In web-related news, the BBC reports:
A man has been jailed for life for stabbing his wife to death over a posting she made on the social networking site Facebook.
Wayne Forrester, 34, told police he was devastated that his wife Emma, also 34, had changed her online profile to “single” days after he had moved out.
It’s a horrible story, but it’s got me thinking.
I’ve been on Facebook since June 2007. My “friends” range from current and former students to many and assorted family members, former youth group kids, colleagues, fellow bloggers, old pals from high school and college, friends from the animal rights community, Kabbalah students, and blog-readers from around the world. I love Facebook for reconnecting me with old companions and enabling me to stay in easy and rapid touch with so many people. I was on Myspace several years ago, and left it for many reasons, detailed here. Facebook seems “cleaner” in every sense , and I appreciate that I don’t feel vaguely like a “dirty old man”. Fully a third of my 900+ contacts on Facebook are older than I am; the ranks of the middle-aged on Facebook seem much more noticeable than on other social networking sites.
Social networking sites like Facebook and Myspace are tremendously valuable to the “taken” and the “single” alike. But for those of us who are married or in other sorts of committed relationships, it’s critical that we be aware of the many ways in which these sites can encourage flirtation. Especially because of my status as a professor and youth leader, I try to be cognizant of the signals my words and images on Facebook send. It’s been a learning curve — on my old blog, I posted pictures of me from races I had run. Given that I tend to run shirtless any race where the temperature is above 55 degrees, several of the photos were of my pale, sweat-soaked form during and after various marathons. What I wanted to project was athleticism, but was told by quite a few people that the images came across as vaguely sexual — as if I were trolling for affirmation at best, and perhaps much more at worst. I took those images down.
The kerfuffle over the shirtless running pics taught me an important lesson about the gap between intent and perception. I ought to have known better. In other instances, particularly about male-female communication in contemporary culture, I’ve written and lectured and led workshops about that very same, frequently problematic gap. And given that I have a past, pre-conversion history of ethical boundary violations with my students, I ought to have been especially attuned to the subtle ways in which I am capable of deceiving myself as to my own real agenda. I needed some trusted friends to hold me accountable in this “new medium” of social networking.
My wife isn’t on Facebook. It’s not her cup of tea. She rarely looks at my page. But we have mutual friends who are avid Facebookers, and a while ago, I asked them to hold me accountable if they ever saw me post an update or put up a picture or do something that seemed as if it might be sending a signal of sexual availability or flirtatiousness. As I’ve posted in other contexts, I’m a great believer in “accountability partners”. I have no illusions about my own ability always to unerringly identify the line between the humorous and the inappropriate in cyberspace. My boundaries in interpersonal, face-to-face communication are much better - as my ENFP nature likes to rely so heavily on non-verbal cues. In the less tactile world of the internet, my intuition doesn’t work as well. I am not ashamed to say that as a somewhat public person who mixes with a great many young people on a regular basis, I rely on peers who love me and love my wife to let me know if I “cross the line.”
I won’t lie. I like attention. I spent years in drama classes, from age 7 to 18, because I craved the thrill of performing. Though I went into teaching for a great many reasons, ranging from the genuinely altruistic to the deeply narcissistic, I know that I still have a need to strut and fret my hour on the stage that is my classroom. And obviously, I want people to read this blog — chiefly because I want them to think about certain issues in a new way, but to at least a small degree because I enjoy having an audience for my musings. My presence on a site like Facebook is driven by the same range of concerns, by noble and more humble motives. There’s nothing wrong with this, of course – I don’t imagine that I’m ever going to transcend completely my human frailty and need for occasional validation. But it is vital that I place my devotion to my wife and my commitment to the sanctity of our marriage ahead of whatever need I have for attention and affirmation from others. That means making it abundantly clear in every way possible that I am happily married and utterly unavailable. And that requires soliciting the help of trusted friends who see what I write and present to the world, and are unafraid to tell me when through either exuberance or neediness, I have crossed a line.
I am lucky to have such friends today.
My policy on Facebook: never friend any current or former students who are still undergraduates, period. If they friend you, reject the friend request and send them a polite note letting them know that it’s not personal, that you simply think that’s a boundary that needs to be maintained between teacher and student. And DEFINITELY no course-related messages sent through Facebook; these should be ignored, and a statement made to the class that this isn’t acceptable (perhaps even on the syllabus).
Friending students after they’ve graduated? Probably just fine. Friending grad students? A grayer area, but maybe all right. Friending undergraduates you’ve met in a classroom setting, even if you’ve since moved on to another university? Nope.
Jeremy, I’m friends with many current students on Facebook — and I can think of several colleagues in my department who work that way. I’ve even got a Facebook group for two of my classes. In just the past six months, five of my colleagues have started using Facebook to communicate with students, while a couple only use it for “friends” communications. Other colleagues have Myspace pages, and one even hosts class discussions thereon.
Many academic websites have debated this issue many times…
Hugo,
Facebook is far ahead of all other social networks with respect to managing privacy - that’s with respect to how fb users can define for themselves what “friend” means and what information friends can see and comment on. Friend groups work pretty reliably. So you can easily create a fb group for your “close friends” which then are allowed to see and comment on your shirtless running pictures while your students aren’t allowed to see them and won’t even know they’re there. There are still some problems with the mini-feed, as it’s not yet possible to define privacy levels for individual wall posts or pictures, which I find annoying.
As for the “single” issue, that’s something I’ve actually complained about - If you have the option “post relationship status” in your information activated, even taking it off the site will result in a wall post indicating that, say, you’re no longer single if you had that status posted before. So, I suppose in the case above, the victim may not even have actively changed her status to single, but simply decided to no longer display her relationship status. The consequences of this fb practice were much less problematic in my case, but were annoying enough to notify fb.
As for your personal issue -
I don’t imagine that I’m ever going to transcend completely my human frailty and need for occasional validation. But it is vital that I place my devotion to my wife and my commitment to the sanctity of our marriage ahead of whatever need I have for attention and affirmation from others.
this is, I think, comparable to what you wrote about your experiences with the porn (and alcohol - I really liked your wine metaphor) issue. I may be wrong, but what I read from this post is a fundamental fear of “not being strong enough” to withstand your need for “external” validation if you’re not completely controlling what’s happening around you, on fb, or, say, with respect to porn.
I’m wondering how that relates to your statements about “the myth of male weakness”. My impression from your recent writing is that you seem to have inferred the existence of such a weakness and the appropriate cure from your own experiences and your fear of relapsing. Does that make sense to you? I mean we all derive the biggest part of our worldview from our immediate emotional experiences, so that would be quite normal - but it would not necessarily be fair to conclude that your experiences are so common that it makes sense to generalise based on them.
Sam, I don’t think I’m weak. I think I have areas of vulnerability, and it’s my job to set good limits so that I don’t end up doing some very destructive things. The opposite of weakness isn’t the absence of temptation, nor is the opposite of weakness pure self-discipline. The opposite of weakness is awareness, it is empathy, and sometimes it is the courage to ask for help. Strength is knowing one’s limits and one’s boundaries.
I don’t advocate self-control alone for men. I advocate taking responsibility, and I advocate not blaiming others (women) for causing us to stumble. And I’ve developed some strategies that seem to work for me very well. If a hope-to-die addict like me can do it, others surely can as well.
Hugo,
The opposite of weakness is awareness, it is empathy, and sometimes it is the courage to ask for help. Strength is knowing one’s limits and one’s boundaries.
This is very true. The help part in particular. But also this: ONE’s limits and ONE’s boundaries. I may find it strange that you worry about infringing anyone’s borders or even endangering your relationship by posting pictures of you running shirtless. I mean you say “don’t blame others (women)” for causing men to stumble (whatever you had in mind when you wrote that), but you seem to blame yourself for creating a rather perfect analogy of “women shouldn’t wear miniskirts if they don’t want men to approach them.” Is there a “myth of female weakness”? Don’t do it if it infringes YOUR borders, but you really shouldn’t be surprised if others (most others?) would not happen to have the same or even a similar boundary.
“I don’t advocate self-control alone for men. I advocate taking responsibility, and I advocate not blaiming others (women) for causing us to stumble.
What’s stumbling in this respect? I mean, you really can’t control other people’s reactions to what you say or what pictures you post. You changed your point of view when you heard about other people’s reactions. So who stumbled? Stumbling would, in my opinion, require not such an honest mistake, a matter of misinterpretation, but the intention to infringe one’s boundaries. I still get the feeling you somehow mistrust your subconcious.
And I’ve developed some strategies that seem to work for me very well. If a hope-to-die addict like me can do it, others surely can as well.
Yeah, but if a) the diagnosis of what “stumbling” is and b) the possibly useful strategies are completley different, then maybe you’ve only looked at “male weakness” from one angle.
Possible?
No, I’m not worried about infringing on anyone’s boundaries by appearing shirtless. I wasn’t clear. Because of my role as a professor and mentor, it’s vital that I don’t do anything to send the signal that I am somehow trying to entice interest. The shirtless pics would be fine if I didn’t do what I do for a living. You’ve taught me something, though, about Facebook settings — I didn’t realize I could control which of my friends saw what.
Dude, I absolutely don’t always trust my subconscious. I have, as Walter Wink puts it, a healthy dose of the “inner darkness of the redeemed.”
Hugo,
happy I could help with that.
webcommunityforum.com/2008/03/facebook-tutorials-customizing-your-privacy-experience-using-the-new-friend-list-privacy-feature/
Dude, I absolutely don’t always trust my subconscious.
Hmm. How does that work when you’re trying to be “congruent”? I mean, as I understood it, being afraid of the male subsconscious (particularly its alleged or real sexual power) is the cornerstone of “male weakness”. I mean, aren’t you actually saying with this that you believe there is some kind of “male weakness” but that - despite its existence -
a) that there is no right to be free from confrontations with the risky male subconscious
b) that women wearing a miniskirt (there’s actually a debate about this in South Africa!) should therefore not have to bear any costs for their being at risk through the “male weakness” and
c) men should bear the entire “costs” for the risk management of their possible dangerous unconscious.
Which is certainly a legitimate position. I’m not sure I think I’d agree with it, but that’s mostly because I really don’t believe there is a male weakness…
The subconscious is, by definition, deeper than conscious thought. The fact that I have darkness in my subconscious doesn’t mean I lack the ability to control my actions, nor does it mean that others around me have the obligation to treat me with kid gloves for fear of bringing out the “Mr. Hyde” within.
Yes, we are all in charge of our own “risk management”. My own risk assessment tells me I can’t have one drink, because then I might have six. Others may draw the line differently. But if I do drink, get drunk, and drive, the fault is mine. My choice not to take appropriate steps to restrain certain impulses was mine alone. If we need help from others, we still have an obligation to seek out help (sponsors, mentors, etc.)
Hugo,
“The subconscious is, by definition, deeper than conscious thought. The fact that I have darkness in my subconscious doesn’t mean I lack the ability to control my actions, nor does it mean that others around me have the obligation to treat me with kid gloves for fear of bringing out the “Mr. Hyde” within. Yes, we are all in charge of our own “risk management”. “
But if the subconsciou is, by definition, deeper than conscious thought, you can’t claim to be able to control your actions for all contingencies, right? Sure, if you drink and drive it’s mostly your responsibility. But if someone constantly tempted you to drink, wouldn’t that person bear a part of the responsibility for bringing out Mr Hyde? Empathy is a “relational concept” - our actions are never entirely independent of each other’s. There clearly is a point where mere expression becomes “provocation”, although we’ll probably never be able to clearly identify that point.
But if someone constantly tempted you to drink, wouldn’t that person bear a part of the responsibility for bringing out Mr Hyde?
If someone, knowing I am a recovering alcoholic, deliberately and constantly tried to get me to start drinking, then I would they were very rude. But that’s not aanalogous to a woman wearing a short skirt and a low-cut blouse. If a woman in a miniskirt were to climb into the lap of a married man, pull down her top, and say “Do me baby, right here”, then she would also be behaving rudely. And yes, she would then be “provoking.” But if the married man “does” her, the error is still his.
Ads for alcohol are not “provoking” me. Women wearing revealing clothing are not provoking.
Hugo,
“Ads for alcohol are not “provoking” me. Women wearing revealing clothing are not provoking.”
Don’t get me wrong, I wasn’t trying to suggest that merely wearing revealing clothing would be “provoking”. This discussion is, on my part, merely trying to explore the logical structure of the “male weakness” argument you usually deny.
“And yes, she would then be “provoking.” But if the married man “does” her, the error is still his.”
I think “rude” doesn’t quite cut it. If provokation is having an intended (or unintended (”unconscious”)) effect then it is logically partly responsible for the occurrence. I’m not denying free will (for all practical purposes, including tort law), but isn’t what we’re talking about the moment when Mr Hyde/the subconscious is taking over the steering wheel? The woman jumping on the married man should be considered party responsible for his error if she ACTS in the way you describe and he merely REACTS. This “part of responsibility” is different from saying she CAUSED it. But she certainly contributed to the array of factors that actually caused Me Hyde to take over.
here’s what i do: i don’t list my status at all. it’s drama and gossip fodder for other people. i don’t care to date anybody among my facebook friends, and the people who do know my status-i told them in person.
whenever i see a relationship status pop up in my feed, it’s usually of people whom i haven’t spoken to in a looong time and i simply don’t care. not only that, a breakup isn’t exactly something to advertise to hundreds of people and among only a handful who knew you were even IN a relationship in the first place.
besides, i’ve been in a number of facebook “marriages” with my girlfriends. the relationship status is more of a laugh and a joke among us.
Sam, this week I’ll do a post on “percentages of blame” in response.
Theverycold, I think yours is a wise decision. And I note a great many of the students and youth groupers who are my friends are “married” in their statuses to folks to whom they are not, in fact, married. Or even in a romantic relationship.
“But we have mutual friends who are avid Facebookers, and a while ago, I asked them to hold me accountable if they ever saw me post an update or put up a picture or do something that seemed as if it might be sending a signal of sexual availability or flirtatiousness.”
I think your problem might be like that of the famous The Far Side cartoon, Ginger the Red Setter. While you have written the above and it’s very worthy and right and proper, all that the Red Setter is hearing is “shirtless”, “flirtatious”, “sex”, “students”, “available” with various other words in the middle :-)
I use Live Journal and have some posts open and some friends locked. I don’t publicly link to anything containing my real name either. Works fine for me.
RE: Responsibility and Sam -
I think part of Hugo’s point is that there will be provacative people out there, and how you handle them, knowing your own conscious and subconscious desires, is part of what Hugo was talking about with the half-naked running photos.
Not only does he not want to communicate availablility when he doesn’t intend to, he also wants to prevent, to the extent possible, a provocative response from his students. At this point he may be quite confident he wouldn’t act on temptation and just want to avoid a very awkward encounter, but there is something to be said for knowing your own limits and doing what you can to discourage temptation.
That may mean not going into a bar if you’re an alcoholic. Sure you could go in and stick to soda/water, but why put yourself in that position? Especially if you know that you’re a person who may be swayed by temptation in the form of someone offering to buy you a drink.
When you’re in a relationship, there are lots of things you can do to protect it. Some involve direct self-control, and others involve knowing yourself well enough to take precautions.
It took me a while to understand that even if I know I would never cheat on my bf/fiance/husband, men I meet don’t necessarily know that. And there are degrees of flirtation that while not “cheating” in and of themselves, only lead to problems - either from giving in to temptation, or having to awkwardly explain to a friend that no, you aren’t going to make out/sleep with them and never had any intention of doing so.
Hi Hugo,
As an Episcopal priest (and former school chaplain), I’m constantly thinking about boundaries. I, too, believe strongly in networks and communities of accountability, at the center of which are my wife, my confessor/spiritual director, and my boss. And once my daughter is older, I’m sure it will include her, too. (Right now a toddler’s moral compass isn’t developed enough for me to rely on her. If I followed her lead, I’d be crossing boundaries left and right…Luckily for her, it’s developmentally appropriate in her case!)
I’m still getting the hang of Facebook. I’ve begun to sort my “friends” using lists. I hate the term “friending,” because it’s not generic enough for me. Not sure what I’d prefer–”networking” seems too social climber (but maybe I don’t like that term because that’s precisely a part of who I am).
Thanks for friending me on Facebook, by the way. I considered it an honor. I look forward to getting to know you better in entirely ethical and appropriate ways!
NH+
Hah! Thanks, Nathan!
Emily,
“but there is something to be said for knowing your own limits and doing what you can to discourage temptation.”
no doubt. But as I understood it, we’re talking about the moment when all precautions aren’t working anymore. Hugo used the example of a woman jumping on a married man.
Here’s a different (and personal) example: Last week, I was talking to a female friend from my extended social circle, who’s in a relationship, and she suddenly wondered why we always end up talking about boy-girl stuff and “if we shouldn’t just have sex to get over it”.
I suspect that, while finding me attractive, she’s deep down inside not interested in endangering her relationship. But she’s not single, and I don’t know how “mentally single” she is in her relationship.
So I’m not proactive here in any way. But - whatever I do in this situaion (breaking off communication or not, flirting or not, verbalising the issue or not) is logically “testing” and possibly “provoking” a reaction that she may - in the end - consider to be an error (or not).
If she would consider her decision, or the lack thereof, an unconscious error (the Mr Hyde in her took over), it would be her error, of course. But it would have been caused by a number of contributing factors (some of which I probably don’t even know, but) one of which would have been me and my behaviour - possibly even unwittingly and unintentionally.
Sam,
I see where you are going with this and I would agree that in the scenario that you describe it would not be wise to be proactive. People make comments that they later regret. One can only guess why. She could be testing and that is a gut reation I have. One can only speculate as to her motivation. I’ve been in similar situations, “repeatedly,” and they were uncomfortable for me, because it feels like a no win situation when communication is unclear. Some people just blurt things out in the moment…not everyone is analytical or introspective and they certainly don’t think about consequences. I suppose if you wanted clearer communication and what she meant you could always ask her. I’ve met a lot of people who claim their behaviors were unwitting and unintentional too…I tend to feel in most cases it’s another way of avoiding taking personal responsibility and playing innocent. I tend to agree with Emily’s observations.
I appreciate the discussions about Facebook. I currently don’t use it as I’ve read some of the issues about privacy and I also don’t have the time.
Katen,
sure, I could ask. But asking or not asking wouldn’t make a difference for the point I was trying to make - from a behavioral point of view it sometimes doesn’t matter whether behaviour was unwitting or unintentional if it was a contributing factor in bringing her Mr Hyde out (ie, letting her loose “control”, resp. act in a way that doesn’t contribute to what she would normally consider to be her preferred outcome of the interaction). This is a difficult issue, as even defining our preferred preference structures is almost impossible as they aren’t stable (whatever most economists would tell you ;)) and aren’t always reliable.
Humans are a mess ;)
Oops, it’s “Karen”, of course. My typing’s a mess, too, today.
I think Sam’s example is interesting, and what I would say is this…
If it lead to your friend “cheating” with you, then that is her choice to take responsibility for. BUT, if you were my friend, I would expect a good friend to be looking out for me enough to either let it go without comment or (if interested) explicitly bring up my un-singleness and ask what my intentions are.
I have been in almost exactly that situation (as the female friend) with a male friend who then initiated something physical, and I ended up annoyed with him that he basically thought less of me because he thought I would actually be willing to cheat on my BF. He’d be willing to cheat with me, but would look down on me for it. I felt like, as a friend, he should have cared about me enough not to be complicit in something that he was going to end up holding against me.
This was years ago and what I took from the whole thing was that flirting with sexual tension in friend relationships while otherwise attached is just not a good thing to do. It may not technically be cheating, but it’s playing with fire and there’s no reason to do it. Hence, a new definition of boundaries by me, for myself, which is more respectful to the person I’m in a relationship with.
Sam,
I have a friend who brings up the “what if’s” and possibilities. My response is always to say that we are both UNAVAILABLE and I do not “go there”. I do not indulge “what if” thinking as it is counterproductive and I do not see the point of going down that path. I have a lot to lose and I am fully aware of my actions and I know my behavior towards him is not flirtatious. I do not encourage his behaviors and he is responsible for his emotions and how he acts on them. I recognize that he has a very hard time controlling his emotions, but he does have personal responsibility as do I.
Once again, I agree with Emily’s observations and have been in many similar situations, with the exception that other people are always trying to skirt issues of personal responsibility and blame me for their actions. Self-introspection is a good quality to cultivate. You have a personal responsibility to think about your motivations and behaviors, but you are not responsible for the emotions and actions of others.