Slashdot Mirror


Fitness Site Accidentally Shows Sexual Activity

smitty777 writes "FitBit is a wearable device created to track calorie usage based on activities. Unfortunately for some users, one of those is sexual activities. The information gained from the device is uploaded to the users online web account, which is searchable by Google. From the article: 'Yikes. Users of fitness and calorie tracker Fitbit may need to be more careful when creating a profile on the site. The sexual activity of many of the users of the company’s tracker and online platform can be found in Google Search results, meaning that these users’ profiles are public and searchable.'" It's just a matter of time before a line gets crossed and a relationship gets ruined by trying to post the largest Fitbit numbers for the evening.

297 comments

  1. Problem by cgeys · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Problem isn't the sexual activity. Problem is the mindset that people have about it, teached by religions for hundreds of years. When people can finally put that past them and accept that, just like for them, sexual activity is a normal human function there is no need to worry about stuff like this. Then it would be the same as posting on your Facebook wall how good your breakfast was. People would just be bored about it.

    1. Re:Problem by ccguy · · Score: 4, Funny

      Well, I can see a problem with sexual activity if my wife's FitBit's numbers aren't equal or a subset or mine. And I'm not religious.

    2. Re:Problem by rufty_tufty · · Score: 0

      But is it not religious memes that make you have this problem?

      --
      "The weirdest thing about a mind, is that every answer that you find, is the basis of a brand new cliche" -
    3. Re:Problem by TheCarp · · Score: 0

      Well, don't go snooping for information that you don't want to know.

      Traditional marriage is traditionally held together by a careful eye for avoiding notice of each others indiscretions. Hell we are all human, how the hell could you live for 50+ years with another person without the ability to overlook various details about them and their activities. Its impolite not to.

      --
      "I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
    4. Re:Problem by flibbidyfloo · · Score: 1

      Well, I can see a problem with sexual activity if my wife's FitBit's numbers aren't equal or a subset or mine. And I'm not religious.

      What if hers are a super-set of yours because she masturbates more than you? Is that a problem? I mean, besides reflecting poorly on your skills as a lover.

    5. Re:Problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Is monogamy in a relationship a strictly religious concept? I don't think it really is.

    6. Re:Problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No. It is a natural and completely positive emotion to feel jealous when your mate is unfaithful. No religion needed to explain it.

    7. Re:Problem by wjousts · · Score: 2

      No, it's about trust. I'm an atheist and I don't cheat on my wife.

    8. Re:Problem by ElectricTurtle · · Score: 1

      If you'll pardon the expression, amen. Though I think we're going to have to wait at least until the Millennials replace the Boomers, probably longer, before we see pervasive social change.

      It's rather ironic actually, a lot of Millennials grew up in stereotypical picket fence households where parents went out of their way to keep anything remotely sexual away from their children. Now that generation is, to some degree, hiding their sexuality from their parents but less so from each other. I only hope they learn their lesson and are equally as open with subsequent generations.

      --
      I support the Slashcott and will not be reading or commenting from 2/10/14 to 2/17/14. Beta is steaming pile of dog shit
    9. Re:Problem by Abstrackt · · Score: 1

      It just means she likes to "work out" more than you. ;)

      --
      They say a little knowledge is a dangerous thing, but it's not one half so bad as a lot of ignorance. - Terry Pratchett
    10. Re:Problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What if hers are a super-set of yours because she masturbates more than you? Is that a problem? I mean, besides reflecting poorly on your skills as a lover.

      As a girl, I will say that this is just complete bullshit, by the way. Why and when I masturbate has nothing to do with how well my husband is doing. It might help your insecurity to tell others otherwise, but it's just not true.

    11. Re:Problem by rufty_tufty · · Score: 3, Insightful

      What has trust got to do with sexual activity(anymore than it has to do with any other activity in a relationship)?
      Why not have sexual activity with other people as long as both parties are happy with it and are honest about it? If they are not, then that is probably as a result of social memes not because of honesty and trust.
      I'm not saying that is wrong, but it is what it is.

      --
      "The weirdest thing about a mind, is that every answer that you find, is the basis of a brand new cliche" -
    12. Re:Problem by mcvos · · Score: 2

      That doesn't mean they can't be faithful.

    13. Re:Problem by DanTheStone · · Score: 1

      According to an article I read on this, there is no category on the site for going it solo. I guess they don't think it can be active enough to count.

    14. Re:Problem by rufty_tufty · · Score: 1, Insightful

      I disagree it is positive to feel jealous about their sexual activity. I might as well be jealous of the social life that they have that I don't.
      Consider an alternate society where it was considered unfaithful for your wife to have male friends. You might then feel jealous when you realise she is friends with her boss. I don't see the difference between that situation and the current one in our society re: sex; it's just a matter of where you draw the line.

      --
      "The weirdest thing about a mind, is that every answer that you find, is the basis of a brand new cliche" -
    15. Re:Problem by iceperson · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Taking a dump is a normal human function too. I'm not sure that I'd like people to be able to google my every bowel movement.

      Just because something is "normal" doesn't mean it should be done in public.

    16. Re:Problem by jellomizer · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Besides religion there are other good reasons why you don't want that information to be public. Sexual activity is a private thing, and should be kept that way.
      1. Showing that you have too much or two little says things about your private life that you may not want to be public. Eg. You got onto an argument that day, or get other worried that your relationship is failing.

      2. If you are trying to have children, you may not want to let the public know this until it is fact. As this could effect ones personal career.

      3. It makes it unconfortable for those who are not getting some.

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    17. Re:Problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What has trust got to do with sexual activity(anymore than it has to do with any other activity in a relationship)?
      Why not have sexual activity with other people as long as both parties are happy with it and are honest about it? If they are not, then that is probably as a result of social memes not because of honesty and trust.
      I'm not saying that is wrong, but it is what it is.

      Because most marriages include a voluntary agreement to limit sexual activity exclusively to one's spouse.

    18. Re:Problem by ohnocitizen · · Score: 1

      Exactly. It isn't hard to imagine why someone would prefer this stay private. What if a minor is using FitBit? What if it is being used by someone who lives in a repressive religious community? A prospective employer could check it out, and they wouldn't even have to use it to screen applicants: would you want your boss knowing how frequently you have sex, and how many calories you burn while doing it? Some might find it threatening, especially if that info is used to sexually harass an employee or co-worker. But all of this is moot. The real problem is the "totally open and public by default" attitude some social networking sites seem to feel is just fine.

    19. Re:Problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Some people just don't feel comfortable being with someone who has multiple current partners. I don't care one way or another, but whether it is due to societal pressure or not it is their choice.

      Besides, why is there an argument about this on Slashdot? You know that anyone here is GRATEFUL to have a single partner. You could never have multiple. That would go against the stereotype of the people who frequent this site.

    20. Re:Problem by ElectricTurtle · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I agree completely. Relationships, even marriage, should neither be about nor founded on sex. My own wife and I have an 'open' marriage, and it has worked very well for years. The key is real trust, not acting in bad faith or hiding anything.

      People really need to question more *why* they believe what they believe. I think if more people really took an honest look at their positions they would see how much of it is social construction and learned behavior.

      --
      I support the Slashcott and will not be reading or commenting from 2/10/14 to 2/17/14. Beta is steaming pile of dog shit
    21. Re:Problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      > If they are not, then that is probably as a result of social memes

      Or genetic reproductive strategies that have been evolving long before there were humans. Just because you think something is unnatural doesn't make it a social meme. It makes sense to be jealous of your partner sexually because then they're either diverting resources to another's spawn or tricking you into raising not your genetic material. It's generally good sexual strategy to cheat, not get caught, and not let your partner do it.

    22. Re:Problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      You are then not husband and wife as it is commonly understood, you are fckbuddies - a valid choice for many, but if so, what was the point of getting officially married?

    23. Re:Problem by ildon · · Score: 1

      No. the problem is when someone is cheating and they input it into their device to track their fitness and their significant other finds out about it through Google. Even without religious hangups or whatever, once you've made a commitment to one person it's wrong to break that commitment.

    24. Re:Problem by cgeys · · Score: 0, Troll

      Exactly. The idea behind having sex with other people is bad is put there by the religions disapproval of premarital sex. If you think about it, it really is no different from other activity. Now, religions did have a good reason to put that into peoples mind. After all, religion was pre-modern way to control people so that they didn't behave in destructing way. There are all the pregnancy and possible disease issues that needed to be controlled before. But in modern times they can be handled in other ways. But the religions already had put the mindset that sex == bad in to peoples mind. It's lifting off little by little, like people don't feel bad about premarital sex anymore. However, there still are those trust and faithful things people go about without proper reason. Just saying "faithful" is not a reasoning. Why is having sex with other people different from other activies, like for example mount climbing?

    25. Re:Problem by Riceballsan · · Score: 1

      Seconded, there are extremely few cultures or societies of any religion that do not have marriage as a key structure in society, and in almost all cases that involves commitment and monogamy, and the rules seem to be more or less the same regardless of whether the culture believes in the judeo christian god, Allah, Buddha and yes even atheists. That being said I don't think it's fair to blame the service on any relationship failing, A relationship based on your partner not finding something out, is the security by obscurity equivalent, if your spouse isn't going to trip over it by accident, suspect it her/himself, there's about 500 other ways it will eventually be known and tripped over, rather then blaming the 500 ways to get busted, perhaps if you aren't able to honor a committed relationship, you shouldn't be in one. Plenty of ways to get in an open relationship if that's how you want to go.

    26. Re:Problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dude - I wish I had some mod points. Finally, the voice of reason.

    27. Re:Problem by ildon · · Score: 2

      If I make a really great pie and give it to you, then you make me promise not to make that pie for anyone else so it can be special between just you and me, and (importantly) I agree to this arrangement, then you have every right to get pissed off if you catch me secretly making this pie for other people.

      When two people enter an agreement based on trust, it doesn't matter what the arrangement is. It's wrong for one of them to violate the agreement. And exclusivity in sexual partner selection (and the anger and jealousy created by violating that exclusivity) has a lot of history and biology behind it that is not based on religion at all.

    28. Re:Problem by Eraesr · · Score: 1

      I think if all taboos surrounding sexuality are gone, it's not as much fun anymore.

    29. Re:Problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You need to take globalisation into account though. At around the same time the Millennials take over, the vast populations of the Middle East will be really getting into the internet thing, and India will be finishing it's own transition. People who are far, far, far more sexually repressed and repressive than even the boomers.

    30. Re:Problem by Inda · · Score: 1

      And yet the reverse is true. Your husband wanks himself silly in the shower because he's not getting enough action in the bedroom.

      Food for thought.

      Yeah, I know. AC being female on /. is...

      --
      This post contains benzene, nitrosamines, formaldehyde and hydrogen cyanide.
    31. Re:Problem by rgviza · · Score: 1

      your wife may burn a different number of calories than you since one partner may be doing more work than the other depending on sexual position.

      --
      Don't kid yourself. It's the size of the regexp AND how you use it that counts.
    32. Re:Problem by AmazinglySmooth · · Score: 0

      Check with Solomon on how sexual "freedom" worked out for him. Or ask many of the HIV/AIDS patients. Or pregnant teens. I think you will find that sexual "freedom" doesn't quite work out the way you want.

    33. Re:Problem by Lumpy · · Score: 1

      Cheating means doing it without permission.

      You are not cheating if she gives her blessing. As in Polyamory Relationships, Swingers, etc....

      Not everyone has a uptight puritan view on sex and relationships...

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    34. Re:Problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      sex does create a strong empathy bond between people, like other activities, you may say, but stronger and kinda psychologically different.

      that's why I won't, for example, buy an house with a girl if we're in a open relationship. she could just get a stronger bond with another man and leave me with a ton of unresolved money problems.

      the core concept of faithfulness is not only dictated by religion, and you're just ignoring tons of other issues. sex does have a strong impact on human mind, we're just programmed that way.

      that's why you have sex crimes and not mount climbing crimes, citing your example.

    35. Re:Problem by __aamnbm3774 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Nah, I think you are taking it too far.

      Humans, even in pre-civilized times would migrate around in small family units. It's more biological than you are giving it credit for.

    36. Re:Problem by David+Chappell · · Score: 2

      But is it not religious memes that make you have this problem?

      So you are saying that a person whose mate has been unfaithful is upset simply because he has learned that his mate is a sinner? By your logic, persons together in a long-term sexual relationship but unmarried should not feel jelousy because they each already know that they are both fornicators.

      While religous and cultural theories of sexuality have a huge impact, I don't think they can explain something as viceral as sexual jelously. People feel jelously because sexual intercourse is an intense shared experience of extrordinary intimacy. I don't think we need to look furthure to understand why many wish to share it with only one special friend.

      I do not buy the free love retoric which tells us that we are monogamous because priests told us that to do otherwise is a sin or the family solicitor told us that otherwise probahttp://idle.slashdot.org/story/11/07/08/128216/Fitness-Site-Accidentally-Shows-Sexual-Activity#ting our will would be messy. (I have actually seen the last seriously suggested.)

    37. Re:Problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Taking a dump is a normal human function too. I'm not sure that I'd like people to be able to google my every bowel movement.

      Some might disagree.

    38. Re:Problem by jamesh · · Score: 2

      But is it not religious memes that make you have this problem?

      It's only in the last century or two that vaguely successful methods of STD prevention have been developed. Prior to that, if you had a lot of sex with a lot of different people the chances are you were going to get some disease that would kill you, or at least hurt you lots.

      Then there was also the problem of pregnancy... if you go around having sex with a lot of different people someone's going to get pregnant to someone who isn't really that interested in raising a child with them. And pregnancy is dangerous.

      The only widely used and vaguely effective barrier to disease is the condom, and it's not a lot of fun to use, and isn't completely safe anyway. Contraception is kind of a solved problem except that the methods are either permanent, not completely effective and/or mess with your body a lot. There's abortion too, which is much safer than actually having a baby but still not something you'd want to plan for.

      So apart from all the emotional attachment to monagomy (i'm not religious), I want my wife to remain faithful to me so I don't catch some nasty disease. Don't get me wrong, I do somewhat envy people who seem quite able to separate the emotional parts of sex and love to the point that an open relationship works for them, but it's not for me - as fun as it would be it just wouldn't work for us.

    39. Re:Problem by ElectricTurtle · · Score: 1

      I find these reasons rather hollow. Privacy isn't really much of a choice if society punishes voluntary public exposure.

      Further, problems professionally with having children are not an argument for privacy but characterize a fundamental flaw with society that needs to be fixed. Yes, pregnancy is bad for business, but every company that talks out of both sides of its mouth needs to be taught a lesson. Either come out and just say 'we don't support working mothers because we are selfish assholes' and deal with the backlash from customers who withdraw their support (funny, that), or make it a policy to be supportive of working mothers. It would even be possible in the latter case to try to get more customers through publicizing that positive aspect.

      Lastly, the jealousy of strangers is the dumbest reason not to do something. I know some people are jealous of my house and income, does that mean I should live in a tenement and only take minimum wage? That's idiocy. If my being happy makes other people depressed, fuck them, they need therapy. I don't need to stop being happy to make them happy.

      --
      I support the Slashcott and will not be reading or commenting from 2/10/14 to 2/17/14. Beta is steaming pile of dog shit
    40. Re:Problem by Lumpy · · Score: 2

      No they dont. it is ASSUMED and not written out clearly.

      "Do you, dave, promise to not have sex with other people even though your wife permits it?" I dont remember those words at any wedding....

      You do realize that social monogamy is not commonplace. Most Muslim countries allow a man to have multiple wives. In fact it was highly common for a man to have multiple wives for MOST of history.

      Monogamy, no matter how much it is sanctioned legally or socially, or how righteous it is portrayed religiously, was never originated from the Scriptures, and has never been set as the only standard for marriage by God. It originated from the pagan Romans.

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    41. Re:Problem by AlecC · · Score: 2

      The human mind was built in pre-contraception days, when sex meant babies. And we are strongly conditioned by evolution to care for our genetic descendants, and not for another man's. Sexual jealousy is built into humans, particularly males, for Darwinian reasons.

      it is my view that most religious practice is a rationalization of built-in human motives - ascribing to God motivations we have that we do not understand why we have. Essentially, religion is a coat of paint used to justify what we were going to do anyway. And in this case, "God's law" of monogamy is just the law we would like - for our spouses at least. Men because they don't want to raise another man's child, women because they don'e want to share the man's resources with another woman's child or, even worse, have her run off with him.

      This is, of course, much less relevant in the days of modern contraception (though less so from the woman's point of view), but our brains are still those of hunter gatherers.

      --
      Consciousness is an illusion caused by an excess of self consciousness.
    42. Re:Problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Then it would be the same as posting on your Facebook wall how good your breakfast was. People would just be bored about it.

      Thank God for religion!

    43. Re:Problem by Abstrackt · · Score: 2

      I believe that in those circumstances, marriage is a way of saying that despite what happens outside the relationship they'll always return to their spouse. I'm just guessing, mind you. I'm in a closed marriage myself, been locked in for many years but still getting a good interest rate!

      --
      They say a little knowledge is a dangerous thing, but it's not one half so bad as a lot of ignorance. - Terry Pratchett
    44. Re:Problem by ElectricTurtle · · Score: 1

      Frequently polygynous family units. Men could have multiple women because they were stronger. You'll find that biology isn't all that interested in equality, fairness, or morality.

      --
      I support the Slashcott and will not be reading or commenting from 2/10/14 to 2/17/14. Beta is steaming pile of dog shit
    45. Re:Problem by Lumpy · · Score: 1

      you are a backward hillbilly that cant think. IT's obvious you dont understand marriage let alone even human relations and sexuality.
      Come on back when you can talk like an adult and not be a coward that is too much of a pussy to post under your own account.

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    46. Re:Problem by wintercolby · · Score: 2

      No! The problem I have with the thought of my wife cheating is that it could mean that I would have to take care of someone else's kids, financially and emotionally.

      --
      Most ignorance is vincible ignorance. We don't know because we don't want to know. --Aldous Huxley
    47. Re:Problem by Lumpy · · Score: 1

      Yet that is the basis of all Christian and Muslim Marriages.

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    48. Re:Problem by gtbritishskull · · Score: 1

      I disagree. If you want to have an open relationship and are fine with it, then more power to you. But jealousy related to non-monogamous partners is not a "social meme". And most marriage ceremonies (or similar human bonding rituals) include a promise to be monogamous. So, in general, sexual activity is very closely related to honesty and trust.

      There are many reasons why humans would have evolved to prefer a monogamous relationship, and, from the fact that almost all cultures enforce monogamous relationships, it can be concluded that social norms were created due to human nature, rather than human behavior being molded by social norms (at least in this instance). So, unless you have any cite-able proof that jealousy is a learned behavior and not a natural emotion, then I am going to have to say that your argument is wrong.

    49. Re:Problem by operagost · · Score: 2

      No, the problem is privacy, Captain Red Herring. Would you like everyone to know when you defecate or menstruate, too?

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    50. Re:Problem by Lumpy · · Score: 3, Funny

      Correct, the propelr place for that is on Twitter..

      http://twitter.com/#!/search/i%20have%20to%20poop

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    51. Re:Problem by somersault · · Score: 4, Funny

      If you think about it, it really is no different from other activity.

      Why is having sex with other people different from other activies, like for example mount climbing?

      Bullshit. The pregnancy part is a pretty big indicator. Think about it in evolutionary terms. We want to propagate our own genes, not help to propagate the genes of our wife's "mountain climbing" buddy. We have contraception now, but we also still have natural feelings of love for our wife and our own kids, jealousy of anyone who tries to edge in on our family, etc.

      Have you ever had sex with anyone? As another commenter said, there is a lot of associated biochemical crap going on in that situation, especially if it's not just a one night stand. You're not going to be able to help feeling upset if you find out someone was cheating on you, unless you both agreed to an open relationship. Even if you both agreed, it won't always be easy unless you're a sociopath.

      --
      which is totally what she said
    52. Re:Problem by ajzimm3rman · · Score: 0

      Can I have sex with your girlfriend? Is that alright man? I think she likes me.

    53. Re:Problem by operagost · · Score: 1

      Are you really this stupid? Obviously, from the GP poster's response monogamy is expected in his relationship. Thus, having another sexual partner IS A BREACH OF THAT TRUST, the same as in your outdated "free love" scenario if all the parties involved were not notified so they could be aware of the pregnancy and STD risks.

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    54. Re:Problem by Rob+the+Bold · · Score: 2

      Why not have sexual activity with other people as long as both parties are happy with it and are honest about it? If they are not, then that is probably as a result of social memes not because of honesty and trust.

      Emphasis mine.

      Dude, this is exactly what everyone is trying to tell you. If two people choose to have a monogamous relationship -- and there are a lot of people who do regardless of their religion or lack thereof -- then they won't be happy about a breach of monogamy even if the partner is honest about it. The fact that some peoples' religions teach monogamy is unimportant. They don't have to base their decision on a religious teaching if they don't want to. They can just agree to the rules of the relationship, can't they? Trusting a partner to abide by the sexual boundaries -- or any other boundaries -- is all about trust.

      And the emphasis is on "Sexual Activity" here is because that's what the article is about. If it were an article about selling other peoples' stuff on eBay, then we'd perhaps be talking about trusting spouses not to fence our belongings. And it wouldn't be simply because many religions forbid stealing.

      And anyway, my point, and I do have one, is: if I don't want to tell the world about my sex life, I don't need to justify that to anybody. If I don't want my exercise meter uploading that, then I just don't. You can tell me all day long that it's perfectly natural, etc., etc. Fine. It's natural, OK? OK? I said it, sex is natural. But it's also perfectly natural to choose to divulge what I wish to divulge and not divulge what I don't wish.

      --
      I am not a crackpot.
    55. Re:Problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Finally someone making sense!

    56. Re:Problem by Ephemeriis · · Score: 1

      No, it's about trust. I'm an atheist and I don't cheat on my wife.

      Your statement makes my head hurt.

      You say it's about trust... But, if you really trusted your wife (or your wife trusted you, or whatever), then some weird numbers showing up on a website wouldn't be an issue. The assumption would be that she was masturbating, or the device was malfunctioning, or something like that. It only becomes a problem when you don't trust your wife and the assumption is that she's cheating on you. Or, I suppose, when she actually does cheat on you.

      But... If we set aside your statement of trust... The fact of the matter is that, regardless of whether you're an atheist or not, our cultural stereotype of monogamous marriage is largely based on Christian teaching. You and your wife have entered into a monogamous relationship - which means sexual exclusivity. But there are plenty of people out there who are not in such a relationship - in which case seeing differing numbers for sexual activity in FitBit wouldn't be a cause for concern.

      So the original assertion that the underlying problem is, in fact, the mindset regarding sexual activity is 100% accurate.

      --
      "Work is the curse of the drinking classes." -Oscar Wilde
    57. Re:Problem by Ambvai · · Score: 1

      Because most (a guess on that part) people enter into a relationship either with an explicit or assumed agreement that it's exclusive. In that case, it's perfectly reasonable to be annoyed that the other person failed to uphold the deal. On the other hand, if it's NOT exclusive, then there's no grounds for complaint (and you're probably not exclusive either, though hypocrisy is common enough). It is ultimately a matter of trust... just like any other activity. I can't be the only person who was going to watch a movie with the sig and was disappointed to learn that they got impatient and watched half of it first.

    58. Re:Problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Trust is paramount. Even ignoring the overwhelmingly important implications of pregnancy, sex puts its participants in an extremely vulnerable position both legally, socially, psychologically, neurochemically, and pathenogenically. People who enter into it with no regard to trust are risk-takers, either out of a disregard for themselves or a disregard for others.

    59. Re:Problem by operagost · · Score: 2

      I have an uptight, Puritan (straw man, BTW) view on STDs and unwanted pregnancies.

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    60. Re:Problem by ElectricTurtle · · Score: 2

      There are so many misconceptions in this I don't know where to start. In the first place there is sociological evidence that a preoccupation with genetic primacy is not common to all males or all societies. The ancient Romans for example were particularly keen on adoption, and IIRC Roman law dictated that adopted sons could never be disowned where biological ones could be.

      Secondly, making the assumption that your use of 'God' means Yahweh, there was no divine mandate for monogamy before Christ and/or the Apostle Paul. Most of the Biblical patriarchs had many wives and even more concubines which themselves were usually prizes from the battlefield whose lives were only granted at the price of systemic rape at any time. Got to love that old time religious morality.

      --
      I support the Slashcott and will not be reading or commenting from 2/10/14 to 2/17/14. Beta is steaming pile of dog shit
    61. Re:Problem by flibbidyfloo · · Score: 1

      I doubt the device could tell the difference for some people. Maybe it's just included in the same numbers?

    62. Re:Problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Hey, your position is also based on learned behavior! Everyone's opinions are based on what they have learned. Your tone suggests that you think your opinion has a deeper truth behind it. I hate it when people take that kind of superior attitude.

      The funny thing is, you acctually agree that trust is a big part of a relationship. Which means that you know how damaging betrayal is to a relationship. The ONLY difference is you don't consider it a betrayal for your spouse to go out with other people, as long as they let you know. Personally that would make me uncomfortable. I guess that's your queue to stick up your nose and tell me how much of a sheep I am. Hypocrite.

    63. Re:Problem by speculatrix · · Score: 1

      I would have to take care of someone else's kids, financially

      we all do that already, but indirectly, through taxation payments which end up in welfare/social security payments to parents unable/unwilling to provide for their own children.

    64. Re:Problem by dtjohnson · · Score: 1

      "Problem isn't the sexual activity. Problem is the mindset that people have about it, teached by religions for hundreds of years. When people can finally put that past them and accept that, just like for them, sexual activity is a normal human function there is no need to worry about stuff like this.

      You could say the same about murder, child labor, infanticide, and denial of comfort to the suffering. The problem is not 'mindset' but that those things are wrong. Sexual activity showing up on FitBit violates privacy and offends dignity but is not otherwise necessarily immoral. However, the alleged sexual activity seems questionable. From TFA: "the Fitbit Tracker is an compact wearable device that clips onto clothing or slips into a pocket..." How exactly is this device functioning as an accelerometer when the user is partially or completely naked (a common state for much sexual activity)?

    65. Re:Problem by ElectricTurtle · · Score: 2

      Holy crap, dawg. Study some anthropology. Damn near every ancient society was polygynistic. Most of Asia was even into the beginning of the 20th century, and some in Africa still are. That's about as far from 'human nature' as it gets.

      --
      I support the Slashcott and will not be reading or commenting from 2/10/14 to 2/17/14. Beta is steaming pile of dog shit
    66. Re:Problem by jomama717 · · Score: 1

      It's biological/instinctive, particularly for men I think - when you choose a mate (i.e. get married) in 99% of cases there is an implicit understanding that you and your mate will be exclusive sexual partners. For a man this means that if your partner becomes pregnant you can rest assured that it is *your* genes that have been passed on the offspring, which is arguably the entire purpose for our existence from a biological standpoint.

      Interestingly the motivation is slightly different for women, they have no reason to be insecure about their own genes being passed along as they are the carrier of the offspring - they are only interested in making sure that they have found the very best male contributor possible. I even read somewhere [citation needed...too lazy to google it] that the fact that a majority of offspring resemble the mother rather than the father is a built-in advantage for females of species that mate for life, as they can more easily hide their infidelity. All the more reason for the males to be insecure.

      --
      while [ 1 ]; do echo -n -e "\xe2\x95\xb$((($RANDOM&1)+1))"; done
    67. Re:Problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A Buddha is an enlightened being that has transcended the wheel of samsara. Every sentient being is a potential Buddha.

      Sorry but you can't use "Budhha" for the name of a monotheistic deity such as "God", "Yahweh", "Allah" etc.

      Just sayin'

      capture: shrugs

    68. Re:Problem by sorak · · Score: 1

      Agreed, but from the company's perspective, it is easier to change your product than to change the mindset of millions* of potential customers.

      * There are billions of people in the world, but I am assuming that the number of people who could afford, and would be interested in, purchasing a device that posts your workout information to a social networking site is significantly lower.

    69. Re:Problem by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 2

      Bingo. Sexual Freedom has consequences that none of the "Sexual taboos are all religious" people love to ignore. Sexual taboos keep people safer than wonton sexuality.

      Tell a kid that they are sleeping with Susie slut who has five kinds of VD and they'll think twice about Susie's slut activities. Or if you look at the long term consequences of such activities you'll see a long line of idiots who can't keep their dick in their pants living in cars because the slept around on their wife and the wife (and kid) got all the communal property.

      Problem is, I can make a thousand excuses as to why wonton sexual activity is not good, and none of them are religious. In fact, I'd say, part of religion's responsibility is to make known the consequences of such activity, and put it into terms that even idiots can understand. People like the GP post don't like to be reminded that they might get dead because of their activity, as it ruins their "fun".

      Oh, and never mind the objectification of women as sexual objects to be desired and collected like gold coins that is inevitable. When was the last time you looked at Megan Fox and thought, "boy she is smart"? Yeah, I didn't think so.

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
    70. Re:Problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > Why is having sex with other people different from other activies, like for example mount climbing?

      If you're enlightened enough and sufficiently deprogrammed of religious taboo, why do you think those activities are the same?
      One you'd happily do with your children or your parents or your siblings. The other, not.

    71. Re:Problem by __aamnbm3774 · · Score: 1

      Provide a source. That isn't how I remembered my anthropology.

    72. Re:Problem by wintercolby · · Score: 1

      Those children aren't in your household, you don't have to take them to school. You don't have to teach them anything, or read them books at night. There's a big difference between being individually financially responsible for someone, and having a social obligation to caring for the weak and disabled.

      --
      Most ignorance is vincible ignorance. We don't know because we don't want to know. --Aldous Huxley
    73. Re:Problem by houghi · · Score: 1

      You will be investigated as you clearly have something to hide. You will be placed on the no-fly list and considered an infidel and a sympathizer of terrorism.

      --
      Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
    74. Re:Problem by ElectricTurtle · · Score: 1

      In retrospect, you're partially correct, 'learned behavior' is a poor choice of words. However, the point is that I am not an automaton that simply does whatever a god/government/parental authority tells me is right. I study, hypothesize, test and question until I find the closest thing I can to truth. Somebody whose morality is dictated to them by another authority is by definition a sheep.

      --
      I support the Slashcott and will not be reading or commenting from 2/10/14 to 2/17/14. Beta is steaming pile of dog shit
    75. Re:Problem by drolli · · Score: 1

      Hmmm. Maybe if we couple the toiled with a weight sensor to post to facebook....

    76. Re:Problem by the_olo · · Score: 1

      The trust has to do not with sexual activity, but with people generally being possessive with regards to each other in a relationship (especially women towards men but this may be a cultural bias, not necessary evolutional/biological).

      This is a universal trait of humans and it's not dependent on religion. It has more to do with inherent egoism and self interest.

      Take a look at any ancient epics like Greek myths or Norse sagas.

    77. Re:Problem by Tsingi · · Score: 1

      Provide a source. That isn't how I remembered my anthropology.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harem

    78. Re:Problem by asdf7890 · · Score: 1

      But is it not religious memes that make you have this problem?

      Monogamy is not unique to the teachings of religion, nor are other relationship patterns anathema to all religions. While you could claim that atheists who are monogamous are so through tradition based on the old religions of their upbringing/ancestors, that doesn't hold water as some religions openly permit other forms of relationship.

      For many it is a trust/safety issue and has nothing to do with what religion and tradition say on the matter. I'm an athiest and aside from my mentalist period over a decade ago I've either been monogamous or single and it feels the right way to be from my standpoint. Of course there are those who feel different and good luck to them I say: if all the members of a relationship network are mentally healthy and happy in (and fully informed of) the arrangement who am I to say they are wrong and I am right?

    79. Re:Problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Does your wife have any free time this weekend?

    80. Re:Problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Too bad something called birth control and condoms have not been invented...

      Some day they will do that I am sure! Plus are you so stupid that you think that everyone is riddled with disease? ever hear about being picky?

    81. Re:Problem by GooberToo · · Score: 1

      Actually, research indicates the typical male brain feels threatened and mentally reacts as if a physical threat exists. Women on the other hand, typically do not feel it as such threat. In fact, men seeing other men topless can frequently initiate a threat response when around "their" women. Women on the other hand, have no such threat response even when viewing completely naked women around their mate. Which likely explains may behaviors at the beach.

      Basically, what modern research appears to be telling us, monogamy is not normal for humans and that genetically, one male with many females is normal. Interestingly enough, that's exactly what we see in other primates; such as apes.

      Furthermore, once you add in yet more social sciences, jealousy from women typically originates from low self esteem or they happen to be one of the few women (less than 20%) who actually do experience a physiological threat response.

      And in case anyone is wondering, studies are currently underway in the UK (IIRC) to determine if homosexual males also experience a threat response to other males as heterosexual males do.

    82. Re:Problem by Tsingi · · Score: 1

      > Why is having sex with other people different from other activies, like for example mount climbing?

      If you're enlightened enough and sufficiently deprogrammed of religious taboo, why do you think those activities are the same? One you'd happily do with your children or your parents or your siblings. The other, not.

      Being such an enlightened person, you wouldn't actually know that they were *your* children.

    83. Re:Problem by astrodoom · · Score: 1

      Not quite. It was polygamist, but only on one side of things. That makes a huge difference when you're examining the evolution of a social norm.

    84. Re:Problem by GooberToo · · Score: 1

      The idea behind having sex with other people is bad is put there by the religions disapproval of premarital sex.

      That's not true at all. Religion usurped their authority of marriage but it existed long before. And even before religious involvement sex has almost always been held to a different standard. That's why prostitution is considered the oldest profession.

      Any time sex can occur there is the risk of socio-economic change. Genetically, none of us are geared toward casual sex. This is especially true for females who are genetically geared to view sex as both a means to establish/maintain a relationship and bring economic benefit to both herself and her offspring.

      Genetically speaking, men have muscles. Women have vaginas.

      Why is having sex with other people different from other activies, like for example mount climbing?

      Because its completely different. Why do people consider going to mars any different than going to the grocery store. Because both the trip and potential results are completely different.

    85. Re:Problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm glad your arrangement works for you, but I've seen friends try similar things and their experience was more like this.

      Just because something is social construction and learned behavior, doesn't mean it's irrelevant or easily changed.

    86. Re:Problem by ElectricTurtle · · Score: 5, Informative

      First, according to the Ethnographic Atlas Codebook, of 1231 societies studied, only 186 were monogomous, 453 practiced some polygyny, 588 had more frequent polygyny, and 4 were polyandrous. In fact, ethologists now believe that only one to two percent of all species may be monogamous (Tucker, William In press National Review: All in the Family. New York: National Review Press). None of the simian species are strictly monogamous; our closest relatives, the chimpanzees, practice a form of group marriage. Among the 849 human societies examined by the anthropologist Murdock (1957: American Anthropologist: World Ethnographic Sample. 59: 664-687.), 75% practiced polygyny.

      Those are just the first three things I came up with in a five minute search. There have been hundreds, even thousands, of scholarly papers written on this subject. It is so common, so fundamental to sociology and anthropology that I have no reservations on calling you out. You probably never knew anything about the subject to forget.

      --
      I support the Slashcott and will not be reading or commenting from 2/10/14 to 2/17/14. Beta is steaming pile of dog shit
    87. Re:Problem by jrminter · · Score: 1

      "No they dont. it is ASSUMED and not written out clearly."

      Have you looked at common marriage vows lately? My vows and the vows at most weddings I have attended included the line "forsaking all others..."

    88. Re:Problem by ArsonSmith · · Score: 2

      "Your tone suggests that you think your opinion has a deeper truth behind it. I hate it when people take that kind of superior attitude."

      Ohh, the irony.

      --
      Paying taxes to buy civilization is like paying a hooker to buy love.
    89. Re:Problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Great, a thread on sex on a site dominated by aspies. That's going to end badly.

    90. Re:Problem by GooberToo · · Score: 1

      Its actually more involved that than. Genetically, men can have multiple women because men are wired to perceive other men as threats. Genetically, women (>80%) do not see other women as threats and have no threat response even when seeing other women with their male mate. Therefore, genetically, we are designed to have one man and one or more women. Everything else is sociological, cultural, or religious.

    91. Re:Problem by Lumpy · · Score: 2

      "I have attended included the line "forsaking all others...""

      Hmmm...

      Definition of FORSAKE
      transitive verb, to renounce or turn away from entirely

      What a horrible thing to promise. you shall forsake all others so you need to renounce your family, and turn away from your children in need.

      Wow, Weddings have become brutal!

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    92. Re:Problem by TheCarp · · Score: 2

      Though little about this actually helps answer whether this is a learned trait or not.

      I am in an open marriage myself, and have known/been with other people in similar boats. I can tell you, there are plenty of us out there who do not have these responses. Though, I find i still expect them in others. I remember the first time that I hung out with a firned of mine and her bf after the first time we hooked up, I found myself instinctively checking his expressions when things came up that indicated she had been with other men, or me.... it was completely natural for him, no response visible.

      I think it comes down to security and expectation. If the expectation on sex or intimacy is that having it outside of the primary relationship is "cheating" and means a potential end to the relationship.... then threat makes sense. Other men ARE a threat. However, I have had the opposite experience, I have watched her, on several occasions, drop other people just to spend time with me. I have no fear whatsoever that she isn't coming home.... I have played cards with some a lover of hers, invite him to parties... no threat.

      Thats not to say its never been an issue but, I think its the relation towards sexuality and promiscuity that leads to the fear reaction.

      --
      "I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
    93. Re:Problem by DigiShaman · · Score: 1

      I even read somewhere [citation needed...too lazy to google it] that the fact that a majority of offspring resemble the mother rather than the father is a built-in advantage for females of species that mate for life, as they can more easily hide their infidelity. All the more reason for the males to be insecure.

      For sure.

      Should a man cause infanticide, it's generally out of jealousy or rage. Evolutionary, it only makes sense for the child being born to have its father's appearance obfuscated. Also in times of war, it's not uncommon for a pillaged village to have the women raped and their previous children killed. Winning the right to breed runs deep in all sexual life forms. It's the most basic of instincts. The prize was never really about land, gold, or politics. It was ultimately about young women in their breeding prime. Of course, we don't actually admit that so clearly. But that's what the evidence of human nature and culture proves.

      --
      Life is not for the lazy.
    94. Re:Problem by __aamnbm3774 · · Score: 2

      off topic. I said anthropology of pre-civilized behavior.

      Rich people always get what they want. If I was Bill Gates, I'd probably have 4 wives myself. But that doesn't mean the women are genuinely OK with it. They stay that way because of my ridiculous power/money influence over them.

      I'm sure it happened back in caveman days too, but don't tell me the other cavewoman didn't feel betrayed, ashamed, embarrassed, etc. It isn't all religion like you guys are trying to make it seem. There is more biology to it.

    95. Re:Problem by SeNtM · · Score: 1

      Bowel Movement- Active, vigorous effort- Started at 9:30am, 1 hour 39 minutes.

      --
      "There ought to be limits to freedom." -George W. Bush
    96. Re:Problem by budgenator · · Score: 1

      No the problem is that people without their spouse's knowledge and consent are engaging in activities that they not only vowed not to, but could very easily injure the non-participating spouse. If a Husband and Wife decide that soft swapping, hard swapping or even playing separately is OK in the marriage then fine, prior knowledge and competent informed consent makes a big difference. Most of the time it's simply one person lying and conniving behind the other spouse's back.

      --
      Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
    97. Re:Problem by kilfarsnar · · Score: 1

      Why is having sex with other people different from other activies, like for example mount climbing?

      If you can't see why sex is different from mountain climbing, you're either doing it wrong or I simply must start mountain climbing with you.

      --
      "What the American public doesn't know is what makes them the American public." -Ray Zalinsky (Tommy Boy)
    98. Re:Problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And yet the reverse is true. Your husband wanks himself silly in the shower because he's not getting enough action in the bedroom.

      Food for thought.

      This is nonsense.

    99. Re:Problem by radtea · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Can I have sex with your girlfriend? Is that alright man? I think she likes me.

      Why are you asking him?

      Why aren't you asking her?

      Here's how it works, in my case at least: you want to have sex with my g/f, you ask her. She and I will talk about it, and what we say to each other is none of your damned business. After that conversation, she may say yes to you, she may say no. Either way, she'll have her reasons, which are also none of your damned business.

      --
      Blasphemy is a human right. Blasphemophobia kills.
    100. Re:Problem by TheCarp · · Score: 2

      However, if people really wanted and preferred total monogamy then.... why would the cultures that inist on monogamy seem to have to have so many rules and so much insistence on it. You never find rules saying you must eat when hungry. Rules only tend to be made about things that people don't naturally want to do. If people really preferred it, we wouldn't need the ceremonies and rules.

      I wont say that jealousy isn't natural or isn't present in people in open relationships, I am in one, and I can say yes, I have felt jealous but...its not usually about just sex. It seldom has to do simply with the fact of my spouse being with someone else, or wanting to be, Its usually more of the "damnit I have nothing to do tonight now" feeling sorry for myself variety.... which I tend to relate to as an internal failing of my own, rather than to put on her.

      So no I don't think jealousy is unnatural, but I think many of its triggers and how we relate to it is learned. I know many people who are not put off by their spouse being with others.

      --
      "I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
    101. Re:Problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't worry your kids are nothing special either.

    102. Re:Problem by Tsingi · · Score: 1
      I didn't say anything about religion.

      You provide a source.

    103. Re:Problem by alexo · · Score: 1

      Because most marriages include a voluntary agreement to limit sexual activity exclusively to one's spouse.

      No they dont. it is ASSUMED and not written out clearly.

      Of course it is assumed. You don't solemnly swear to help with the dishes or take out the garbage either.

      When people announce their intent to spend the rest of their lives together, it is a given that they be considerate of each others' needs and desires and be willing to make compromises when their partners' needs or desires conflict with their own.

      "Do you, dave, promise to not have sex with other people even though your wife permits it?" I dont remember those words at any wedding....

      You are glossing over the most important part. Most marriages do not fall into the "even though your wife permits it" category and most people are at least uncomfortable with the idea of their spouses having other sexual partners.

      If both you and your spouse are OK with extra-marital sex and are open and honest with each other about it, more power to you. In that case there are no trust issues involved. The "cheating" part is when one party knows that their spouse will disapprove (or worse) and therefore tries to keep the affair secret.

    104. Re:Problem by Dunbal · · Score: 0

      He avoids them by not confusing his right hand with a "wife" or "girlfriend" as you obviously do.

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    105. Re:Problem by Jeremiah+Cornelius · · Score: 0

      Bullshit. The problem is tribal/social mores. Religion has just been used to codify those.

      These codes and morals were once what bound societies together, for survival and mutuality. The boundaries for effective social relationships were maintained for successful human sub-groupings for hundreds of thousands of years - just as surely as the sexual patterns of Bonobos do for their successful banding.

      You don't change a successful pattern for group survival overnight, though an individual effort of will that is based on seeing things differently. As these stresses emerge to challenge the hitherto successful order, then - of course - taboos emerge with the weight of metaphysical consequence. It is a natural part of transition. Just as natural as your "rational" thinking - for which you credit to your own self, but wold have been impossible for you to conceive, had you been born just a few short generations ago. Your own thinking is the product of a broader change in circumstance, not a particular strength of insight.

      Back to the original point... In fact, blaming religion is really putting the cart before the horse. Doing so describes much about how you operate, more so than it does the nature of religions or their possible validity.

      --
      "Flyin' in just a sweet place,
      Never been known to fail..."
    106. Re:Problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      women (>80%) do not see other women as threats

      Talk to my girlfriend. She's a lot more jealous of a person than I am. I wouldn't be surprised if our biology is being re-guided by cultural norms.

    107. Re:Problem by rufty_tufty · · Score: 3, Informative

      For me (when I was in an open relationship) we didn't use the term cheating. Having sex with someone else was not cheating as long as we told the other person about it (we were also allowed to vito the other person's choices if we felt the need). Now if she had lied to me about sex with someone or i had said "Look I'm not happy with you keeping seeing him whilst I'm away on business" and she had done it anyway then that would have been cheating and been a serious problem; but simply having sex was not cheating because it wasn't against the rules/agreement. So yes I would have had a massive problem with her cheating but cheating for us had a different definition. There were also rules about contraception that you had to trust the other person to follow that would have made it obvious if she was not following the rules, therefore I'd have known that they'd have been someone else's kids just as much as if this had been a normal relationship.

      --
      "The weirdest thing about a mind, is that every answer that you find, is the basis of a brand new cliche" -
    108. Re:Problem by Dunbal · · Score: 1

      Of course they're not property. They're more like a sort of pet.

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    109. Re:Problem by Toonol · · Score: 1

      No they dont. it is ASSUMED and not written out clearly.

      No, most married couples have actually not just 'assumed' their spouse will be faithful, but have actually MENTIONED that requirement to each other. 'Faithful' is part of the standard vows, you know; and most people, you know, TALK before they get married.

      You do realize that social monogamy is not commonplace. Most Muslim countries allow a man to have multiple wives

      Commonplace throughout all the cultures that have significant impact on western civilization. And most Muslim men do NOT have multiple wives. Just like most Indian, Chinese, European, or American men do not.

    110. Re:Problem by Abstrackt · · Score: 1

      I think if all taboos surrounding sexuality are gone, it's not as much fun anymore.

      I strongly disagree. I've seen attitudes towards sex change a lot over the years, for the better, and sex has never been more fun because of it. Porn is becoming more mainstream and higher quality because of its acceptance, I don't have to hide my stash from my wife, you can buy accessories to have sex in any position/location you want and so on. Ten years ago it was near impossible to find good straps for bondage, now you can practically buy them at the grocery store. I think if all taboos surrounding sexuality disappeared a lot more people would start treating it as a damn fine hobby.

      --
      They say a little knowledge is a dangerous thing, but it's not one half so bad as a lot of ignorance. - Terry Pratchett
    111. Re:Problem by Dunbal · · Score: 1

      You are implying that masturbation arises from a partner with poor bedroom skills, that masturbation is a sign of a troubled relationship and that ideally no one would ever masturbate. You poor, deluded sap. You are part of the problem. PS - I hope you feel really guilty when you masturbate.

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    112. Re:Problem by geminidomino · · Score: 2

      I'm sure it happened back in caveman days too, but don't tell me the other cavewoman didn't spend the downtime while it was happening getting plowed in the next cave over by Gronk instead

      FTFY. See? I can make completely BS statements about cavemen, too.

      There's more compelling evidence falling on the side of homo sapiens being an inherently non-monogamous species, in physiology and developmentally.

      The instinct to fight over a mate (what we have since diluted down into the self-denigrating wangst-fest we call 'jealousy') isn't limited to monogamous species, either. In fact, it's one of the cornerstones of the selection process: You want Ugg's mate, prove you're stronger than Ugg.

      For my thinking, it occurred to me that probably the best support for the idea that human monogamy is "unnatural" (which is to say, not an element of human instinctive behaviors) is the fact that we need so many "thou shalt nots" against it. If humans were monogamous by nature, it would be a very small problem, with only deviants(again, in terms of evolution) being the ones "stepping out."

    113. Re:Problem by Nadaka · · Score: 1

      The only problems I have with my wife cheating on me are:

      1: she is doing it without my knowledge and consent.

      2: she could end up leaving me for the other guy/girl.

      3: she most likely would have a double standard and freak out if I was with another woman.

      I have absolutely no base jealousy at all. All my serious relationships have been open, occasionally open or poly.

    114. Re:Problem by Jeremy+Erwin · · Score: 1

      Subset of yours? Does your wife know that you have a girlfriend on the side? Why are you entitled to more sexual activity than she is?

    115. Re:Problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      then your doing it wrong sex is always fun

    116. Re:Problem by ciderbrew · · Score: 1

      The other cavewoman didn't feel betrayed, ashamed, embarrassed. They felt pride that their man was the best. Fact! don't tell me bla bla bla.

    117. Re:Problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're only reinforcing his point. It's conditioning, plain and simple.

    118. Re:Problem by rufty_tufty · · Score: 1

      But is it not religious memes that make you have this problem?

      So you are saying that a person whose mate has been unfaithful is upset simply because he has learned that his mate is a sinner? By your logic, persons together in a long-term sexual relationship but unmarried should not feel jelousy because they each already know that they are both fornicators.

      That's not what I'm saying at all.
      What i am saying is:
      I believe that most of the behaviour and beliefs that a person has come from upbringing rather than biology. I believe that in current western society the biggest influence on those learned behaviours when it comes to sexual ethics is religion.
      Biologically we appear to be programmed to appear to our mates to be monogamous, and to try and be polygamous behind their backs. Being so is a clear evolutionary advantage if we can get away with a pair bonding arrangement that gives us our stable home and then get some more around the edges for free that gives us wider spread genes and a guarantee of our own genes survivial too.
      Historically religious memes then sprung up to support the public perception, subscribing to a religion showed you were a good mate, showed you were monogamous and a good choice to raise children with (and if you managed somehow to get in some extra offspring at the side then your biology didn't mind).
      So we are left with a society now that has biology driving us to want monogamy from our partners and to seek out polygamy for ourselves. We have left over social attitudes that publicly welcome monogamy (and also call men who sleep around before marriage studs and other positive terms). Frankly it's a mess of a situation we're never going to be able to explain a slashdot post ;-)
      However I still argue that the greater thing that tells you that polygamy is wrong as you are raised that is social programming even if it has good genetic roots., and that social programming comes from religion. For proof of this look at other religions that don't have such a monogamous requirement. (actually just look at the old testament which openly supports many wives). I never mentioned anything about persons' past behaviour, so where you most of your post from I'm a little puzzled.

      --
      "The weirdest thing about a mind, is that every answer that you find, is the basis of a brand new cliche" -
    119. Re:Problem by flibbidyfloo · · Score: 1

      Haha, I was just being snide because the poster indicated that it would be a problem if his wife had a higher sex count than him, but not that if his was higher than hers. the only guilt I feel over masturbating is that I feel bad no one else is there to enjoy the magic :)

    120. Re:Problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, because condoms and the pill are 100% effective. Also, everyone gets his regular tests.

    121. Re:Problem by antdude · · Score: 1

      I do. ;)

      --
      Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).
    122. Re:Problem by couchslug · · Score: 2, Informative

      I just had a colonoscopy to ensure nothing was wrong. I think I surprised the staff by asking the monitor be turned my way. (There is no need for much if any anesthesia, BTW.) Watched them zap a polyp, no big deal.

      I have friends who are too uptight to get a colonoscopy because it's "embarrassing", as if an ostomy is less so!

      Shitting in public only matters if one has a taboo against it We must shit somewhere, but taboos are a choice. Military latrines were once "open bay" (easier to ventilate and clean) and the solution to shared shitting space was not to care about that.

        Indifference is the best way to kill taboos, superstitions, and other nonsense.

      --
      "This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
    123. Re:Problem by radtea · · Score: 1

      Bingo. Sexual Freedom has consequences that none of the "Sexual taboos are all religious" people love to ignore. Sexual taboos keep people safer than wonton sexuality.

      Your "conclusion" is built in to the language in which you present your "argument", which isn't actually an argument but rather a heavily loaded presentation of what you believe are some of the negative aspects of sexual freedom.

      Sexually transmitted diseases and loss of social and economic status in a divorce are specifically related to clandestine, dishonest, sexual encounters. The issue there is not that people are having sex, but that they are lying to each other and breaking promises. Putting the weight of your disapprobation on sexual activity rather than dishonesty reveals a great deal about you, and nothing about sexual morality.

      Your claim that sexual freedom necessarily leads to objectification of women (why only women, one wonders?) is particularly amusing, as monogamy is traditionally linked to women's status as property. In contrast, consensual non-monogamists have a much greater tendency to see women as autonomous beings, capable of reasoning and choice.

      I don't know who Megan Fox is, so I can't speak to that.

      Biologically, humans are somewhat polygamous. This is simply a fact: any species with the degree of sexual dimorphism we exhibit is one in which males have been selected for size, and the only thing that produces that kind of selection is mate competition. Furthermore, it is simply observable in our genetic heritage: the size of the male breeding population in prehistoric times can be inferred from various measures of genetic diversity and it is about half the size of the female breeding population. Since we believe there were equal numbers of males and females, this means only half the males were responsible for all the offspring.

      Social monogamy has been and will likely continue to be an important social mechanism for reducing the negative consequences of male mate competition. But social monogamy is not strict: every society has had various mechanisms for working around it. In the West in recent times consensual non-monogamy has gained some traction as an effective and safe means of doing so, regardless of the sex-negative hand-wringing of people who fail to look at both the costs and benefits on both sides of the question.

      --
      Blasphemy is a human right. Blasphemophobia kills.
    124. Re:Problem by lostmongoose · · Score: 1

      Care to cite something more recent than 1957 that still maintains this claim?

    125. Re:Problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Lastly, the jealousy of strangers is the dumbest reason not to do something. I know some people are jealous of my house and income, does that mean I should live in a tenement and only take minimum wage? That's idiocy. If my being happy makes other people depressed, fuck them, they need therapy. I don't need to stop being happy to make them happy.

      That attitude just makes you a dick, or possible a troll.

      No, I am not saying that you shouldn't drive your penis-compensating car to hide your wealth, but you shouldn't flaunt it either. Show some modesty, there is a reason it is considered a virtue. It is perfectly normal for humans to feel down when they are in a bad place and see somebody vastly more successful, and if you do not understand that, well, lack of empathy is no excuse for behaving in a dickish way.

    126. Re:Problem by Nethemas+the+Great · · Score: 1

      Spoken like a teenage virgin with raging hormones and no brains. Or, someone who holds no more value for women than an amusement park ride and is trying to persuade them of the casual nature of sex so as to let him go for as many rides with as many different women as he sees fit. Either way, to state that you were being self-serving would be an understatement. Is it natural that you want to jackhammer anything in a skirt? Yes. Are you being considerate of women and their needs and desires? No. Will your value of and attitude towards women ultimately get you laid? On occasion. Will I have far more sex with my wife in this coming week than you will have with whatever women you choose to chase after? Absolutely.

      --
      Two of my imaginary friends reproduced once ... with negative results.
    127. Re:Problem by vux984 · · Score: 1

      . I study, hypothesize, test and question until I find the closest thing I can to truth. Somebody whose morality is dictated to them by another authority is by definition a sheep.

      But your conclusions are at best right for you, and are founded upon attitudes toward sex, love, relationships that you hold. You may have analyzed those attitudes and formed a conclusion consistent with them, but at best its still a whole lot of you in there.

      Other people can have enlightened introspection and come to different conclusions without being "wrong" and without being any more guilty of being an "automaton".

      There is nothing inherently morally correct about being promiscuous. The most you can do is convince yourself there is nothing inherently immoral about it if all the stars are aligned just so. (In that your primary partner feels precisely as you do, for starters.)

      In my case, given a choice between having someone new, or spending time with my wife, I'd choose the latter. That's not "goverments and gods" telling me what i should do, that's simply what I'd prefer to do. And I find it infuriating that someone should pretend I'm somehow not as enlightened as them.

      I am living the life I want to live the way I want to live it. And I have put at least as much consideration into what I wish to do with my life as you have. We have come to different conclusions on what is right for us.

    128. Re:Problem by photogchris · · Score: 3, Funny

      "and forsaking all other remain true to him/her as long as you both shall live?"

      I guess it just depends on the vows you choose, be sure to read and fully understand the EULA.

    129. Re:Problem by Kjella · · Score: 1

      Why are you asking him? Why aren't you asking her? Here's how it works, in my case at least: you want to have sex with my g/f, you ask her. She and I will talk about it

      Maybe less than perfect confidence in that last part? Which may lead to rage unleashed on you, despite she doing the cheating. Not that I've ever asked anyone in a relationship that, him or her.

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    130. Re:Problem by geminidomino · · Score: 1

      When was the last time you looked at Megan Fox and thought, "boy she is smart"? Yeah, I didn't think so.

      Of course, that could have nothing to do with sexual objectfication and everything to do with the insipid shit that's come out of her mouth, publicly, and given many people, myself included, the distinct impression that she makes Sarah Palin look like a thinker.

    131. Re:Problem by cgeys · · Score: 1

      Yes, the difference being that you're used to the other one, while you are not used to the other. Either way you support both financially.

    132. Re:Problem by ElectricTurtle · · Score: 0

      Oh for shit's sake people, am I the only person who can use Google? Is 2008 good enough for you, assface? At a certain point when evidence is presented it becomes rather weak-looking to keep asking for more without presenting any evidence disproving those things already presented.

      --
      I support the Slashcott and will not be reading or commenting from 2/10/14 to 2/17/14. Beta is steaming pile of dog shit
    133. Re:Problem by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 1

      Nancy Pelosi makes Sarah Palin look like Einstein ... and yet ... Hey look Natalie Portman's ass is showing in the new trailer for her new movie.

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
    134. Re:Problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because we've discovered several hundred lost societies that may tilt the balance in the last few years?

      Or are you hoping that the non-gamous nerds will change the numbers in your favor?

    135. Re:Problem by wjousts · · Score: 1

      Well, I agree that if I saw something like that my first assumption would be there is some mistake. I wouldn't automatically assume she'd cheated and if you do, I think it's fair to say that there are underlying problems in the relationship already. And I don't have a problem with people who don't chose a monogamous relationship either. If you want to sleep around, more power to you, it's just not what I've chosen. And what I've chosen isn't the result of christian theology, it's because it works for me. I like the stability and the comfort I get from it.

    136. Re:Problem by wintercolby · · Score: 1

      No, when your wife cheats and you take care of those children, there has been outright deception. You take care of them believing that they're yours. You direct your life to ensure their best chance of success. When you pay taxes that end up in welfare, you pay for some poor kid to eat crappy lunches as school, be shamed in the checkout line when friends see the parents using food stamps, and to hopefully be able to get hand-me-downs without holes in them. One is the result of deception in order to get what's best for the children, the other is charitable.

      --
      Most ignorance is vincible ignorance. We don't know because we don't want to know. --Aldous Huxley
    137. Re:Problem by ElectricTurtle · · Score: 2

      Never did I say that people should all draw the same conclusion as me, or any abstract single conclusion. However my experience with society at large is that most people do use a simplistic morality that they inherit from some other source. This is obviously a generalization, so when people say 'but I'm an exception!' That doesn't demonstrate it false, especially in a community which is does not, by and large, represent a typical cross section of "normal" society.

      There is a huge portion of society where if you ask them straight up, 'where does your morality come from?' They will answer without hesitation: 'God/Allah/Bible/Quran'. Further there are many in that number that fundamentally believe that morality outside of a divine source is impossible or false. In Asia the same attitude exists but the source becomes 'society/parents/family/culture'. As disappointing as it may be, I don't think it's unreasonable to say that this is the attitude of the majority of humans living today.

      --
      I support the Slashcott and will not be reading or commenting from 2/10/14 to 2/17/14. Beta is steaming pile of dog shit
    138. Re:Problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why is having sex with other people different from other activies, like for example mount climbing?

      Nice theory, but I don't think you really believe this. Are you telling me that if you were locked in prison with Bubba, that you would think of eating breakfast with him the same as if he tried to force himself on you sexually?

    139. Re:Problem by cayenne8 · · Score: 1

      sex does create a strong empathy bond between people, like other activities, you may say, but stronger and kinda psychologically different.

      What does having sex have to do with empathy??

      Geez...can't you just enjoy the physical act? So much easier if you don't let emotions and crap enter into it...

      It just feels good....enjoy it! (Hopefully with as many people as you can.)

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    140. Re:Problem by wjousts · · Score: 1

      If all parties involved are happy with a sexual free-for-all, then more power to them. I'm not condoning it at all. But I have an agreement with my wife that we don't swing and if she broke that agreement I would be upset. I trust that she doesn't. That's what I assume the OP meant with it "being a problem", otherwise it would be a problem. My decision isn't inspired by some great respect for the religious sanctity of marriage, it's inspired by a desire to have a stable home life.

    141. Re:Problem by anagama · · Score: 2
      That's what they'd have you believe, but the truth seems far from that up to the point of the development of agriculture. This book is a very interesting read:

      http://www.sexatdawn.com/

      Ryan and Jetha show that our ancestors lived in egalitarian groups that shared food, child care, and often, sexual partners. Weaving together convergent, often overlooked evidence from anthropology, archeology, primatology, anatomy, and psychosexuality, the authors show how far from human nature sexual monogamy really is. They expose the ancient roots of human sexuality while pointing toward a more optimistic future illuminated by our innate capacities for love, cooperation, and generosity.

      --
      What changed under Obama? Nothing Good
    142. Re:Problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Provide a source. That isn't how I remembered my anthropology.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harem

      I'll tell you what tell my students... Wikipedia is never acceptable as a primary source.

    143. Re:Problem by wjousts · · Score: 1

      I certainly agree that if your spouse is cheating, it certainly ain't the fault of whatever thing let you find out. I don't think anybody was proposing that we shoot the messenger here. The real problem with revealing your sexual activity is that most people don't want to have everybody see it. But really, if you don't want anybody to see it, why the fuck are uploading it to some random website?

    144. Re:Problem by cgeys · · Score: 0

      I am actually married too. Other one in europe, other in asia.

    145. Re:Problem by wjousts · · Score: 1

      I agree. But I personally don't chose to be a swinger, so what's your point? Anybody who's not a swinger is an uptight puritan? That seems like a false dichotomy if I've ever seen one. I'm truly sorry that you are unable to see any value whatsoever in a stable monogamous relationship so you feel you have to bash other people who chose it.

    146. Re:Problem by camperslo · · Score: 1

      Well, I can see a problem with sexual activity if my wife's FitBit's numbers aren't equal or a subset or mine.

      Don't worry, she's really into you and just reacting in her dreams too :-)

    147. Re:Problem by David+Chappell · · Score: 1

      So we are left with a society now that has biology driving us to want monogamy from our partners and to seek out polygamy for ourselves.

      I guess I am confused. In your reply to ccguy you seemed to be saying that it was because of religion that ccguy wanted his wife to be monogamous. Now you seem to be saying that it is evolution that has made him that way and religion simply reenforces it.

      I never mentioned anything about persons' past behaviour, so where you most of your post from I'm a little puzzled.

      I didn't mention anything about persons' past behavior either.

    148. Re:Problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > Being such an enlightened person, you wouldn't actually know that they were *your* children.
      Also, with modern contraceptive technology available to all of us, it shouldn't be a problem even if they were!

    149. Re:Problem by ElectricTurtle · · Score: 1

      The child you raise is your child. When you're primary role model, disciplinarian and source of love and guidance for years, it tends to have a lot more impact on the consciousness of a person than who squirted into whom. I am adopted myself, and I don't know who my biological parents are, much less care about them any more than I would any stranger. I love the parents that raised me, and know it is reciprocated.

      --
      I support the Slashcott and will not be reading or commenting from 2/10/14 to 2/17/14. Beta is steaming pile of dog shit
    150. Re:Problem by asylumx · · Score: 1

      I agree with Vux, and also I think this translates very well to how Atheists and Theists seem to view each other. As you said, each side seems to think they are somehow more enlightened than the other, and that therefore their viewpoint is superior. It really detracts from any attempt at discussion.

      Come to think of it, this is probably true about politics, as well.

    151. Re:Problem by David+Chappell · · Score: 1

      Sexually transmitted diseases...are specifically related to clandestine, dishonest, sexual encounters.

      And I thought they were related to sharing sexual partners.

    152. Re:Problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As a girl, I will say that I just love to masturbate. If I didn't have social obligations and the need for food I'd do it all the time. My boyfriend doesn't mind because he gets to watch.

    153. Re:Problem by ElectricTurtle · · Score: 1

      Actually modesty is one of two negative things: ignorance or lies. Either you're too stupid too realize you're good at something, or you're prone to lie to hide your ability for some unknown ulterior motive.

      I do not need to be empathetic to somebody's inferiority complex. I only need to be aware of the validity of my own reasons for what I do. If I am buying things simply to show off, that would be a personal failing that I should solve for my own reasons. Frugality, unlike modesty, is a real virtue, because persons hemorrhaging money tend not to have it very long, let alone grow it. A lifestyle, however good it is at any given time, that rapidly ends itself is inferior to one which is both good and sustainable. People could learn a lot from the ancient Epicureans, in more ways than one, but you don't want to get me started on philosophy.

      --
      I support the Slashcott and will not be reading or commenting from 2/10/14 to 2/17/14. Beta is steaming pile of dog shit
    154. Re:Problem by Tsingi · · Score: 1

      Biologically you are programmed to survive by your genes. *your* genes. This doesn't mean you can't raise a child you know not to be your own, it just isn't a biological imperative.

    155. Re:Problem by cayenne8 · · Score: 1

      Genetically, none of us are geared toward casual sex.

      You must be kidding. Especially for Men....we're genetically geared to spread our seed as far and wide as we can. Women, not so much...more like you describe.

      However, with contraception, you can take the risk of pregnancy virtually out of the picture. With that being the case, unless you somehow get emotionally tied to the sex partner (as often happens with people that aren't successfully able to have sex with multiple people due to lack of confidence, disorders...ugly...etc), there's nothing out there really encouraging not having casual sex. It is highly pleasurable, and if there are no fears of pregnancy or disease, most people want it as often as possible with whomever they can...at least that's my experience and views on it....

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    156. Re:Problem by nbauman · · Score: 1

      Actually, humans and many other animals evolved with a strong commitment to fairness.

      Do a Google search for "evolution of cooperation".

      In experimental settings, like variations of the prisoner's dilemma, people will refuse choices where they will get greater rewards in favor of choices that they fell is fair.

      For example, if you got $100 to divide, and you took $90 for yourself and offered $10 to me, and I could (1) accept it, or (2) reject it and have neither of us get anything, most people would reject it.

      And if you're acting like a freeloader while the rest of us are trying to cooperate, most people would pay money to make you suffer a penalty.

    157. Re:Problem by ElectricTurtle · · Score: 1

      Biology is nothing more than an impulse to be considered by conscious people. It is not inherently moral, otherwise we'd still have a patriarchal society where women are treated like talking cattle. If people acted on every biological impulse, the world would be awash with chaos and death.

      Go watch some nature documentaries and see biology in action. Biology has no problem with cannibalism or infanticide or rape. Hell, from a biological perspective, rape is an imperative. Biology is useful to understand, but if you think it's the basis for a civilized society you're insane.

      --
      I support the Slashcott and will not be reading or commenting from 2/10/14 to 2/17/14. Beta is steaming pile of dog shit
    158. Re:Problem by cayenne8 · · Score: 1

      Will I have far more sex with my wife in this coming week than you will have with whatever women you choose to chase after?

      Highly debatable.

      It isn't that hard to get laid by nice looking women, you just have to know how to work them, and not be afraid to approach as many as you possibly can daily, which is actually fun.

      And...I'm not going to get tired banging the same pussy day after day....variety is the spice of life as they say.

      And..when i do feel like 'changing models'...I'm not risking losing half my physical possessions each time.

      Now..if you are one of those that WANTS to have kids and do the family thing, by all means...get married and stay with the wife...at least till the kids are out of the home.

      But don't play off the thrill of the hunt and the enjoyment of the multitudes of women out there with various personalities, various quirks and interests...and yes....various sexual interests and talents.

      Staying with one chick DOES rob you of enjoying a lot of things in the world. But as with everything...there are trade offs...you can't really do what I enjoy if you want to settle down and have kids really.

      I've never been interested in that...would be too much of an anchor in my lifestyles...I'd rather travel, have fun, have plenty of cash to spend on things....good food,good drink...come and go as I please, and have different women around to enjoy things with as the mood strikes me.

      And just because you don't stick with one chick for life, doesn't mean you don't respect them or are considerate with them. You meet, connect...enjoy...and part ways...all can be done amicably. Hell, I'm still friends and occasional fuck buddies with many of the ex'es of the past. You don't have to be a jerk or a shit to do this....and it does help if you're upfront about how you operate and what you expect...etc.

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    159. Re:Problem by ElectricTurtle · · Score: 1

      Yes, I'm familiar with the work of Dawkins and others about the potential behavioral explanations for altruism and/or fairness in a gene-centered model of natural selection. I don't think this has fully accounted for sexual dimorphic elements that are visible in many different species. Aside from the obvious human historical and prehistorical anthropological and sociological evidence of unequal social structures on gender lines, there are species withing the arachnids and mantids among many where females prey on males. Even in more advanced species there are unique gender roles which may be detrimental to one or the other. This also doesn't account for emerging research in sexually antagonistic selection, where genes develop to benefit a gender in species to the detriment of the opposite gender. Etc. etc. my lunch is over, so I must cut off.

      --
      I support the Slashcott and will not be reading or commenting from 2/10/14 to 2/17/14. Beta is steaming pile of dog shit
    160. Re:Problem by orgelspieler · · Score: 1

      I don't see the problem with people publishing their poops. It would make research for things like colitis and irritable bowel a lot easier if people would publish this information. The same could be said about sexual activity and social research. I for one would like to know who these assholes are with 4+ hours of sexual activity at a time.

      As a side note, I wonder how many parents have found out their kids were sexually active this way, or how many spouses have learned of infidelity. Maybe crazy Zuckerberg is right, the less privacy the better??

    161. Re:Problem by Volvogga · · Score: 1

      In response to your 'welfare' side of things sentence there, from what I saw they got the same "hot" lunch that everyone else got up till middle school, then it was just no ala-cart stuff. No kid now should be shamed by food stamps where I'm from. Ignoring the small population who are taught by their parents to be stupid baby makers so the government takes care of them, if you see two people in line at the store buying Doritos and mt. dew, and you see both of them swipe a card to pay, you'd have to look very close to know which of the two is using food stamps (and manage not to get punched for trying to steal debit card pins). They give out cards to swipe now, and there is no real restriction on what food items can be bought with the things.

      --
      Vol~
    162. Re:Problem by cheekyjohnson · · Score: 1

      And we are strongly conditioned by evolution to care for our genetic descendants, and not for another man's. Sexual jealousy is built into humans, particularly males, for Darwinian reasons.

      That would depend on the person. There are some people who don't care about "cheaters" and some people who don't even care about their own children. They may be few in number, but they exist.

      --
      Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
    163. Re:Problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      +1

    164. Re:Problem by buglista · · Score: 1

      no, no, no! this is the canonical reference: http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2008/4/23/ :)

    165. Re:Problem by yourlord · · Score: 1

      I'm as atheist as you can get and I'm very much monogamous.

      It's not some superstition that drives me to be only with my wife. To me it's a matter of commitment. When I accepted my wife, and she accepted me, I committed myself, mind and body, to her. I live my life, for her, and she lives hers for me. I don't believe I can truly feel or be committed to her if I lust after and engage other women.

      She is the focus of all my energy. I work every day to improve her life as much as my own. When I contemplate an action, her benefit outweighs my own. I strive to make sure that in all things she can always know, without question, that she can trust me.

      I will never bring home an STD or a child born of another woman. I can trust that when we do our thing, I won't be catching anything we didn't already have. What she does for me, and gives me, is for me alone. Just as what I do for her, and give to her, is for her alone.

      I wouldn't change it for anything, and I truly feel sorry for people who don't share this level of commitment within their relationship.

    166. Re:Problem by mldi · · Score: 1

      Then follow the countless citations embedded within, smartass. Protip: it's going to be accurate more than 99% of the time.

      --
      If you aren't suspicious of your government's actions, you aren't doing your job as a responsible citizen.
    167. Re:Problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You have your breakfast in front of poeple
      can you do the sex in front of them?
      not a good thing

    168. Re:Problem by mldi · · Score: 1

      I disagree it is positive to feel jealous about their sexual activity. I might as well be jealous of the social life that they have that I don't. Consider an alternate society where it was considered unfaithful for your wife to have male friends. You might then feel jealous when you realise she is friends with her boss. I don't see the difference between that situation and the current one in our society re: sex; it's just a matter of where you draw the line.

      I call your bullshit. You know, considering that many species of animals that aren't prone to the same religious teachings or cultural stigma also pair up with mates monogamously and will defend them to the death. Hell, even species of fish pair off.

      You're just in denial.

      --
      If you aren't suspicious of your government's actions, you aren't doing your job as a responsible citizen.
    169. Re:Problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Military latrines were once "open bay" (easier to ventilate and clean) and the solution to shared shitting space was not to care about that.

      Indifference is the best way to kill taboos, superstitions, and other nonsense.

      There are plenty of things you can learn to be indifferent to (especially in the military). That doesn't mean you should.

    170. Re:Problem by davester666 · · Score: 1

      But she doesn't trust you, because you don't worship her...

      --
      Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
    171. Re:Problem by vux984 · · Score: 1

      Never did I say that people should all draw the same conclusion as me, or any abstract single conclusion.

      It was implied by the construction of your post that that your conclusion was closer to the "truth" than that of others. Otherwise why hold the two in stark contrast?

      Suppose you, through self introspection and the study of philosophy had come to the conclusion that stealing was generally wrong would you then immediately derisively comment in the next sentence on how so much of society relied on 'taught morality' that had long ago reached precisely the same conclusion?

      I think not.

    172. Re:Problem by iceperson · · Score: 1

      In the Marine Corps they still are open bay (I know they were 20 years ago when I went to Boot camp.) That doesn't change the point though. Replace taking a dump with erectile dysfunction, premature ejaculation, micro penis, masturbation, yeast infections, or any other "perfectly natural phenomenon" that people don't want made public. In a judgement free utopia you might have a point. Here in the real world you don't...

    173. Re:Problem by hairyfeet · · Score: 1

      Nooo...it was so that you didn't raise others offspring instead of your own, thus ensuring the survival of your DNA. this is why many creatures actually have penises designed to remove the sperm of potential rivals, thus ensuring that THEY get to reproduce.

      While I agree that religion has caused lots of BS in this world monogamy isn't one of them. It is simply natural selection to try to keep your potential source of replication out of the hands of rivals.

      Now as for TFA? Considering the huge amount of crap people put on their FB and Twitter pages? frankly it wouldn't surprise me if people would be happy to have that info shred. hell they share everything else so much its the source of jokes so why not this too? I do predict though that this company will be sued out of business by the first one caught cheating, after all this is America and we sue anybody for anything here. Its the American way!

      --
      ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
    174. Re:Problem by Tsingi · · Score: 1

      Biology is useful to understand, but if you think it's the basis for a civilized society you're insane.

      Pretty sure I didn't say that, in fact I don't believe that the topic even came up. If you're going to make things up out of the blue, and imply that they are other peoples thoughts, don't expect anyone to take you seriously.

      Biology OTOH does have a use for civilized society. You're correct, rape is an imperative, and civilized society does not allow it. Civilized society has evolved to form protective groups that prevent us from such primitive actions. This is why we rule the planet.

    175. Re:Problem by anagama · · Score: 2

      Your concept of evolution is individualistic while evolution may be much more "concerned" with a species rather than an individual. You also put human sexual practices in line with distant relatives like Elk rather than nearer relatives like Bonobos.

      Think about the advantages a child would have multiple fathers. Not possible? In many pre-agricultural societies, there was the concept of partable parenthood which meant that any child had multiple biological fathers, which even if a misunderstanding of biology, is very adaptive. If something happens to one dad, the other feels obliged to step in.

      Here's an example:
      http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2010-11/uom-mfp111010.php

      --
      What changed under Obama? Nothing Good
    176. Re:Problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What does having sex have to do with empathy??

      Geez...can't you just enjoy the physical act? So much easier if you don't let emotions and crap enter into it...

      It just feels good....enjoy it! (Hopefully with as many people as you can.)

      The problem with your suggestion is that most people are not wired that way even though they may think they are. They build attachments - and often cannot keep feelings out of it. I mean, sure, a sociopath or psychopath whose brain cannot make these types of bonds can have no problem with it, but most folks just cannot keep emotion and feelings out of the equation.

      I've always been more in tune with the way it is done in Heinlein's books - specifically "Number of the Beast" and "Stranger in a Strange Land" where the protagonists don't just have sex with anyone, it is only people they share an emotional bond with. It seems this is more likely to work than a "just shag everyone you can" approach.

    177. Re:Problem by ElectricTurtle · · Score: 1

      Let me spell it out for you: I am deriding the method(s) by which many persons arrive at beliefs which they use to make crucial decisions not only about their lives but the lives of all others they can impact socially or politically. Derision toward the thing believed is secondary, not necessary for the first derision, and occurs only when I have evidence to demonstrate that belief is wrong and/or harmful.

      As Aristotle said, "I have gained this from philosophy: that I do without being commanded what others do only from fear of the law." When two people arrive at the same conclusion by different means, it is necessary to judge the means to judge the people. Which is more useful, reliable, accurate beyond the immediate context? Hell, from Plato to Locke and beyond, this differentiation has been one of the most important stratifications of society.

      Somebody who borrows their morality wholly from another authority demonstrates a high likelihood that they either lack the character (lazy), intellect, or sanity (sociopath) to form a cohesive morality for themselves. Conversely, those persons who are able to build their own morality from a wide comparison of sources/experiences/ideas and can adapt that morality to new information (something that users of static sources cannot readily do beyond a certain degree without resorting to denial or distortion), demonstrate a superiority over the first group, and, in fact, ultimately end up being the source of morality for them. Those who do not understand natural law are ultimately dependent on those that do.

      --
      I support the Slashcott and will not be reading or commenting from 2/10/14 to 2/17/14. Beta is steaming pile of dog shit
    178. Re:Problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "teached" ?

    179. Re:Problem by pnutjam · · Score: 1

      That's pretty rare, it seems that quite often children raised a by a single parent or adoptive parents go on lengthy quests to find their biological parent. I can understand it even if I think it is stupid. I've seen them do things very hurtful to the people who raised them so they can get affection from some douche that happened to squirt them, or part of them, out.

    180. Re:Problem by cayenne8 · · Score: 1
      Interesting.

      I've had (early on) longer term relationships with women...that were emotional. I've had plenty that were not.

      Frankly...sex feels great and is wonderful and extremely pleasurable with or without emotional attachment. I don't see it any better or worse for the presence of emotional attachment.

      I don't think it is a necessary component if we're just talking sex here.

      And you don't have to have a relationship for good sex. I've had relationships/friendships that I enjoyed and still do with a few women, no sex at all. I've had sex with many women I felt no attachment to at all...and that has been great too.

      I'm just saying, that emotional connection and sexual pleasure aren't necessarily tied together. You can have each completely separately from the other, and that is perfectly natural.

      I think society and religion try to make them inseparable....but in nature, they are not inherently attached.

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    181. Re:Problem by ElectricTurtle · · Score: 1

      Single parents are quite different from adoptive parents. When you're emotionally invested in a person like that it makes sense to care about whomever they cared enough about that they would have that person's child. That creates a much stronger impetus than simply wondering 'where did I come from?' in some detached, abstract way.

      Also, speaking both from personal experience and my interaction with other adopted persons, people who get really obsessive about their biological parents usually have personal problems, such as irrationally excessive need for attention or deficiencies (real or imagined) in the relationship with their adoptive parents.

      --
      I support the Slashcott and will not be reading or commenting from 2/10/14 to 2/17/14. Beta is steaming pile of dog shit
    182. Re:Problem by Doctor+Faustus · · Score: 1

      When was the last time you looked at Megan Fox and thought, "boy she is smart"?

      Never for Megan Fox, but how about Tina Fey, Natalie Portman or Danica McKellar? Or Taylor Momsen or Gwen Steffani for singing ability.

      All of them impress me for something other than appearance, but it doesn't mean I wouldn't love to wear any one of their asses like a hat.

    183. Re:Problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Problem isn't the sexual activity. Problem is the mindset that people have about it, teached by religions for hundreds of years. When people can finally put that past them and accept that, just like for them, sexual activity is a normal human function there is no need to worry about stuff like this. Then it would be the same as posting on your Facebook wall how good your breakfast was. People would just be bored about it.

      So, when you get married it would be okay for you to find out that I was having sex with your wife then because its just something normal and animalistic that men do.

      talk about hurr derp...or what about Kids....sex with kids is then okay right? lets just open this up to what it becomes which is that your argument is without foundation.

    184. Re:Problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There is someone I know who would "shit" on this point...http://twitter.com/p00pness

    185. Re:Problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Congrats, a few weeks later you got herpes from him via her. Enjoy!

    186. Re:Problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I can. sometimes. with the right girl. but can her? can her other lover?

      you should look further than your nose. just saying.

    187. Re:Problem by Belial6 · · Score: 1

      Funny. I was thinking that one of them should never be done alone......

    188. Re:Problem by kyrio · · Score: 1

      Seeing as you've never had sex, you probably don't know how it works. When you have sex, certain chemical changes happen and you tend to like that person a bit more.

    189. Re:Problem by Belial6 · · Score: 1

      That is what monogamous people tell themselves. The parent poster might be a virgin teenager, but his claims are reality for plenty of people, while yours are just sour grapes.

    190. Re:Problem by kyrio · · Score: 1
      Nope, that's just

      Everything else is sociological, cultural, or religious.

      You just called her your girlfriend (above list), when you should have labeled her as one of my mates (animal reality). Men are still expected to bang 10 chicks before they turn 20 and women are still whores if they have sex with more than one guy.

    191. Re:Problem by retchdog · · Score: 1

      i have certain proven-heritable attributes which i appreciate about myself; above-average intelligence, non-schizophrenic, no congenital deformities, my physical features elicit reasonably few bias problems from society (although after 9/11 i was "randomly" selected a few too many times), and the list goes on. there are negative attributes too; foremost, i'm not as smart as i'd like to be and, by extension, i'd thus like my child to be smarter than i am. the point is that, perhaps unfortunately, the "squirting" carries a lot of information.

      there's a sensible middle ground between "must pump my genes into women!" (as claimed by tsingi (870990) above), and "love is all you need," and science is informing our understanding of it every day, as unpleasant as some of the specifics are. i don't really care about my genes beyond my best informed estimate of their instrumental effect. perhaps this can be summed up by a quote from a very non-scientific person who nonetheless had a point: "love is the law, love under will."

      if someone else could, voluntarily or for reasonable $$$, squirt a better child for me to raise, be it by adoption or by artificial insemination, i think that i'd be for it. it's a little bit gruesome, but i think it is rational...

      --
      "They were pure niggers." – Noam Chomsky
    192. Re:Problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      if you are familiar with the system you will recognize a foodstamp/welfare card from a mile away, they really do not look like credit cards around here

    193. Re:Problem by rohan972 · · Score: 1

      What a horrible thing to promise. you shall forsake all others so you need to renounce your family, and turn away from your children in need.

      To the extent that my relationship with my wife requires it, that is exactly the situation. I do not choose anyone over her and if they want continued relationship with me they have to respect that.

    194. Re:Problem by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      Maybe millennials haven't figured it out yet, but there's a massive emotional weight that comes with sex. It's not just religion that makes us wary about doing it in public or from trying to keep affairs secret from spouses.

    195. Re:Problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I only suggest if because of your last sentence seems at odds with the rest of your post. I have found a solution, but it's damn hard to pull off. A trusted mutual friend or (otherwise) monogamous couple. The negative feelings are almost nonexistent if you're all there together and know the other(s) involved. There are likely other careful, clean, mostly monogamous people out there that think exactly like you do.

    196. Re:Problem by anagama · · Score: 1
      It doesn't have so much with being stronger. Our closest relatives (Bonobos) have sex all the time for bonding purposes and to lessen internal strife. We aren't Elk.

      More interestingly, studies on ejaculate have shown that the first spurts contain chemicals which protect sperm from the spermicide released in the last spurts:

      Rather than men competing with one another to win "entrance" to a coy female looking for the best mate, the book argues that lots of men had sex with the same woman and let their sperm duke it out in the vaginal canal. Even to this day, the initial spurt of human ejaculate contains chemicals that "protect the sperm from chemicals in the later spurts of other men's ejaculate. These final spurts contain a spermicidal substance that slows the advances of any latecomers" (page 228).

      Throw in a mushroom headed penis quite effective at clearing out previous ejaculate with a sperm production of massive proportions compared to harem keeping animals who don't have to compete with other sperm, and the whole idea of extrapolating human sexuality from that of other kinds of animals is quite questionable.

      --
      What changed under Obama? Nothing Good
    197. Re:Problem by anagama · · Score: 1

      And those who send their kids to school even if not on welfare.

      --
      What changed under Obama? Nothing Good
    198. Re:Problem by anagama · · Score: 1

      This is a good way to go, even though society will denigrate it.

      But think about how stupid our society is -- it says that the thing to do when people do what they naturally will do (have sex), is to break up and destroy a family. That's what we call mature? Even though kids from broken homes do worse on almost every measure?

      Your method of recognizing the pleasure and inevitability of sex is far more mature.

      --
      What changed under Obama? Nothing Good
    199. Re:Problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Still based on religion. Humans are not meant to be monogamous.

    200. Re:Problem by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      Besides religion there are other good reasons why you don't want that information to be public. Sexual activity is a private thing, and should be kept that way.

      Why? No really why is this particular activity a private thing? What makes having sex different from say playing tennis? You can do both activities in singles, doubles, and doesn't necessarily need to have members of the opposite sex participating.

      1. Showing that you have too much or two little says things about your private life that you may not want to be public. Eg. You got onto an argument that day, or get other worried that your relationship is failing.

      Really? You start off with something that someone "may" not want public, and then you think sex is a regular enough activity that you can judge if someone's had an argument? What about the myriad of other things that would prevent someone from having sex. Such as working late, not enough time, wrong time of the month, being sick, hosting a party and thinking it may be socially taboo to leave the party for a kick screw.

      You assume this is an activity that is so regular that it can be tracked. Maybe the slowdown doesn't mean that the relationship is failing, maybe the opposite, maybe they just got married.

      2. If you are trying to have children, you may not want to let the public know this until it is fact. As this could effect ones personal career.

      I have sex a LOT. No one's home today except my girlfriend so I'll probably be doing it most of the day. I'll leave it up to you to guess if I'm going to wear a condom, if she's on the pill, if she just has regular abortions, or if I'm giving her anal or simply putting the money shot in her face as porn has taught us.

      3. It makes it unconfortable for those who are not getting some.

      Awww diddums. I can't find the time nor do I have the money to go to the movies either. Does that make it a social taboo when people tell me they are off to go see one?

      Anyway I'm spending too much time here, and my girl is making bedroom eyes. I'll be back later.

      If that makes you uncomfortable it says more about you than it does about me.

    201. Re:Problem by Paul1969 · · Score: 1

      your wife may burn a different number of calories than you since one partner may be doing more work than the other depending on sexual position.

      As a big fan of Reverse Cowgirl, I know where you are coming from, brother!

    202. Re:Problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But there is another stereotype about slashdotters - we nerds argue about everything. Whether or not we are in a position to argue, we argue. Kinda cute.

    203. Re:Problem by bingoUV · · Score: 1

      as long as both parties are happy with it and are honest about it? If they are not, then that is probably as a result of social memes not because of honesty

      You just contradicted yourself.

      Anyway, if you trust X not to do Y, then X does Y anyway, it is still a breach of trust. For any value of Y, you can argue that what has trust got to do with Y, but you would be wrong. Because trust does not stand alone, trust is on a person to do or not to do certain things, in this case not to do Y.

      It is like I promise to give someone an iPhone for 200$ and the other person trusts me to fulfil this promise. Now I refuse to give the iPhone. He says it is breach of trust because he trusted me to give him an iPhone for 200$. I say "What has trust got to do with iPhone?". Stupid, isn't it? So is your post.

      --
      Bingo Dictionary - Pragmatist, n. A myopic idealist.
    204. Re:Problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Who *taught* you how to spell?

    205. Re:Problem by couchslug · · Score: 1

      Destroy enough taboos and you work towards that utopia.

      --
      "This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
    206. Re:Problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      so then take the effin device out of your buttcrack when you're getting it on.....

      simple as that?

      and seriously this political correctness crap has gotten too far...

    207. Re:Problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It is unfortunate, but since then, political correctness burried that fact.

    208. Re:Problem by Alimony+Pakhdan · · Score: 0

      teached by religions for hundreds of years.

      Yes, surely all educated people must agree with fashionable anti-theism!

    209. Re:Problem by GooberToo · · Score: 1

      You must be kidding.

      No. Stating fact. You're confusing the genetic imperative of a male's need to acquire a multiple mates with casual sex. They are not the same thing. Males, like women, develop deep feelings toward women after climax. Its not as pronounced for males as it is for females, nonetheless, its there.

      Casual sex is a surprisingly surprisingly modern concept which largely didn't exist until the creation of effective birth control. You'll find there is a direct correlation (and likely causation) between birth control effectiveness and casual sex. When this doesn't exist, prostitution rates tend to be rather high. Furthermore, causal sex appears to be typically linked with social standing standing ("bragging rights") and anti-religious back-lash moreso than a natural occurrence.

      Your confusion and misinterpretation is surprisingly common.

    210. Re:Problem by GooberToo · · Score: 1

      Though little about this actually helps answer whether this is a learned trait or not.

      The research seems to hint its genetic.

      I can tell you, there are plenty of us out there who do not have these responses.

      Your reply is very anecdotal and very likely highly selectively biased. It may be that the 10% of males who do not have this reaction also fit a behavioral pattern such as you what you describe. At best, you can only claim more research is needed.

    211. Re:Problem by gordo3000 · · Score: 1

      so you, based on your experiences and biases, somehow have come to a more informed conclusion than others? your starting point is just different, but everyone has a starting point filled with bias. I'm sure the Vikings found their raiding of villages equally superior and completely in line with natural law. Why is yours superior to say, the bible? I don't know anyone who explicitly follows everything in the bible so why do you say people aren't just as thoughtful as you? In fact, I'd go as far to say I've never met a single person who follows everything in the bible or any religious text.

      so I am just wondering, what is this natural law you are sure you are so much more in line with?

    212. Re:Problem by gordo3000 · · Score: 1

      not monotheistic, but still a deity in several sects of Buddhism. many sects pray to specifics Buddhas as deities for protection, guidance, help, etc and many hold that these enlightened beings can perform miracles similar to any other religion's god.

      and of course, if you are Hindu, you may pray to Siddharta as an incarnation of Vishnu....

    213. Re:Problem by Eponymous+Hero · · Score: 1

      What does having sex have to do with empathy??

      uhhh... pyschooooooooo

      don't just stay off my lawn, stay away from my daughter.

      --
      insensitive clod overlords obligatory xkcd car analogy russian reversals whoosh pedant fanbois ftfy in 3...2...1..PROFIT
    214. Re:Problem by gordo3000 · · Score: 1

      are you honestly implying that those people with STDs somehow look "different" from everyone else? Or that you can somehow figure out who is likely to have an undetected STD?

      Or are you assuming that everyone you have sex with is honest about their sexual history with your and you regularly wait the 5-10 days for a full gamut of tests has been run? Because without the naivety of the first or the obsessiveness of the second, I'm not sure what you mean by picky.

  2. You are all such prudes! by For+a+Free+Internet · · Score: 0

    Abolish the family! For women's liberation through socialist revolution!

    --
    UNITE with the Campaign for a Free Internet because today, our future begins with tomorrow!
  3. Fitness Site Accidentally Shows Sexual Activity by shoehornjob · · Score: 2

    There's a HUGE difference between "showing" sexual activity as the article suggests and "tracking" it. Correct me if I'm wrong as I had trouble opening the site but was there a video of someone getting it on or just graphs and stuff.

    --
    "We are just a war away from Amerikastan. When god vs god the undoing of man." Dave Mustaine
    1. Re:Fitness Site Accidentally Shows Sexual Activity by Haedrian · · Score: 2

      Sexual Activity: Active Vigorous Effort started 2pm. Duration 4 hours 15 minutes 347 Calories.

      Looks like 'tracking' to me/

    2. Re:Fitness Site Accidentally Shows Sexual Activity by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Looks like 'whacking' to me/

      There, fixed that for you.

    3. Re:Fitness Site Accidentally Shows Sexual Activity by jovius · · Score: 3, Funny

      That's desperate.

      The user should try the other hand.

    4. Re:Fitness Site Accidentally Shows Sexual Activity by cygnwolf · · Score: 2

      What gets me, from reading the article and from reading through FitBit's website, it doesn't "know" you're involved in sexual activity, you have to TELL it. So, to me, telling your fitbit profile that you had sex is the same damn thing as telling your facebook profile that you had sex, and if your profile is public, well gee. You could always just put it down as 'vigerous physical activity' and let other people's dirty little minds interpret it as they wish.

      --
      Free Pie! The Pie is Also Evil!
    5. Re:Fitness Site Accidentally Shows Sexual Activity by Bill_the_Engineer · · Score: 1

      Yes because we all know it's better than telling the truth which is Active Vigourous Effort started 2pm. Slept at 2:15pm and woke up at 6:15pm and logged the activity.

      --
      These comments are my own and do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of my employer or colleagues...
    6. Re:Fitness Site Accidentally Shows Sexual Activity by rtfa-troll · · Score: 2
      No, what gets me is that even the article tries to take the blame away from FitBits.

      When you create a profile, the default privacy setting allows profiles to be found in search results (Google, Bing, etc). If you don’t unclick this setting, it will obviously make your profile public for anyone to find.

      Safe defaults is the most important part of computer security and is exactly the bit Microsoft took years to learn (and still hasn't got completely). FitBits should default this to off and then turn it on gradually as they are convinced the user has understood the implications. They (along with FaceBook etc.) are 100% to blame.

      --
      =~ s,(.*),<sarcasm>$1</sarcasm>,g if any_point_you_wish();
    7. Re:Fitness Site Accidentally Shows Sexual Activity by asylumx · · Score: 2

      Hmm if it lasts more than four hours, call a doctor.

    8. Re:Fitness Site Accidentally Shows Sexual Activity by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fitbit only tracks movements rates.

      The user had to manually log that entry into the site, so the only accident is that the profile is shared, and they logged something into the profile that they likely did not want to be seen.

    9. Re:Fitness Site Accidentally Shows Sexual Activity by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you are tracking calorie burning, you can't pick and choose what activities you're logging, otherwise your data will be wrong.

    10. Re:Fitness Site Accidentally Shows Sexual Activity by cygnwolf · · Score: 1

      Perhaps, but the manual does make the default view pretty clear, if you bother to read the part about setting up your profile.

      --
      Free Pie! The Pie is Also Evil!
    11. Re:Fitness Site Accidentally Shows Sexual Activity by Doctor+Faustus · · Score: 1

      If you experience a boner lasting more than four hours, call more ladies.

    12. Re:Fitness Site Accidentally Shows Sexual Activity by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yay threesome!

      (CAPTCHA wisely suggests "condom")

  4. BodyMedia Fit by Sectoid_Dev · · Score: 1

    I use the BodyMedia device, which is similar to FitBit in that it estimates calories burned by measuring various things: Galvanic skin response, skin temperature, body heat and has an accelerometer. I like it a lot, although there is a subscription required.
    The only data I enter manually are my food logs, which can be a pain but it helps keep you honest and focused. I wouldn't want to also have to enter my 'activities' each day. It's interesting enough to just see a bar graph of calories/minute and a total number. If that data did become searchable, only I would know what that sudden spike on last Saturday afternoon was. But you would find out I am a Taco Bell junkie.

  5. 4 hours and 15 minutes? by mcvos · · Score: 1

    Did that guy from the screenshot in TFA have sexual activity for 4 hours and 15 minutes? FitBit is really good for your stamina, apparently.

    1. Re:4 hours and 15 minutes? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Good for your mom too.

      Oh yeah, I went there!

    2. Re:4 hours and 15 minutes? by DigiShaman · · Score: 1

      You sure that wasn't 4 minutes and 15 seconds? 4 hours is a really long freaking time for sex. He must have been popping pills for that marathon to take place!

      --
      Life is not for the lazy.
  6. Talk about Stamina by ThinkWeak · · Score: 2

    I love that the graphic used in the article shows that Jeff had 4 hours and 15 minutes of sexual activity. So maybe those that are away of this searching ability will "pump their numbers" a little bit in the hopes that someone special might see?

    1. Re:Talk about Stamina by RivenAleem · · Score: 1

      Clearly this is a Streisand Effect / Slashvertisement of epic Cunningness.

      By reporting this people will be attracted to the site where they hear about Jeff, a user of FitBit, gets Vigorous sex for over 4 hours. People will be queueing to join.

    2. Re:Talk about Stamina by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      By reporting this people will be attracted to the site where they hear about Jeff, a user of FitBit, gets Vigorous sex for over 4 hours. People will be queueing to join.

      Apple owners already know they are gay. They don't need FitBit to find other gays. There is always GRINDR.

      (Chapca : sausage. How appropriate)

    3. Re:Talk about Stamina by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No. They may think he just couldn't get it up.

    4. Re:Talk about Stamina by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I love that the graphic used in the article shows that Jeff had 4 hours and 15 minutes of sexual activity. So maybe those that are away of this searching ability will "pump their numbers" a little bit in the hopes that someone special might see?

      The activity was probably with him, a few porn sites, and his hand....

  7. Fitbit's fault by maxwell+demon · · Score: 2, Insightful

    From the article:

    So why are Fitbit users’ profiles able to be searchable in Google? It’s not really Fitbit’s fault. When you create a profile, the default privacy setting allows profiles to be found in search results (Google, Bing, etc). If you don’t unclick this setting, it will obviously make your profile public for anyone to find.

    It is very clearly Fitbit's fault. This option should be unchecked by default, so that users who don't notice it don't accidentally make their profiles public.

    --
    The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
    1. Re:Fitbit's fault by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It is very clearly Fitbit's fault. This option should be unchecked by default, so that users who don't notice it don't accidentally make their profiles public.

      It extremely clearly isn't Fitbit's fault. So there! As long as these options are made easy to locate and change, it's the stupid user who is at fault.

      Coming to your signature: countable numbers are a subset of real numbers, and therefore, are real numbers.

    2. Re:Fitbit's fault by Byzantine · · Score: 1

      I own a Fitbit. It was Fitbit's fault. Apparently, though, nobody at Slashdot thought to actually look at Fitbit's site:

      We take the privacy of all Fitbit users very seriously. To address some recent concerns about logged activities of Fitbit users showing up in search engine results, we have taken several immediate steps.

      Some quick background:

      • As you know, Fitbit users can decide voluntarily to log their physical activities. You must do this manually and this information is not collected automatically.
      • When setting up their profiles, users have had the option to make their profile activity records private, though the default setting has been to make this information public.

      As of Sunday [July 3], we have taken the following steps to protect our users’ privacy:

      • All activity records on Fitbit.com were hidden from view from both other users and search engines, no matter what the user’s current privacy setting. We have also updated our default settings for new users for activity sharing to “private.”
      • We submitted requests to Google and Yahoo/Bing to remove any indexed user profile pages from their search engines. As a result, user profile pages and their activity records have already disappeared from Google and should disappear within several days at other search engines. Once removed, previously indexed activity records should not be accessible to the public at all from that search engine.
      • For now, we have removed other personally identifiable information from users’ Fitbit profile pages regardless of privacy settings.

      We are dedicated to making this the best fitness platform possible with users in full control of their data. For many people, sharing information is an important motivator for them to achieve their fitness goals. We will be in touch with our users about new choices they will have when they want to share information.

      James Park

      CEO, Co-Founder, Fitbit

    3. Re:Fitbit's fault by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      When setting up their profiles, users have had the option to make their profile activity records private

      Sorry, but that doesn't show blame at all. It shows that many users don't read what they are clicking, and they got bit by it. People need to take responsibility for their own stupidity.

    4. Re:Fitbit's fault by maxwell+demon · · Score: 1

      Coming to your signature: countable numbers are a subset of real numbers, and therefore, are real numbers.

      If you honestly think that sentence makers even sense, you are clearly not qualified to comment on my sig.

      --
      The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
  8. not Fitbit’s fault? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    "It’s not really Fitbit’s fault ... the default privacy setting allows profiles to be found in search results"

    And who's fault is such a default setting that makes such information public?

    It's the user's fault. The default setting clearly stated that they wanted to signed up for spam, publish sexual information, and support the Irish Republican Army.

  9. Insecurity by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's actually mainly about insecurity or jealousy that your partner is going to have a lot of fun without you and end up abandoning you.

    Compared to my previous relationship, where my partner was constantly jealous of anyone who looked at me (or vice versa), my current relationship where we're free to look or touch is a lot more stress-free. The funny part is that neither of us is doing anything outside our relationship, but the freedom eliminates the potential for jealousy or worry as we are secure in our relationship.

  10. ...it can be attached to the wrist? by stepdown · · Score: 1

    Sounds like it was designed with Slashdot's most common form of sexual activity in mind!

  11. So, ummm... by Deadstick · · Score: 1

    ...Where do you attach this accelerometer-based apparatus when you're boinking?

    rj

    1. Re:So, ummm... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah that was definitely my question. Maybe I don't understand how the device works. And unless the users are deliberately selecting a "Sexual Activity" option from a pulldown menu to willingly classify the detected activity, an accelerometer could really only make such a determination as a best guess, right?

  12. child support by sourcerror · · Score: 2

    It's all fine and dandy until you have to pay child support.

  13. Jane Fonda by rgviza · · Score: 1

    You know you want to do the Jane Fonda.

    --
    Don't kid yourself. It's the size of the regexp AND how you use it that counts.
  14. why online in the first place? by leuk_he · · Score: 1

    If you choose to store the data on the website, then you have done this to share this data.

    from the first page of fitlib site: "Walk within 15ft of the provided basestation and your data will be automatically uploaded to the Fitbit website."

    But it is easier to blame the technology. Somthing could be tagged wrong, or should not have been made public.

    Calories burned in sex or duration of sex do not seem to indicate quality i would say.

  15. Duration by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    4 hours 15 minutes. Yeah. Sure.

  16. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  17. Blocked by Google? by bradgoodman · · Score: 1

    I just tried the search indicated in the article. Google returned no search results. Did Google block or scrub it somehow?

    1. Re:Blocked by Google? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I was wondering the exact same thing.

      Google makes a big deal about not censoring searches but it seems that's what's going on. The article's search doesn't show a microphone in the search box whereas mine does so perhaps the audio feature is messing up the search results.

      Either that or Google has decided to port its China code to the United States.

  18. True story: by MMC+Monster · · Score: 3, Funny

    I am a cardiologist.

    A young male patient goes to his female primary care doc and tells her that he gets palpitations sporadically. To rule out a suptraventricular tachycardia, she places him on a 24 hour home telemetry monitor. The monitor shows a (normal) fast heart rate at 11pm, so she sends him to me.

    I ask him what he was doing. Apparently his girlfriend thought that the monitor was "hot", so they did it with the monitor on. The patient was too embarrased to tell his primary care, so he was sent to me.

    I wrote in my letter to the primary care that the increased rate was due to "normal physiologic activity".

    --
    Help! I'm a slashdot refugee.
    1. Re:True story: by bgarcia · · Score: 1
      That's awesome.

      I'm due to get one of those monitors at the end of this month.

      Somehow, I don't think my wife is going to have the same reaction.

      --
      I'm a leaf on the wind. Watch how I soar.
    2. Re:True story: by hduff · · Score: 1

      "Normal" fast heart rate? Probably was just his wife then, not the girlfriend.

      --
      "I believe in Karma. That means I can do bad things to people all day long and I assume they deserve it." : Dogbert
    3. Re:True story: by priegog · · Score: 1

      I wrote in my letter to the primary care that the increased rate was due to "normal physiologic activity".

      And in doing so it could be argued that you inadvertently helped the taboo to get even stronger. What's wrong with saying what was actually going on (patient was engaged in sexual activity)? It's unnecessary from a medical PoV, sure, but I find it odd that in your anecdote about the ridiculousness of the taboo surrounding a "normal physiological activity", you had to hide or mask what he was doing from his family doctor.

    4. Re:True story: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So you DO have feelings. ;-)

      Thanks for posting. It made me smile.

    5. Re:True story: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Funny, I once was subjected to a 24 telemetry by a general practioner as part of a general check. I intentionally masturbated for about an hour and then wrote "played thrilling video game" in the log. When she analyzed the EKG she found a few curious extra-systoles at that time period and sent me to a cardiologist just to be sure. The cardiologist excluded a physical heart disease. She told me to everything was fine but advised me to generally do more sports for getting the heart rate up and so on. I said "fine, I'll do that."

      True story. :-)

    6. Re:True story: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Apparently his girlfriend thought that the monitor was "hot", so they did it with the monitor on.

      Can I get the girlfriend's contact information and borrow a heart rate monitor please?

    7. Re:True story: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And this is why I don't have health insurance.

    8. Re:True story: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Obviously the patient didn't want her to know...

  19. Story is Misleading by Xnient · · Score: 1

    This is the second time that this has surfaced. The article is misleading because, first off, you have complete control over the privacy settings of your profile. So, these people choose to have their activity public. Secondly, the FitBit is not capable of automatically tagging activity as Sex. The user must go onto the site and add that "activity" to their profile manually. FitBit is nothing more than a glorified pedometer with a good web-based tracking software.

    --
    -- Xnient
    1. Re:Story is Misleading by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Exactly. This is akin to someone posting photos of their cock to Facebook, with privacy settings to allow everyone to view it, and complaining when their tiny tadger becomes a 4chan meme.

  20. Interesting NOW the Google links do not work by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Ah well. In the spirit of looking at the "BIG" picture. It is interesting that now, 10:50am est, the Google links do NOT return anything.

    So in the bigger picture, Google is censoring what we can see. Well again it comes to light that the big "G" can do anything they like but it's also apparently "ok:" for them to censor what we can see.

    Kind of sick in a big way. Maybe "G" should be required to show what they have "collected" to everyone. Then maybe this sick spying, watching stuff would get the attention it deserves. And the world would be a bit better.

  21. No Worries by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    After analyzing the data it appears that slashdot readers have not performed any exercise or sexual activity.

  22. The other extreme by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
  23. Update by proficiovera · · Score: 1

    http://blog.fitbit.com/ Fitbit has put an end to this.

  24. Um... by X86Daddy · · Score: 1

    It's just a matter of time before a line gets crossed and a relationship gets ruined by trying to post the largest Fitbit numbers for the evening.

    It's just a matter of time before a line gets crossed and a relationship gets saved / rekindled by trying to post the largest Fitbit numbers for the evening.

    FTFY

  25. Pics by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Pics, or it didn't happen.

  26. Well I have a six pack by Maxo-Texas · · Score: 1

    And I haven't done a single situp in the last 20 years.

    And no... this is not a joke post. :-)

    I figure I've got another 8-10 good years left then the hip or back probably goes to arthritis.

    --
    She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
    1. Re:Well I have a six pack by llZENll · · Score: 1

      And I haven't done a single situp in the last 20 years.

      And no... this is not a joke post. :-)

      I figure I've got another 8-10 good years left then the hip or back probably goes to arthritis.

      I have two six packs! Both are the fridge, and I haven't done a single sit up in the last 30 years!

      And yes... this is a joke post :D

      I figure I've got another 10-12 great years left then the elbow or wrist goes to arthritis, after which time I plan on buying one of those helmet beer holders with a straw.

    2. Re:Well I have a six pack by gl4ss · · Score: 1

      I had to stop drinking you insensitive clod! I figure I got 40 - 50 years left of it. wrist still works fine, regular exercise is the key.

      --
      world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
  27. It's more fundamental than that by RulerOf · · Score: 1

    The ONLY difference is you don't consider it a betrayal for your spouse to go out with other people, as long as they let you know.

    That's a good guess, but I don't think it's accurate. It is NOT that "he trusts her to keep him informed about her extramarital sexual interactions" nor that people in such a position simply don't have a "negative" view of such activity.

    ElectricTurtle is right, in that it's about trust. The thing to trust, however, is that each partner trusts that their relationship is not defined by sexual exclusivity. Each partner trusts that the other's role in the relationship that they mutually enjoy is also neither defined by nor negatively affected by sexual encounters with other people.

    Do you pass judgment on others with whom you're not sexually involved with based on their sexual activity? Was Anthony Weiner somehow less capable as a legislator overnight because we suddenly knew more about who and how he liked to fuck? Would you consider your son a liar, or perhaps a traitor, for waiting for years to tell you that he's gay?

    Perspective on something that, for many, is strictly and inexorably overflowing with emotion is very difficult to instill in the average person. Discussing sex (or anything really... politics is a good example) with someone who has a radically opposing view (or views) isn't exactly an easy task.

    It's easy to continue a semi-rant on this, but I suppose the bottom line is that it's really silly to consider your spouse a traitor for seeking or achieving sexual fulfillment. The real betrayal is a spouse that lies when saying "I love you."

    --
    Boot Windows, Linux, and ESX over the network for free.
    1. Re:It's more fundamental than that by rohan972 · · Score: 1

      It's easy to continue a semi-rant on this, but I suppose the bottom line is that it's really silly to consider your spouse a traitor for seeking or achieving sexual fulfillment.

      It's about the trust and security. If my wife wants more sexual fulfilment, she can speak to me and I'll do whatever it takes, provided it involves just me and her.

      Sometimes I'm attracted to other women, perhaps I would find sex with them "fulfilling" but I don't do it because I would be breaching trust. It would also be risking disease contamination. How would my wife feel if I gave her herpes contracted by "fulfilling" my sexual desires? If you both agreed the risk was acceptable then fine, but neither she nor I feel that way.

      The thing to trust, however, is that each partner trusts that their relationship is not defined by sexual exclusivity.

      Our relationship is certainly defined (partly) by sexual exclusivity. If not for sex, we'd just be friends, we wouldn't have entered an agreement where all our property is shared property.

      Was Anthony Weiner somehow less capable as a legislator overnight because we suddenly knew more about who and how he liked to fuck?

      Not less capable, less trustworthy. Seriously, if a legislator "caught" in those activities was single and admitted to them, even boasted about them, I wouldn't care. If they were married and their wife made a statement to the effect that they had an open relationship and it was all above board, I wouldn't care. If they've betrayed their spouse, they'll betray their constituents just as willingly.

  28. Cross reference by MickyTheIdiot · · Score: 1

    If you cross reference the "vigorous sexual activity" and the amount a person posts to Slashdot you can find the liars!

  29. Fitbit already closed access by Gefion · · Score: 2

    Fitbit already turned off all public "sexual activity" information and killed the Google search capability as far as I can tell. Not a bad response of the order of 30 minutes from a corporate point of view. FWIW.

  30. rtfa, its a joke comment by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    someone added that in on a workout log like 4 hrs and 15 mins and they put "sexual activity"... that's not at all what the summary implies.

  31. You missed the point... by Kamiza+Ikioi · · Score: 1

    The point is that someone will post sexual activity at a time when they didn't have sexual activity with the person who believes they're exclusive. IE - Wife posts sexual activity at 2pm while the husband is at work.

    --
    I8-D
    1. Re:You missed the point... by gl4ss · · Score: 1

      how does the machine know if it's sex or say, dancing like a zombie to a funky beat?

      --
      world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
  32. Blocked by Fitbit by rdebath · · Score: 1

    Fitbit blocked it; they've forced all the profiles to private then requested the search engines to do a fast rescan of their site.

    Nothing to see, move along.

  33. counting calories? by alien9 · · Score: 1

    Surely I don't give a fuck for that

  34. Re:Colonoscopy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The drugs and tools these days are so much better than when I had mine 20 years ago... it was way too uncomfortable to consider watching.

  35. Natalie Portman's really smart by billstewart · · Score: 1

    She's got an Erdos number and I don't. I'd been going to suggest Sigourney Weaver before the other comments.

    And Pelosi doesn't deserve all the negative flood of crap pointed at her - the Republican propaganda machine was doing that just because she was one of the two lead Democrats in Congress. She's really too conservative for her district, and didn't provide the tough leadership the Democrats needed to stand up to the Republicans when she was in charge (and neither did Reid, or Obama), but she's fairly bright and understands issues. I disagree with her a lot (she is a Democrat, after all), but being wrong doesn't make her a dummy.

    --

    Bill Stewart
    New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
  36. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  37. Re: Fitbit accelerometers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Depends on whether you've left your pajamas on the bed...

  38. Correlation Problems by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 1

    Then it would be the same as posting on your Facebook wall how good your breakfast was

    Not in all situations. Correlate it with FourSquare check-ins, or similar, especially when they become automatic eventually, especially within a circle of friends, and things people do suddenly become public when they would otherwise have remained private.

    12:04PM Bob checked-in at the Ramada Downtown via FourSquare
    12:07PM Alice checked-in at the Ramada Downtown via FourSquare
    12:43PM Bob had a 20 minute workout. Great job, Bob! via FitBit
    12:43PM Alice had a 20 minute workout. Great job, Alice! via FitBit
    12:57PM Bob checked in at Megalocorp via FourSquare
    12:59PM Alice checked in at Megalocorp via FourSquare
    9:45PM Bob is now single 3
    10:15PM Alice is now It's Complicated 3

    --
    My God, it's Full of Source!
    OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
  39. Re:Fitbits are cheap by billstewart · · Score: 1

    Fitbits are about $100. They're not only useful for tracking your exercise, but also your sleep quality. I looked at them and several other products when I was having sleep issues a while back (I like Zeo, and built an Arduino-Thing) - and a year or two ago accelerometers were hitting the Dirt Cheap part of the price curve so all sorts of things are starting to get them besides iPhones. There are a few other startups doing motion-tracking watches, though I like the TI Chronos watch better (16-bit development microcontroller environment on your wrist!)

    They do have to deal with the privacy question - how much of your info do you want to upload to cloud-based services, and do you want those services sharing info with your friends. They also have to compete with $1 iPhone apps and free Android apps, such as sleep-state-based alarm clocks. On the other hand, they've done a really good packaging job, so their frob is much easier to always have around than an iPhone.

    --

    Bill Stewart
    New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
  40. backcountry expeditions resemble primeval society by peter303 · · Score: 1

    If you go on a backpacking trip or field expedition for any significant period of time you pretty much know all the bodily habits of your mates: when they eat, sleep, pee, defecate, shag, etc. Its seems natural and not that interesting.

  41. Not to worry, Slashdotters! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's tracking exercise and sexual activity, so nothing any of us here on Slashdot have to worry about.