Relational harm is defined as an action that causes damage to one or more individuals' interpersonal relationships, whether they are romantic, platonic, familial, or professional. It can be caused by physical violence, emotional abuse, manipulation, betrayal, or neglect. Relational harm has a significant impact on people's mental health, well-being, and overall quality of life, and it can lead to feelings of isolation, fear, and anxiety.
Society tends to tolerate relational harm when it occurs within certain contexts such as marriage, family, or work environments. On the other hand, pleasure-focused technologies like sex toys, virtual reality experiences, adult films, pornography, and dating apps are often stigmatized, and their users are viewed as deviant or immoral. This double standard raises several questions about societal attitudes towards sexuality, intimacy, and personal autonomy.
I will discuss why society tolerates relational harm while condemning pleasure-focused technologies. To do so, we must first examine the reasons why relational harm is accepted in some contexts. One reason could be that it is seen as a necessary evil for maintaining social stability.
Abusive behavior may be justified if it helps preserve traditional gender roles or family structures. Another reason could be that relational harm is considered normal or expected in certain situations, such as child discipline or disciplinary measures at work.
Relational harm may be perceived as acceptable if it leads to positive outcomes such as increased productivity or conformity to cultural norms.
Pleasure-focused technologies challenge traditional values and norms surrounding sexuality, which can cause discomfort or anxiety among many individuals. They offer alternatives to monogamy, heteronormativity, and traditional relationships, allowing people to explore their sexuality and desires freely. These technologies also enable greater autonomy over one's body, identity, and relationships, empowering individuals to take control of their own sexual lives.
They are often associated with negative stereotypes like promiscuity, addiction, and objectification. Society tends to view them as morally wrong or unhealthy, even though research shows that they can be safe, consensual, and pleasurable experiences.
The double standard around relational harm and pleasure-focused technologies highlights societal attitudes towards sex and intimacy. It suggests that society tolerates relational harm because it is seen as necessary or beneficial but condemns pleasure-focused technologies because they threaten traditional values and beliefs about sex and love. This double standard reinforces power dynamics between men and women, heterosexuals and LGBTQ+ individuals, and dominant and subordinate groups within society. By perpetuating these dynamics, society limits individual agency and freedom, denying people the right to explore their desires and seek pleasure in ways that do not fit into established norms.
To address this issue, we must examine our assumptions about sexuality, intimacy, and personal autonomy. We need to question why certain behaviors and technologies are stigmatized while others are accepted, and how this impacts individuals' well-being and quality of life. We should promote a culture that values consent, respect, and communication in all aspects of life, including relationships, workplaces, and personal pursuits. Only by challenging these social constructs can we create a more equitable, just, and fulfilling world for everyone.
Why does society tolerate relational harm while condemning pleasure-focused technologies?
The reason why society tolerates relational harm is that it has been established as a norm for centuries and people are used to this way of thinking. On the other hand, the current generation seems to embrace pleasure-focused technologies because they can provide instant gratification and avoid long-term commitments. Additionally, people may find it difficult to resist temptation since these technologies are so easily accessible and readily available.