants to make their loved one feel bad.

BTW, I think we can stop couching each others' arguments like we don't care about the other, or are purely selfish in each others' intentions. By now it's been repeatedly shown by both parties to not be the case, either personally or theoretically. We can do away with the "I just want to feel accepted/I just want to feel loved" stuff. It's a feeling and desire that is precisely the same from both sides of the issue.

I still think that the insecure person's jealousy is a bigger problem, but at the same time, that does not preclude the logic in the other person backing off the porn(or whatever else) so that the other person can settle down....
...Assuming the latter person acknowledge their unhealthy jealousy, and also make strides to deal with it. Without the insecure person taking strides to address their end of the issue as well, then it's just a power play, and does not meet the goal of love/acceptance/compromise..

Too, too funny, Miles. I'm giving you fair warning: if I don't end up marrying you, I'm at least down for some type of abduction. (Totally kidding, moderators - @Sound knows that I jest.)



I could substitute any topic for porn and you'd feel the same way? I don't think so. Back to an example I used earlier: let's say you talk to/see your girlfriends 2 or 3 times a week. Your partner tells you that he just doesn't understand why you need to talk to anyone but him. He wonders if you're talking about him. He wonders what you get out of the time spent conversing with your girlfriends that he can't provide. He wonders if you talk about meeting other men. All in all, he feels insecure that you have another significant social outlet/emotional connection that is not him, and he insists that you stop talking to your girlfriends. Would you acquiesce to his demand, because, "...I see no issue with stopping the act and working on the insecurity together." After all, it's an insecurity one partner has; the behavior bothers your partner; you want your partner to feel loved. Would you be okay with giving up your girlfriends because your connection with them made your partner feel insecure? Because it made him feel like he wasn't providing you with everything you need in terms of emotional connections and social interaction?

I really doubt you would cut off your friends in this situation. I think it would be more likely that you would discuss your partner's feelings, try to assure him that you get something different from your girlfriends than you get from him (maybe even something that he couldn't really provide), tell him that what you get from your girlfriends' friendship actually makes you a better partner for him, and ask him what assurances you could provide that would make him feel better (for example, topics that are off-limits with the girlfriends).

IMO, the example I provided above is how a mature, healthy couple deals with conflict. And a key factor in successful conflict resolution is to understand what's reasonable, and what is not. What you're describing - halting the behavior immediately so both partners can try to resolve an issue that only one partner can actually resolve - is actually co-dependence. Because when you just acquiesce to your partner's unreasonable demand, the issue at hand is really control. It's actually incredibly common for insecure people to try to control the behavior of others - and it's very nasty business. (I've included some example "controlling" behaviors from the CODA website below).

Your point that, "The deep rooted issue, however, is very likely an absolute lack of communication-- often by the person watching the porn," just doesn't withstand scrutiny. What communication do you suggest might resolve the issue? Porn Consumer: "Honey, I would like to buy you this outfit. I would like you to model it for me - in very specific poses, for an indefinite period of time, while I masturbate. When can you be available?" Porn Consumer's Partner: "We're not spending our hard earned money on that crap, and I'm certainly not going to degrade myself by putting it on and posing for you. The answer is never - I'm never going to be available, you sick ticket." Again, you're assuming that one partner can and should satisfy all of their partner's sexual needs and fantasies. Seriously - do you want to wear the funny outfits? Okay, I might want to wear some of them....but for the most part, no. I'd rather have him get the variety he'd like from some nice website or magazine.

Control Patterns (from the CODA website):
I believe most other people are incapable of taking care of themselves.
I think taking care of one's sexual needs counts here.

I attempt to convince others of what they "should" think and how they "truly" feel.
"Porn is bad because it makes me feel insecure. You should not want porn because it makes me feel insecure."

I become resentful when others will not let me help them.
"But I want to be all you need sexually. Why do you need to masturbate when you have me?"

I freely offer others advice and directions without being asked.
Really, a grown man requires his partner to approve the material he uses to masturbate?

I lavish gifts and favors on those I care about.

I use sex to gain approval and acceptance.
Well, you've described pretty much the definition of using sex to gain approval and acceptance. If your partner is looking at porn and that makes you feel insecure, you neither approve nor accept him sexually.

I have to be "needed" in order to have a relationship with others.

I could substitute any topic for porn and you'd feel the same way? I don't think so. Back to an example I used earlier: let's say you talk to/see your girlfriends 2 or 3 times a week. Your partner tells you that he just doesn't understand why you need to talk to anyone but him. He wonders if you're talking about him. He wonders what you get out of the time spent conversing with your girlfriends that he can't provide. He wonders if you talk about meeting other men. All in all, he feels insecure that you have another significant social outlet/emotional connection that is not him, and he insists that you stop talking to your girlfriends. Would you acquiesce to his demand, because, "...I see no issue with stopping the act and working on the insecurity together." After all, it's an insecurity one partner has; the behavior bothers your partner; you want your partner to feel loved. Would you be okay with giving up your girlfriends because your connection with them made your partner feel insecure? Because it made him feel like he wasn't providing you with everything you need in terms of emotional connections and social interaction?


Well, are you arguing that porn is necessary or that masterbation is? I ask, because it makes a huge difference. If he had a problem with me talking about our issues to my mother, sure I'd stop. If he felt I spent too much time with my friends, sure, I'd cut back. That would be equivalent, IMO, to cutting out porn. You can still masterbate without porn. Guaranteed. It may not be to the extent that would make you the most fulfilled, but you can do it. As an adult and a parent, I have realized that I will, most likely, never be as fulfilled as I could be in just about anything. There isn't enough time or money. There are other people to worry about spend time with.

Your point that, "The deep rooted issue, however, is very likely an absolute lack of communication-- often by the person watching the porn," just doesn't withstand scrutiny. What communication do you suggest might resolve the issue? Porn Consumer: "Honey, I would like to buy you this outfit. I would like you to model it for me - in very specific poses, for an indefinite period of time, while I masturbate. When can you be available?" Porn Consumer's Partner: "We're not spending our hard earned money on that crap, and I'm certainly not going to degrade myself by putting it on and posing for you. The answer is never - I'm never going to be available, you sick ticket." Again, you're assuming that one partner can and should satisfy all of their partner's sexual needs and fantasies. Seriously - do you want to wear the funny outfits? Okay, I might want to wear some of them....but for the most part, no. I'd rather have him get the variety he'd like from some nice website or magazine.

Sure, what's wrong with that? What would be wrong with sharing what turns that person on? What would be wrong with exploring those ideas? I am not saying that anyone should fulfill all the fantasies. Not a chance. But what I am saying is this: not talking about your fantasies and desires can be terribly hurtful to someone else. That's an individual thing- but I can't imagine someone NOT wanting to know about their SO's fantasies and desires. If someone refused to tell their partner their fantasies and just turned to porn, it absolutely looks like they don't want to share their sexuality with that person. So yes-- I think that communication makes ALL the difference in the world in these instances.

I think I have missed any point you were trying to make with those "quotes." I don't see how they relate at all.

I use sex to gain approval and acceptance.
Well, you've described pretty much the definition of using sex to gain approval and acceptance. If your partner is looking at porn and that makes you feel insecure, you neither approve nor accept him sexually

That seems really drastic. If your partner watches porn and that makes you feel insecure, you don't accept him sexually. What? I am having a huge problem making that leap. Because one person doesn't like one thing that a person does, they don't accept them?

Sexually deprived men will often cheat. Insecure women who needed to be emotionally secure often cheat. Both needs are important. Both people need to bend.

Again, is the argument that PORN is a necessary part of life or is it masterbation? If its porn? I totally disagree. I do know people, both men and women, who live a happy, content life without porn. For just about every study out there that shows porn helps keep men faithful, there is another to "prove" it makes him stray. I have never seen anything conclusive out there that shows any true evidence for either argument-- so its up to the couple to communicate and compromise. This is not a one size fits all situation.

No Michelle, it's not a one size fits all situation. But your argument seems to imply that it is: if you love your partner, you will stop any behavior that makes him/her feel insecure - regardless of the merit of the request, how intrusive it is, or whether it's even appropriate to make one's partner responsible for one's own feelings.

That's what bothers me about your arguments about this subject: the idea that as long as your partner makes the request, you are obligated to accommodate your partner. If you don't oblige your partner, you don't love them, value them, etc. I'm sorry, that's not the way healthy relationships work. Conflicts have to be negotiated, even if they're difficult or uncomfortable to discuss. Unilateral decisions can be body blows to a relationship. There simply aren't that many relationships that can withstand them. So if you're going to lay down a decree - as in, "You may not," I suggest you avoid doing so over behaviors that are legal, private, and have an imperceptible (if any) impact on you. It's just not a strategy for long-term success.

^ Quite well summarized.

Well, they say birds of a feather flock together.... With the help of duct-tape, a blind fold, and a getaway car with lots of trunk space!



Note regarding communication & fantasizing... All guys walk a tightrope when it comes to our impulses, and what is acceptable in society. Although I agree that it would be preferable if the typical man could communicate and share all his fantasies with his significant other, in reality we risk harsh judgment in sharing some of that. If a husband in his 40's really really likes girls in their early 20's and younger, the reality is that his wife is probably going to feel insecure and rejected, and he knows it. Not only that, if she has a particularly righteous streak regarding very young women & morality, her view of him is likely going to irreversibly change. It's difficult to imagine anything good possibly coming from sharing his fantasies. While the possibility exists that this can be gotten over, accepted, and even taken advantage of..... Well, truthfully, I'm skeptical.

The ideal of communicating everything seems quite noble and desired, but it's often actually impractical and sometimes even a net detriment in situations like this. This is a cold, harsh truth.


It seems to me that if one does not actually mind that their other partner fantasizes about others, and masturbates, then porn is irrelevant besides being purely symbolic. With or without the Hustler: Barely Legal in front of him, there's a really, really good chance that he's got a girl in his head wearing the 'school-girl' outfit, who is of very questionable age. Now, I guess I can understand why the presence of the porn would make some difference, by virtue of the partner simply avoiding thinking about what's going on in the other's head. But if you do consider it, I think focusing on the visible symbolic is a bit pointless.

Porn is not necessary for masturbation, it's not necessary for anything. So in that light, it's entirely disposable. But once again, this is a substitute-argument for any jealousy-inducing topic. How one half of a couple wishes to deal with porn and their insecurity is a potentially significant barometer of how they will seek to deal with other things that inflame their jealousy. That's the primary reason we defend porn. If it is dealt with without compromise (via also addressing the insecurity in a big way), then the precedent and pattern has been set. More issues are a fairly likely to get dealt with in a similarly dysfunctional, controlling way. It's very, very possible, and common, that the submissive person continues to simply do what it takes to placate the fiery, insecure person, because they know the other will leverage consequences(via guilt, anger, uncooperative behavior, fighting, etc), and has gotten used to it. They lose sight of the real identity of compromise, fairness, equality, as they get entrenched in the insecure person's warped version of fairness.

This is what happened to my previously mentioned father, btw, but porn wasn't the gateway in their case. It's also (obviously) why I'm so interested in the broader topic.

For me, it's terrible and gut-wrenching to see the results of this pattern. In my dad's case, he changed after he got married, and I'm not talking the normal kind of settling down. The term 'whipped dog' comes to mind, the extent of his dependency on her is way over-the-top, he can hardly think for himself at all, it's her way or the highway on all matters. It's not all his wife's fault, though, it's his too, for not having stuck up for himself when he should've, early on. By now it's about too late, he's been doing his tip-toeing dance for too long, they have their customs, and it's just gonna stay like this until they self-destruct (i can see his simmering resentment... Without counseling, it's just a matter of time till they divorce).

This is why I'm so adamant about this 'first line of defense,' in the case of porn. HopeGrows is quite astute in recognizing the proposed ban on porn as the hallmarks of controlling behavior, even if it does seem subtle, and specific. If one does not recognize controlling behavior early, and submits to it, it begins a downward spiral that becomes progressively more difficult to pull out of.

It's stupid that porn, of all things, has to get defended as a stand-in for everything else, and feels quite silly and trite. But unfortunately, this is how it works. It's possible that this kind of conflict regarding porn can be an isolated incident, it's possible that it doesn't need to grow into more. But if we treat this instance as completely innocent, then that's one more avenue for the downward spiral to take root. It's somewhat similar in function to why one partner should leave the other at the first sign of abuse(although I realize there's a difference in severity, here), rather than clinging to "they can change," etc.

....All that said, if porn insecurity is dealt with via compromise - Insecurity addressed by the one individual, while fantasies of the other are obscured or resisted - then that's a lot better.

Actually, i don't want to debate. Yes, i know my posts were extremely generalized, they were supposed to be. I'm sorry my simplification of the topic frustrated you so; though i wouldn't say i was overly simplifying. And i have no desire to try to persuade you of a different opinion because i know that you will not agree with me. In so knowing, i find that pointless, to debate with no conciliation of thought.


Not necessarily. A relationship is give and take, not take and take or give and give.

Sounds, in your previous post you said:

Does that mean we should just resign ourselves to this? In my opinion, no. It's also my opinion that a relationship that has these problems truly isn't the best, most fulfilling, most trusting, most equal, best intentioned, most respectful of relationships.

Overall, you also need COMMON SENSE and to be reasonable in a relationship, as you do in all walks of life. But again, i think with love, you do have common sense and reason, because love is understanding and love is sharing. Love is a broad term, yet i think it's greatest summarisation would be self-sacrifice.

It's hard. No one's perfect. That is why i said that if BOTH partners just try to please each other and try to be the best partner they can, all other things will fall into place. It isn't so much about changing your partner, because that doesn't work. Working on yourself and trying to be the best partner possible, i think, is the best way. And i think any reasonable person would agree that there has to be equal cooperation for there to be success.

I'm sorry, but i had to include these verses because they sum up what love is so perfectly.

If with the tongues of men I speak, and of angels, but have not love, I am become sounding brass, or a clanging cymbal. And if prophecy I have, and all the mysteries I know and all knowledge; and if all faith I have, so as to remove mountains, but have not love, I am nothing. And if I dole out all my goods, and if I give my body that I may glory, but have not love, it profiteth me nothing. Love suffereth long, is kind; love envieth not, vaunteth not itself, is not puffed up, is not unseemly, seeketh not its owm, is not provoked, taketh not account of evil; rejoiceth not in unrighteousness, but rejoiceth with the truth; covereth all things, believeth all things, hopeth all things, endureth all things. Love never faileth: but whether there be prophecies, they shall be done away; whether tongues, they shall cease; whether knowledge, it shall be done away. For we know in part, and prophesy in part; but when the perfect is come, what is in part shall be done away. When I was a child, I spake as a child, thought as a child, reasoned as a child: when I became a man, I put away the things of the child. For now we see by a mirror, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know fully even as also I was fully known. But now abideth faith, hope, love, these three; and the greatest of these is love.

Owe no man anything, save to love one another: for he that loveth his neighbor hath fulfilled the law.

For this, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not kill, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not covet, and if there be any other commandment, it is summed up in this word, namely, Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself.

Love worketh no ill to his neighbor: love therefore is the fulfillment of the law.

For ye, brethren, were called for freedom; only use not your freedom for an occasion to the flesh, but through love be servants one to another. For the whole law is fulfilled in one word, even in this: Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself.

Well, I am not saying that at all. I am saying that if a partner is bothered by a behavior, it absolutely needs to be re-evaluated. On the topic of porn, its not something that *needs* to be done, so I don't see the problem with stopping the behavior while the relationship is explored and the reason for being bothered is taken into consideration. If a woman hated her man going to work, that is different. The man needs to be able to pay his bills and provide for himself, so stopping would not be an option.

On the flip side, you are saying that if a woman doesn't support a man using porn and magazines, then she doesn't love him or value him sexually. That is also wrong. Most relationships also probably won't withstand the idea that one partner can do whatever he wants, regardless of how it makes someone else feel.

Sound-

I do agree with most of what you say. Almost all of it. There are absolutely women out there who dominate thoughts and actions of their men. There are men who dominate the thoughts and actions of their women. In some relationships, this actually works. There generally is one dominant and one submissive person in the relationship.

Asking a man to avoid porn could be control. If he is hypersensitive to being controlled, this could be a huge issue. It may not be control at all, however. Each person has to evaluate their partner to really see if they have a controlling nature, or if they just oppose this one behavior. I don't think someone should avoid voicing their opposition, however, just in case their partner thinks its controlling. Each partner should be able to express their feelings.

There are many reasons for women (in particular) objecting to porn. Some of these reasons are very personal and deep rooted. Example: There are some things that I simply cannot have my partner do to me. I was hurt deeply as a teen, spent 3 weeks recovering from it, and there are somethings absolutely trigger panic. I have worked through therapy to get over 95% of the issues- but I still have some. So, if he does something that triggers that panic, I tell him. I SHOULD tell him. He needs to know. What he was doing may gratify him sexually, but at what expense? I am not trying to control him. I just can't take it. Yes, I know this is COMPLETELY different that a guy looking at porn by himself-- but the idea of it can inflict the same panic and dispair in some women.

I know women who have been objectified and treated like crap by men. They see porn as doing the same thing. It makes them feel worthless and not like a person. Maybe they should get help for that. I don't see that as being controlling, however.

So sure- it could be control. It may not be. If someone disagrees with an action, I think the *WHY* is the logical next question and should be considered as much as the action. In my relationships, there have always been things that I have disagreed with and "he" has disagreed with. A lot of those behaviors have/had changed. Some never did. To me, again, I always live with the thought that the person to whomever the topic is more important, wins. If I lived with a drama queen/king, that might be different. I don't keep those people in my life, however. Generally, in my life, its been me giving up more behaviors than my partner. It just hasn't been that big of a deal for me, so I have a really hard time understanding why its so hard for other people. I don't feel controlled. I feel wonderful that they were comfortable enough to tell me, and I feel enough respect for the person that the action just isn't that important. I don't expect that this would work for everyone, but it certainly has for me. Its a viable option that can work, just as letting everyone do whatever they want without ever opposing them is a viable option. There are options inbetween that are also viable. The answer just can't be "if you tell me you don't like me doing something, you are controlling me." That will cut off communication and create hostility just as much as saying "you can't do that, period." Each relationship has its own set of expectations that need to be communicated and met. Those expectations will be different for each couple.

Hm.... Looks like I don't disagree with anything there. And as far as I can tell, your primary point is that each relationship is a different circumstance, with a different set of appropriate boundaries, thresholds, and behaviors. Agreed.

There's one little kink: You characterize the other side of your stance akin to "if you tell me you don't like me doing something, you are controlling me." This is a mis-characterization, via assuming extreme behavior. However, I also recognize that I, too, have made similar narrative mis-characterizations by assuming the worst outcomes of a this particular path(but within reason, IMO).
Either way I suppose, this particular tug-of-war still falls beneath the judgment of whether or not both parties are cooperating and compromising. And that is determined based on the specific relationship's broader dynamics, rendering each of our theorized 'poles' moot, aside from retrospective commentary.

So there is no right answer aside from gaining more knowledge and perspective on jealousy and jealousy-provoking issues. The best we can ever do is attempt to counter-balance ourselves from our initial impulses or convictions.
Easier said than done, eh?

“There is a principle which is a bar against all information, which is proof against all arguments and which cannot fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance - that principle is contempt prior to investigation”
-Herbert Spencer (1820-1903)

On a related, but different note:
Due to MichelleRM78's engagement in the debate, her willingness to explore the topic, and the faith she afforded to others in their ability to see reason(as she saw it), I have learned much, and have had my perspective broadened and altered, despite the strength of my own argument and perspective.

And although you find yourself more on MichelleRM78's side of the debate, with potentially the same points, I have learned less, if anything, from you due to your lack of engagement, Agape. It is such because of the pessimistic prejudgment and contempt inherent in your assertion that our minds cannot be changed.


Of course not, we will strive as we always do. But don't hold any illusions; Most men are not so satisfied by their significant others to the degree that they are not ever aroused and enticed by others, even if they do not ever act on that impulse. And I suspect women are the same, but that is beyond my place to be able to suppose.
Aiming high is not un-realistic. But your proposed goal, that "the desire to look at other people shouldn't even be an issue at all," is not realistic.

Finally, be careful with your reliance of the concept of 'common sense,' as it's definition is specific to each individual, and not universal(thus a paradox unto itself?)
Debates are my bread and butter, not because I think I'm a know-it-all who's got all the right ideas, but for the entire opposite reason. And I think they're fun; It's exploration.
However, I have seen 'common sense' come up a number of times, and it is always a weak platform to ride. I'm not quite sure which logical fallacy it best fits within, maybe something like Begging The Question or a Bare Assertion, or something similar to that effect. Either way, it's definition is predicated on the truth as you see it. It ends up meaning nothing.
And in stating such, this would be where I prove I have no 'common sense,' yes?
A bit of a clue to it's nature, I would think.