Alice asked:

This is probably not a philosophical question, but I was wondering why was I so uncomfortable when I
was in presence of a friend who was showing so much affection to his wife while we were having a
dinner in the restaurant. The affection included touching her hair, patting her on her back, hugging her
— constantly for the duration of the dinner which was three hours. He was also at the influence of
alcohol and he even asked her to touch him etc. I think they should go for this dinner together, not
invite their friends. I have always thought that showing so much affection should be limited to the
family circle. I would appreciate what you think of my friend's behaviour.

===========

Most people would be uncomfortable in this situation since sexual affection is normally a private affair
and I agree that they should go to dinner alone. One might say that this friend was very inconsiderate,
especially if you are young. But if he is very much in love and was under the influence of alcohol, you
can't really expect him to act with consideration. Love and alcohol can affect behaviour.

I see no reason why such behaviour would necessarily be acceptable within the family circle. In fact,
I'd have thought children wouldn't like seeing their parents mauling each other and constant hugging
within a family circle also seems rather unappealing.

Rachel Browne

Well it actually can be a philosophical question. As far as your emotional responses as such go,
they're the product of your education through your culture, family, etc. So that's the simple and easy
answer to your question. You feel that way because you've been trained to. But... we can ask what
"privacy" means and how that concept is relevant to different situations. This is a really nasty
question. And the furtherquestion is, shouldyou feel embarrassed at public displays of affection, and
if so, which ones? And why? Surely allpublic affection should not be bad or embarrassing. (Though
there are cultures that would violently disagree with that statement. Are they correct? Why or why
not? Let's see.)

One thing that "affection" might be taken to be, and/or show, is sexuality. Lotsof cultures frown on
public sex, and if affection is regarded in this way, then public affection will be disapproved. Now, let's
call this alternative 1, and assume for the sake of argument that this viewpoint is correct (although I
don't actually agree). We can still ask whether it shouldbe disapproved. What is it about sex that
should be private? Well, what differentiates sex from other activities? First, its used for reproduction.
But this won't do... you can go to a lab and play with sperms and eggs, and do that in public. Second,
we see public sexuality all the time in the movies. What is the difference between that and seeing
"real" people being affectionate? So there is something having to do with sexuality being between two
real people. What about strangers? I'd say you'd probably be embarrassed by seeing two strangers
making out passionately in a restaurant or a public park, correct? But would you be asuncomfortable
if a) you didn't know them, and b) they were bothenjoying themselves? That is, what about this
difference: the two real people are bothobviously enjoying themselves vs. one of them is not?
Probably both scenarios would be embarrassing, but the latter (one is not) much more. Now here we
can find a clear ethical component: one person is being forced, to some extent. So you (and everyone
else) shoulddisapprove of the scenario in which one person is forcing their affections on another.
And I imagine that was part of your problem in the restaurant.

Now let's look at the situation where bothare clearly enjoying themselves, in public. Why should we
disapprove of that? Well, let's look at some possibilities. What is there about "privacy" which is
valuable or good? If you assume that others are going to take advantage of you in some way, or are
merely going to disapprove of some action (for whatever reasons, good or bad), then performing that
action in private is reasonable, in the sense that since you're living in a social context, you have to
behave in ways to get along with others, otherwise you'll be shunned, treated badly, and so forth. But
we do live in a culture where bothof those are true. First, there are people who willtry to take
advantage of you (say, through some sort of social blackmail, for one), and second, there are people
who will disapprove of your actions (perhaps not for any good reason, merely because they've been
told they are "bad"). And that disapproval can take many forms, virtually all with negative
consequences for you. Now, I'm not thinking of things like privacy for the purpose of keeping
valuables safe, and that sort of thing... just in respect of sexuality. Let's take an extreme example: if
you think of the behavior of the very rich and powerful throughout history in front of their slaves, the
conception of privacy becomes a bit iffy... since a slave was not recognized as an equal, and perhaps
not even as really a person, and the masters had absolute power over them. Consequently, sex in
front of slaves was a matter of indifference in that kind of culture, unlessthe slave was seen as some
kind of potential threat. So sexual privacy has to do with the ability of others to harm, which a slave (in
some contexts) did not have.

Given that admittedly quick analysis, we can ask whether you shouldhave felt embarrassed, if those
two were mutually enjoying each other. Well, in an ideal culture, where everyone lives in harmony, we
would have no reason to feel vulnerable exposing ourselves, and thus, probably, no reason for
privacy... unless we just wanted to be free of distractions. But clearly we don't live in that culture...
and indeed I doubt anyone ever has or, given human territoriality and aggressiveness, ever will.
Given fairly normal cultures, i.e., most throughout history, you shouldhave felt, if not embarrassed, at
least that those people were behaving inappropriately, if only in that they were making themselves too
vulnerable to a number of possible threats.

But as I said above, I think that most of your negative feelings were due to your cultural and familial
contexts, and also that you may have seen that the man's wife was not enjoying herself, i.e., was
being forced to behave in a particular manner. Now given that the above is correct, we might
conclude that the more prohibitions a culture has against public displays of intimacy, the more
internally aggressive that culture is, i.e., the more potential for threats there are in the interpersonal
interactions within that culture.

Steven Ravett Brown

I would have not only felt uncomfortable. I would have been angry, and probably have walked out. To
start with, both of your friends were being rude since they were paying little attention to you or to your
feelings. But, that is only to start with: They were also doing things which should be done in privacy
not in public, so I do not agree even that they should have acted in that way if they had been alone in
public. If they had acted in that way in a restaurant owned by me, I should have told them to stop, and
if they had not stopped, I would have asked them to leave.

Ken Stern