Recently, I've been thinking about issues of privacy, personal information, and the like. My concern here is in exchanges between acquaintances and friends that one expects to be rational people, not the the government or private companies' use of information, and within that context I have a question: what is the standard for determining what, if anything, should be kept private? Why is it that no one would blink at me discussing my favourite ice cream flavours on this blog or
my twitter account, even if I went into great detail about how the chewy sweetness of the cookie dough combines with the milky wholesomeness of the melting ice cream on my tongue to create an amazing taste sensation, but many would have a problem if I were to even mention in passing what my favourite sexual position was? Does it make sense that many will freely talk about how they recently broke their arm, but would balk and issue fervent warnings of "TMI" before discussing a sexually-transmitted infection or issues with foot fungus? Is it reasonable that friends will gladly tell each other about the gifts they received for the holidays, but will be very reticent to share the details of their current salary? Shouldn't we be happy to share information with those with whom we are friendly and friends? Do the principles of the Objectivist ethics have anything to say here?
In thinking about this issue, I've come up with two answers, neither of which has completely satisfied me:
- The reason we don't share certain things is that others simply don't want to know them. While this may be true in many cases, it simply raises the question: Why don't they want to know? Is it because it's irrelevant? If so, then they can just ignore the information. Is it because it makes them uncomfortable? If so, why? Is it because it's private? That just brings us back to the issue of: what makes something private?
- The reason we don't share some of these things is that sharing them would dilute their value. A particular example that comes to mind is Dagny's reticence to tell her mother about the sex she had had with Francisco in the woods. While I'm not completely sure, I think I could see certain events as being too important (either to a small set of people, or even to one person) to share with others. So I could see the issue with telling people the details of specific events how amazingly meaningful my wedding-night sex was (hypothetical!), but I don't see how this sort of reasoning can apply to topics, such as sex or salary, as a whole.
Thoughts, readers?
2 comments:
Among the public, discussion of one's sexual exploits, proclivities, or problems outside of an appropriate context comes across as exhibitionism, bragging, or desperation. Sex is inherently a private matter (on account of the limited number of participants and the intimate nature of the activity) and discussing it publicly is a violation of that expectation that should only occur for a good reason—sharing with a doctor, on an advice forum, in a Penthouse letter, or whatnot.
With friends, it really depends on the context you've established with them. I've discussed my salary with friends before, but only for a good reason (career planning). Finances are another inherently intimate detail that can come across very negatively without an appropriate context. My wife regularly talks about sex with her friends whereas I never have: I don't have that level of intimacy with friends. If I had that close of a friend and it was reciprocated, I'd be willing to open up.
TMI indicates a disparity in a presumed context by one of the parties. It's an awkward, polite way of saying, "I see that you think we're closer and more intimate than I do or want to be. Please correct that."
Hi Anon, thanks for the comment!
I'm not necessarily saying you're wrong (I still don't have a position on this issue), but I do have some questions in response to your claims:
1. What justifies the connection you seem to be making between the fact that the action of sex is private and the claim that the discussion of sex should be private?
2. You say "[f]inances are another inherently intimate detail that can come across very negatively without an appropriate context." While I do recognize that such a discussion might be negatively received, the question still remains: Why is it negatively received? Why are finances "inherently intimate", in a way that ice cream flavours or gifts received for Christmas aren't?
3. I appreciate your analysis of the meaning of TMI, and I think you're right as to the message a person is trying to get across when he uses that term, but my question is: by what standard does one determine if a particular topic requires a certain level of intimacy?
Post a Comment