Monogamous relationships and technological advancements. (in Off-topic)


AdminQBGentlemanLoser [{END}] December 14 2005 10:26 AM EST


This conversation was originally started by a Trekkie friend of mine discussing rather adult uses of holo decks and whether our respective partners would consider that cheating on them or not.

The answer is a purely personal one, it all depends on what an individual deems cheating to be in their monogamous relationship, but it bought to light very interesting questions raised by future technologies.

First, if you want to discuss something that is likely to be seen as un-pg, (especially if it's about this discussions origin!) please CM me and not post it! ;)

The main question (and it doesn't have to apply to sex, that was just the origin of the discussion) is as our technologies leads us to create more and more realistic life like experiences, when is the moral line drawn? When does fantasy or 'role play' become reality?

Consider on-line relationships, cutting edge 'Cyberpunk' Virtual Reality and Star Treck Holodecks.

Does the distinction of what is 'real' only matter to the individual?

But please, let's keep this all PG! :)

AdminShade December 14 2005 10:27 AM EST

What if the person in question made a replica of the partner in question?

AdminG Beee December 14 2005 10:28 AM EST

The last thing I'd do was make a replica.

Sheeze, twice the complaining at me to pick up my socks !

AdminQBGentlemanLoser [{END}] December 14 2005 10:34 AM EST

>_< I've got a near second wife at work... All of the nagging, none of the good stuff! ;) But like G, I'd never be able to sustain upkeep of a second wife!

But what if I made a better, less naggy, more idealised version of my wife....

QBJohnnywas December 14 2005 10:43 AM EST

Mmm tricky. In your day to day life - RL that is - you can't help who you are attracted to, and you may be attracted on various levels to many, many people in one day alone. But acting on that attraction in any way - even flirting with intent, for me is dangerous.

The danger with VR and the like is that your emotional/physical response is the same as it is with RL. I personally believe that if I would consider an action morally wrong in RL then it is morally wrong in VR.

So says someone who has killed millions in VR over the years....;)

Tezmac December 14 2005 10:44 AM EST

Marge : You know, Homey, there's so much more two wives could do for you ...
Homer : I hear digging, but I don't hear chopping! -- Um, yeah ... they could bring you a beer and a lemonade.

Homer is wise beyond his years. :O)

AdminQBGentlemanLoser [{END}] December 14 2005 10:47 AM EST

That's why we all love Homer! :D

"So says someone who has killed millions in VR over the years....;)"

Exactly, selective morals... Why get het up about relationships with other people in VR when you've been killing (or worse) for years...

QBJohnnywas December 14 2005 10:52 AM EST

We are talking relationship matters here - I've not always been a good boy in my life. But I know when I've done wrong. And if I haven't known instinctively I use the following test:

How would you feel about your partner behaving in that way? For instance you may feel ok about having a VR relationship with somebody and may think there is no harm in it. But what would your reaction be if you found out your partner was doing the same?

It's not foolproof but I think it's a fairly reliable test.....

Hasn't always led me down the path of good however........

AdminShade December 14 2005 11:23 AM EST

I might hint towards common sense, but sometimes people just don't use it. :)

AdminQBnovice [Cult of the Valaraukar] December 14 2005 11:29 AM EST

no one breaks into a desructive rage permanently when I farm someone to death on cb...getting caught making out with a virtual Jennifer Connelly (circa
Career Opportunities) isn't gonna be as well taken unless this theoretical SO happens to be smart enough to understand "It's Jennifer Connelly riding a mechanical toy horse!"

AdminQBGentlemanLoser [{END}] December 14 2005 12:02 PM EST

Focusing on relationships here, what forms a relationship? Interaction with another?

If so, what happens when another, included into this relationship doesn't, or isn't able to interact back?

Can you look at another, and not harm your existing relationship? If so, is there a difference between still picture, moving image, seen with your eyes or seen virtually?

Can you talk to another? Does it matter what type of correspondance? Letters, text, e-mail, phone messages, face to face, Virtual? Or is it just the context that matters?

Next, simulacrum. Does it make a difference if a 'fake' person can't react? Reacts in a limited, pre set fashion? Reacts responding to stimulus, lastly mimics sentience (Well lastly should be has sentience)?

AdminQBnovice [Cult of the Valaraukar] December 14 2005 12:05 PM EST

Any point where your SO could be hurt by your actions...it's not ok.
This brings up a whole mess of questions...

AdminQBGentlemanLoser [{END}] December 14 2005 12:10 PM EST

Let's assume that your SO is only hurt by intimate interaction with another human being.

What is the difference between a Holo Deck, VR, an immersive game, an interactive DVD, movie or book? None of these involving real life people.

Would it make a difference if some of the players in the above activities are remotely controlled by real life humans elsewhere?

Revs December 14 2005 12:22 PM EST

I think the bottom line is a divided heart. A core element of a committed monogamous relationship, particularly in a marital arrangement, is the idea of unconditional love with a heart undivided. So whether the outside influence be internet temptations, holodecks, virtual programming, or even the neighbor at home or work, if your heart is divided, your in trouble. Regardless of if you feel it right or wrong, it jeapordizes the primary relationship as it takes something away from it. Not to mention how much the other temptations decrease the idea of work in the primary relationship, as it does take work to maintain and increase. So the whole idea of some supplemental outside relational factor of any nature does nothing more than destroy or negate the primary. Even if some see it as merely "entertainment", the root of the word was used in Roman times as "to distract and detain, from entering in". So in this case it would be a distraction from the primary objective of entering into, or even maintaining the primary relationship that should take the top priority.

Summary: it would be wrong at many different levels.

AdminQBGentlemanLoser [{END}] December 14 2005 12:29 PM EST

Like putting too much time and effort (or even love...) in CB? ;)

Assume your heart isn't divided, and you love your SO just as much.

QBBast [Hidden Agenda] December 14 2005 12:36 PM EST

" Let's assume that your SO is only hurt by intimate interaction with another human being."

Let's not. Or if we must:

Let's define "hurt", "intimate" & "interaction". (Yeah, who's the pedant now!)

I know women who are comfortable enough with (read: trust) their SOs enough to shrug & say, "As long as he can be completely sure that he never comes home with one of those gifts that keeps on giving, I don't care what he does!". (I think they assume there's only one way to be completely sure, and that's where the line is.)

I know women who feel inadequate and insecure about themselves if their SOs indulge in a little casual magazine or movie perusal. (I'm not good enough? I'll never be that gorgeous! I don't do the things those chicas do! _That's_ what turns him on?!?!?)

I know women who are quite sure (never having lived it) that they could be understanding if their SOs had a purely physical "cheat", because they understand that they themselves aren't meeting (& aren't interested in meeting) the standard set at the outset of the relationship.

Most of the above women would say that their SOs having an "intimate" relationship -- where the SO shares with, cares about, talks to, laughs with -- some third party is a much bigger betrayal, even if no unPG behavior is involved. That level of intimacy is a betrayal of the _foundation_ of their relationship, not "merely" behavioral.

The porn therapists (I'm not saying it, Memnot! You can't make me!) uniformly say that over-indulgence in a "fantastical" partner can't help but impact one's actual partner -- the comparison is made. And if your actual partner has some _unattractive personal qualities_ while your fantastical partner does not, how long before one is preferred over the other?

If you can actually engineer yourself a perfect "on the side" partner, why would you have an actual one? Your version never says maybe later, doesn't age, is as adventurous as you want her to be, doesn't chase you around the kitchen with a butcher knife for putting the _empty_ milk carton back in the 'fridge (don't mess with my dairy products!), will never ask you if she does or does not look fat in something (unless you want her to), always has perfect lighting & body make-up, won't interfere with poker night (golf time, football season), will wear (Ewww!) _that_, etc.

By the time you get to a Holodeck or VR-version of your own made-to-order vision of loveliness, the only things she's not going to do are clean up after you, cook for you, produce a little MiniYou or be around during a power outage. How would any actual SO compare to that? Why would she?

QBsutekh137 December 14 2005 12:55 PM EST

I break it down as using a "prop" versus purely self or mental stimulation.

Example: The current equivalent to a holodeck would be a realistic blow-up doll. Now, you have to do "real" things to the doll. It isn't just mental or using that thing that a "Seinfeld" episode was about.

Star Trek holodecks meant people are _really_ going in there and doing stuff. That action, to me, holds a lot more import than purely mental antics or "taking care of oneself" (which usually has a fairly large mental component as well).

Now, if we reach the point where all stimulation can be generated within the brain (without physical action transpiring), then I no longer really know where to draw the line. That is getting into "Matrix" territory. Everything in our bodies end up as electrical impulses and resulting bodily functions. If eventually I can just put on a helmet and "go all the way", is that cheating?

AdminQBVerifex [Serenity In Chaos] December 14 2005 12:57 PM EST

Engaging in physical relations is supposed to be, at most times, the pinnacle of intimacy with the one you love, and most often, sharing that intimacy with anyone else whether they be virtual or not, usually leads to feelings of hurt and inadequacy.

NSFY December 14 2005 1:00 PM EST

I'M OUT!

AdminQBGentlemanLoser [{END}] December 14 2005 1:01 PM EST

:D

"" Let's assume that your SO is only hurt by intimate interaction with another human being."

Let's not. Or if we must:

Let's define "hurt", "intimate" & "interaction". (Yeah, who's the pedant now!)

I know women who are comfortable enough with (read: trust) their SOs enough to shrug & say, "As long as he can be completely sure that he never comes home with one of those gifts that keeps on giving, I don't care what he does!". (I think they assume there's only one way to be completely sure, and that's where the line is.)

I know women who feel inadequate and insecure about themselves if their SOs indulge in a little casual magazine or movie perusal. (I'm not good enough? I'll never be that gorgeous! I don't do the things those chicas do! _That's_ what turns him on?!?!?)"

I've spoken to both these types (of man and woman) about this topic, I was assuming a general level of tolerance, as these are more extreme responses. :) But This is casual observation, it's not a profession of mine!

"I know women who are quite sure (never having lived it) that they could be understanding if their SOs had a purely physical "cheat", because they understand that they themselves aren't meeting (& aren't interested in meeting) the standard set at the outset of the relationship."

A seperate discussion along this line would be those who purchase physical affection, as a service witout any intimate attachment.

"Most of the above women would say that their SOs having an "intimate" relationship -- where the SO shares with, cares about, talks to, laughs with -- some third party is a much bigger betrayal, even if no unPG behavior is involved. That level of intimacy is a betrayal of the _foundation_ of their relationship, not "merely" behavioral."

It doesn't just have to be physical. :) Imagine the social upheaval when the first stable VR 'world' comes on line. And you can be who-ever or what-ever you want in complete comfort. Why log off and go back to the real world?

"The porn therapists (I'm not saying it, Memnot! You can't make me!) uniformly say that over-indulgence in a "fantastical" partner can't help but impact one's actual partner -- the comparison is made. And if your actual partner has some _unattractive personal qualities_ while your fantastical partner does not, how long before one is preferred over the other?

If you can actually engineer yourself a perfect "on the side" partner, why would you have an actual one? Your version never says maybe later, doesn't age, is as adventurous as you want her to be, doesn't chase you around the kitchen with a butcher knife for putting the _empty_ milk carton back in the 'fridge (don't mess with my dairy products!), will never ask you if she does or does not look fat in something (unless you want her to), always has perfect lighting & body make-up, won't interfere with poker night (golf time, football season), will wear (Ewww!) _that_, etc.

By the time you get to a Holodeck or VR-version of your own made-to-order vision of loveliness, the only things she's not going to do are clean up after you, cook for you, produce a little MiniYou or be around during a power outage. How would any actual SO compare to that? Why would she?"

As the VR world above, obssession of anything is destructive to any stable relationship (unless both partners are equally obsessive..) but what's wrong with a 'perfect' thing you experience infrequently?

QBsutekh137 December 14 2005 1:05 PM EST

True, Verifex, but GL's whole point is that such "actions" _already_ occur.

Do you think I never looked at another female while I was married? You think I never had thoughts? I never acted on those thoughts, but was that still a problem? Was I "wrong" for having said thought?

Not to bring religion into this (but I will), I was raised to believe that sometimes even just certain thoughts/impulses were sinful. What a tremendous crock. I have thoughts because I am just as the good Lord made me, so if he says that just having those thoughts puts me at odds with leading a "good life", He can go hang.

In my opinion, the same thing for "thoughts of the flesh"... Am I wrong for having thoughts about things for which I know actual action would be patently wrong?

GL's question is intriguing because he is basically asking, "What do we do when thoughts and actions can potential be made one?" I say, that even if the thoughts can be made to seem absolutely real (they stimulate the body as far as the normal action would), they are not wrong if they are not harming anyone else (yes, tricky). If I use a virtual reality helmet to rob a bank, there is no crime because I actually haven't robbed the bank. If I use a virtual reality helmet for physical stimulation, I haven't technically hurt anyone either, but there is a difference there. Still mulling.

AdminQBGentlemanLoser [{END}] December 14 2005 1:08 PM EST

Sute's put it far more eloquently than I. :)

AdminQBGentlemanLoser [{END}] December 14 2005 1:11 PM EST

Song for the thread;

'Electric Chair' - Price, Batman Soundtrack.

"If I can be convicted for what goes on in my mind, then give me the electric chair for all my future crimes."

:)

QBBast [Hidden Agenda] December 14 2005 1:16 PM EST

But wait, there's more!

Good rule of thumb: If you are going outside your relationship to address a lack _within_ your relationship, you are cheating.

Where cheating is "To deprive by trickery; defraud" or "To elude; escape". Effectively depriving yourself &/or your SO of the opportunity to meet that need, and to escape doing the necessary work, within your relationship, to be fulfilled.

I, personally, add the caveat: where the it is understood between partners that the need _should_ be met within the relationship. Examples: I am a crap golfer and truly cannot meet my SOs need for a golfing buddy. He will have to go outside of our relationship to meet that need and we should both be fine with that. Or redefine golfing buddy to include "someone who can play 9 holes in the time it takes me to play 18, and is remarkably unwilling to be delightful and spry for a 7 a.m. tee-time that I may finish my morning round in time to get to my TV for the noon kick-off".

If it is understood betwixt us that we are _supposed_ to be meeting one another's emotional needs, and yet my SO is going outside of our relationship to talk to his coworker over lunch three times a week about how his parents still manage to make him feel like a 12-year-old and why he then acts like one, that is cheating. There is a need that I am not meeting, and he is straying from our understanding of our relationship to meet it.

If the Holodeck chick will listen and nod along while you pour out your heart to her (because it's so easy to talk to someone who has no expectations of you, who won't remember what you said, can't hold it against you, can't tell you hard truths, or ask questions you'd rather not answer), of what are you depriving your SO?

The Holodeck chick means never having to adjust your expectations, behavior or views. You never have to compromise! What bliss! In terms of life experience, that is _cheating_.

QBsutekh137 December 14 2005 1:17 PM EST

So here is my redux:

The issues it could cause between people are complex -- just like they are now. There are men and women who get insanely jealous even when their SO is simply out of sight. Others do not mind "open" relationships. Those types of issues will exist as long as there are magazine, cheap motels, The Internet, and even future advances.

But the holodeck idea brings up a new type of infidelity (possibly). If I put on a helmet create my avatar (with FULL sensory feedback, and I mean FULL) and go find another avatar hooked to a human, then I am cheating (that is my stance anyway). I liken it to bank robbing:

OLD WAY: Go into a bank, wave gun, leave with hard currency.
NEW WAY: Hack system, moves some ones and zeroes, have wealth.

These are both wrong, and one goes to jail for both former and latter.

Now for infidelity:

OLD WAY: See someone, make proposition, get cheap motel room.
NEW WAY: Noth wear helmets with ful-feedback avatars, proposition, get a cheap virtual motel room.

Those both count for me. If there are states where infidelity matters during divorce proceedings, each would count the same way. There would be a whole new type of trace, private detective, etc. for the "new" way, just like in the past couple of decades we have had to come up with new ways of tracing electronic theft.

QBsutekh137 December 14 2005 1:20 PM EST

I disagree with your last statement, Bast. That is no more cheating than talking to myself in the mirror, writing in a journal, or holding it all inside.

If, however, I talk to someone (a real person) who is "strapped in" to the same program, then I _am_ cheating. See my bank-robbing example if I have not made myself clear.

The difference is that another human is involved. Even holodeck technology is not human (though some episodes delved into that whole topic too).

AdminQBGentlemanLoser [{END}] December 14 2005 1:32 PM EST

Bast, I talk to a co worker about a lot of personal stuff, we are good friends. I talk to my old school friedns about all sorts of personal stuff, there are just some things you can't explain to a woman. Especially your wife! But I talk to Claire about (mostly) the same things.

Am I cheating on her?

Sute, remove the other human and replace the control with an AI. Is it still wrong?

QBBast [Hidden Agenda] December 14 2005 1:35 PM EST

Talking to yourself, journaling or stuffing is entirely self-referential.

Working it all out with a pretend other who will interact (though passively) is different.

It's the difference between mentally robbing a bank (coming up with a plan just to see if you could get away with it, executing it in your head, running through the different scenarios/outcomes) and VR robbing a bank -- where you actually get the rush of 'playing it out', all the variables are 'possible', something possible but unexpected could happen and you potentially get away with it (deriving much personal satisfaction) or get shot by the plainclothes security officer (but happily don't _actually_ bleed all over your carpeting & only prove you are a bad bank robber).

Getting the "faux experience" is much different (and, in this case, self-delusional) than self-referential 'thinking'.

See "porn addiction" for further example.

QBsutekh137 December 14 2005 1:36 PM EST

I'll address that more when we have AI. *smile*

For now, in all of my posts, I am using the term "human". Believe me, when we reach the point of having artificial entities being "human", that will have to be a whole other discussion.

Bottom line: if we consider the AI as truly human, and the AI is treated as such (under the law, etc.), then yes, cheating. If not, not.

QBsutekh137 December 14 2005 1:41 PM EST

We will have to agree to disagree, Bast.

If you are saying there is a difference between a journal and an "interactive" journal, where I have told the journal what to say in response to me, or just sit there and look pretty, then I guess I can't argue with you.

I wouldn't mind a little more clarification, though. If I write a computer program that periodically makes my speakers say, "Sutekh is great!", "Good job, Sutekh!", etc. (think daily affirmations), and then I write in a journal or speak to a mirror while running that program, I am "cheating"?

Maybe I am not making myself clear...the holodeck program is something completely written by me. It can only do what I have told it to do. If it can truly extrapolate and say things I did not help it say, then it has artificial intelligence, and that is a whole different kettle of fish. (see posts above).

AdminQBGentlemanLoser [{END}] December 14 2005 1:52 PM EST

Bast, with your bank robing, what about games that simulate the experience? You get the rush so it must be wrong.

How about CB and Killing? Or GTA and nicking cars?

Isn't there a line between fantasy and reality. Where fantasy can be used to explore, or even sate impulses that you normally morally wouldn't commit?

QBBast [Hidden Agenda] December 14 2005 2:00 PM EST

GL, the question is about your _partner_. Yes, you do things in video games that are morally reprehensible (and why that is sooooo much FUN! is another conversation) and that you wouldn't _actually_ do -- mostly out of fear of the consequences (apparently).

But when you are "doing something" outside of your relationship that "should" (as defined betwixt you) happen within it, you are cheating someone of something. (Just ask her!) ;)

QBsutekh137 December 14 2005 2:18 PM EST

Bast, I'm still waiting for clarification on why a journal is OK, but an "interactive" journal is "cheating".

I agree about your comments on affecting the partner and expectation, etc. That phenomenon has always happened between people, happens now, and will always happen. The holodeck will just be the latest and greatest way. Furthermore, if the holodeck ever offers a way for full-on sensory interaction with another human, I would consider that full-on cheating in the legal sense (for jurisdictions that care about such things).

maulaxe December 14 2005 2:23 PM EST

I did read all those posts, but you seem to have it pretty well covered...
when discussing the issues that that kind of technology would raise, it would be halpful to know -exactly- what it is you are discussing. It seems that different people are coming up with different ideas about the same piece of technology under discussion.

anyways, about the original question, "Does the distinction of what is 'real' only matter to the individual?"

  • I say yes. But only under the assumption that the individual is the only one affected. What happens inside your head, stays inside your head until acted upon, as pointed out earlier in the thread.
  • When you enter in a relationship, that should mean that you will each affect the other. Hence 'affection'. (I say should because unfortunately not all relationships are healthy)
  • So what is "real" for one person would certainly have an effect on their SO. Shared experiences should be a big part of the relationship, and if nothing else, delving into one's fantasies like that is kinda selfish, and not good for you and your SO.

    Now a question/idea: What about going into the holodeck together?

    I think that could potentially solve the potential problem.
    addictions to fantasy (the 'perfect' person), like any addiction, are more likely to keep happening when the same circumstances and conditions are met. If the holodeck is serving as a medium for the bad stuff, you can turn it around! just go there together and make a habit of doing so. Then you could be addicted to spending time with your SO.
    I realize that way of" turning things around" could backfire in a way... suppose you usually spend time in the holodeck together, but for some reason one of you can't make it that day. what happens then? would the other resort to creating the partner over again? perhaps re-living a previous visit... while editing some parts out?

    comments?

  • IndependenZ December 14 2005 2:28 PM EST

    How about... a second world for everybody! Imagine having your very own, personalized VR-machine. Only you can use it. Only you can see it. Now, the world in VR is exactly the same as the real world. There's only one difference: You know that it's not the real world.

    That way, VR becomes a kind of testing facility. What would happen if I cheat on my wife? You'll find out in your personal VR-world. You'll probably end up in a divorce, I reckon. What would happen if I murder somebody? Could I get away with it? Let's try that! A car chase? Let's do it!

    *dreams on*

    Stephen December 14 2005 8:15 PM EST

    Trekkies who fantasize about holo deck sex should just consider themselves extremely lucky that they have a significant other! ;)

    Revs December 15 2005 12:52 AM EST

    At risk of sparking all sorts of philosophical debate about the nature of reality and all things related . . . how different is your holodeck from your actual imagination. The root, here is sensory perception. If the scenario is contrived in VR or in your imagination, its still wrong, imho. I don't think its the medium that matters here, its the motive.

    Thraklight Resonance December 15 2005 1:23 AM EST

    Several of my friends and I had this discussion while ST: TNG was still running, and we came to the conclusion that none of us wanted to be the person to clean the holodeck after Riker was in there.

    ymisodumb December 15 2005 1:31 AM EST

    This discussion finds it's origin in the idea that technology is moving faster than human morality. The fact that we possess weapons enough to eradicate all life on our planet, the harnessing of fetal stem cells for scientific research, the use of animals for product testing, and cloning are all examples of this principle.

    This question cannot be answered due to the nature of the question, "when is the moral line drawn?" It is a question that will find a different answer from different people, none of which is wrong. Many such topics exist, such as the issues of abortion and euthanasia. This is because each person has natural moral standards that differ from person to person.

    When I say that they cannot be answered, understand that I do _not_ mean that each individual cannot have an answer to that question. I mean that there cannot be a general rule given, that each individual will unquestioningly obey, such as the question "Is murder wrong?"

    I do not intend to say that this discussion is pointless, which it isn't, i merely wish to state that no one should get themselves too worked up over this. Do not become so intent to find a rock solid answer to this question, that you forget to live you're life. If anyone thinks that this never happens, trust me when i say that it does, albeit usually with things that have already occurred.

    MrC [DodgingTheEvilForgeFees] December 15 2005 1:50 AM EST

    I'm a very moral person... well, opinionated on these topics anyway. Actually acting that way is another story though ;)

    It's a really simple rule that comes into play here.
    Look around you. What do you see? All of that stuff is just a chemical reaction in your brain, light reacting with your retina, electronic signals travelling along your... and here's why I flunked science, I haven't a clue what comes next. Anyway, you get the idea, it's just chemicals. What makes it real is how real it is to you. Think about it, if you were having a hollucination (spelling, sorry) and saw a person that wasn't really there, darn right they'd be real to you. Just because something is there, doesn't mean it's real, what defines real is how you react to it.
    If you're one of those people who has relationships over the internet, if you treat your online partner as if she/he is real, and even think about him/her in any more than a friend kind of way after you've logged off, then it's too far. It makes no difference if they're real or not, if you treat it as something real then it is cheating.

    Where this gets complicated is when you consider your RL partner's feelings about this.
    99% of the time, if you said "honey, is it ok if I have a girlfriend on the internet. It's not really cheating because..." you'd either be dead or have a foot connecting with your groin before you finished the sentence. Therefore, it *might* be moral, but it's also stupid.

    AdminQBGentlemanLoser [{END}] December 15 2005 3:17 AM EST

    "how different is your holodeck from your actual imagination. The root, here is sensory perception. If the scenario is contrived in VR or in your imagination, its still wrong, imho. I don't think its the medium that matters here, its the motive."

    Wow revelator! You never went out with someone and while in that relationship thought, even passing, about another woman?

    Personally, I don't think that thinking about doing something is wrong. It's part of our nature. Acting on something you believe to be wrong, is wrong, and withholding that action is what sets us up as moral beings.

    Thrak, too true! ;) All nice and clean till the holo fields shut off, then gravity takes effect.... Ewww....

    This thread is closed to new posts. However, you are welcome to reference it from a new thread; link this with the html <a href="/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=001dXL">Monogamous relationships and technological advancements.</a>