Sherlock Posted December 15, 2004 Report Share Posted December 15, 2004 Zoso, You wrote, " I don't see how anything I've said is disrespectful to her or her family." I meant all of the comments, not just yours: someone here said her family were "irrational"; and your "horny" comments, though you have tried to justify them, are not respectful of your girlfriend. All I am saying is this: I wonder what she would think of you and Objectivists if she could read this whole exchange. Do you really think that she would appreciate it? Even though forum is anonymous, do you think she would think you were treating her with respect by discussing her possible pregnancy on the Internet? I think she'd drop you like a ton of bricks---or ought to. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zoso Posted December 15, 2004 Author Report Share Posted December 15, 2004 She discussed it with people that I don't know. And it doesn't really bother me, so I fail to see how this is any worse. It's not like anyone on here knows who I am...much less, who she is. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sherlock Posted December 15, 2004 Report Share Posted December 15, 2004 Then you are obviously well-matched in class. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bryan Posted December 15, 2004 Report Share Posted December 15, 2004 Do you really think that she would appreciate it? Even though forum is anonymous, do you think she would think you were treating her with respect by discussing her possible pregnancy on the Internet? I think she'd drop you like a ton of bricks---or ought to. Zoso has some legitimate questions about a legitimate problem that he is trying to work out. He has done nothing wrong in posting it on this forum to see what other people, whose opinions I assume that he respects, think about it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zoso Posted December 16, 2004 Author Report Share Posted December 16, 2004 Thank you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KevinD Posted December 16, 2004 Report Share Posted December 16, 2004 [R]omantic intimacy is an expression of the highest degree of love. It is a way of saying, "You are the most important person in my life; out of all of the girls, I have chosen you because I think you are the best." [. . .] Personally, this means for me that I will never become intimate with any girl until we are engaged to marry . . . If she ain't good enough to be married, she ain't good enough to be kissed. [. . .] Another way of expressing the same idea would be, "If you're going to leave her, don't touch her in the first place." I've heard this kind of sentiment alarmingly often from Objectivists. It's a good example of the rampant rationalism that exists in the thinking of many otherwise intelligent people when it comes to issues of love and sex. Be very cautious of any kind of "rule-bound" approach to romantic love — even when the rules are your own, and especially when those rules are the end product of some brilliantly logical chain of deductive reasoning. Observe: Romantic intimacy, as we all know, is an expression of the highest degree of love. Naturally, it follows that one should experience such intimacy only with the person who epitomizes one's deepest and most profound values. Therefore, to engage in romantic intimacy with someone who does not embody one's deepest values (or to do so if one is not yet sure of one's partner in this respect), is to contradict and assault all of one's values, and to damn oneself to the lowest kind of depravity. Thus the only moral choice is to refrain from engaging in any such activity, until and unless one is absolutely certain that one has made one's final romantic choice and has found one's lifelong romantic partner. Until then: No Sex! I would venture to guarantee that anyone who actually believed this — and managed to live by it — would never achieve the kind of relationship he purports to idealize. Not only is the premise faulty and the conclusion entirely wrong, but such an individual is unlikely ever to meet and connect with anyone, living as he does inside of his own head. Imagine a person who has spent years punching numbers into a calculator, computing sum on top of sum — all with the goal, he explains, of one day reaching infinity. The poor guy is on a foolish and fruitless mission, because he doesn't understand the nature of the thing he's trying to attain — and no less so than the person who, in his alleged quest to achieve romantic-sexual happiness, syllogizes himself into a permanent state of chastity. Given everything I know about romantic love, I truly cannot imagine how someone could reach the point of knowing that another person is so profoundly and personally a value to him that he would seriously consider marrying them — without the benefit of a sexual affair. We're not bodies or minds: we're integrated beings of both, and nowhere more so than in a romantic relationship. You simply cannot get to know a person fully (nor can they get to know you) merely from observing, engaging in conversation, and maybe hand-holding and pecks on the cheek. You must have the full physical experience. This doesn't mean, of course, that you jump into bed with someone the moment you meet them. Often far from it. But it does mean that in an honest relationship based on serious values, there isn't any reason in the world why the partners shouldn't enjoy the freedom to express themselves physically and sexually, on any level and in any manner which they both enjoy and feel is appropriate — regardless of whether they've attained full, final certainty about their relationship and have made plans to spend their rest of their lives together. A relaxed, benevolent attitude of openness and discovery is normal, healthy, and essential to successful romantic love — to say nothing of success and happiness in life. I place very little credence in religious commandments, and maybe even less in rationalistic ones. Religion, after all, is merely a form of rationalism: an attempt to prescribe moral rules and regulations without reference to reality. At least religion is upfront about its mysticism — as Objectivists, this world is all we've got. If we want to be happy, we need to live in it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sherlock Posted December 16, 2004 Report Share Posted December 16, 2004 Kevin, You wrote: "You must have the full physical experience" "Must"? Gosh, in my parent's generation (they are near 80), no premarital sex was the norm, and those marriages certainly were far more lasting than those of my generation, where premarital sex was the norm. Also, when you say that "there isn't any reason in the world" why unmarried partners shouldn't have sex, I think you are also ignoring the very real differences between men and women in this regard. Women, whether you see it or not, view sex differently than men and are much more likely to be damaged emotionally than men by numerous affairs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Capitalism Forever Posted December 17, 2004 Report Share Posted December 17, 2004 I've heard this kind of sentiment alarmingly often from Objectivists. For the record, I am a student of Objectivism. Romantic intimacy, as we all know, is an expression of the highest degree of love. Naturally, it follows that one should experience such intimacy only with the person who epitomizes one's deepest and most profound values. Don't put words into my mouth. I never said anything about "epitomizing." What I said was, in effect, that you shouldn't pretend that you feel the highest degree of love towards a person when in fact you don't. Imagine a person who has spent years punching numbers into a calculator, computing sum on top of sum — all with the goal, he explains, of one day reaching infinity. Infinity is not the goal. The goal is to find the maximum among a finite set of numbers. If you want to address my argument, tell me why THAT is impossible. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stephen_speicher Posted December 17, 2004 Report Share Posted December 17, 2004 Therefore, to engage in romantic intimacy with someone who does not embody one's deepest values (or to do so if one is not yet sure of one's partner in this respect), is to contradict and assault all of one's values, and to damn oneself to the lowest kind of depravity. Kevin, I think you are being terribly unjust towards Capitalism Forever by characterizing his premises and thought processes as you have. It is fine to disagree with his perspective, but please do so on the basis of what he actually said. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tommyedison Posted December 17, 2004 Report Share Posted December 17, 2004 I've heard this kind of sentiment alarmingly often from Objectivists. It's a good example of the rampant rationalism that exists in the thinking of many otherwise intelligent people when it comes to issues of love and sex. How is it rationalism? Observe: Romantic intimacy, as we all know, is an expression of the highest degree of love. Naturally, it follows that one should experience such intimacy only with the person who epitomizes one's deepest and most profound values. Therefore, to engage in romantic intimacy with someone who does not embody one's deepest values (or to do so if one is not yet sure of one's partner in this respect), is to contradict and assault all of one's values, and to damn oneself to the lowest kind of depravity. Thus the only moral choice is to refrain from engaging in any such activity, until and unless one is absolutely certain that one has made one's final romantic choice and has found one's lifelong romantic partner. Until then: No Sex! I would venture to guarantee that anyone who actually believed this — and managed to live by it — would never achieve the kind of relationship he purports to idealize. Not only is the premise faulty and the conclusion entirely wrong, but such an individual is unlikely ever to meet and connect with anyone, living as he does inside of his own head. How is the conclusion and the premise faulty? Do you mean to say that romantic intimacy is not an expression of the highest degree of love since that is the premise? You are saying that anyone who saves sex for the "special someone" will never achieve his ideal relationship? Can you support it with facts? Imagine a person who has spent years punching numbers into a calculator, computing sum on top of sum — all with the goal, he explains, of one day reaching infinity. The poor guy is on a foolish and fruitless mission, because he doesn't understand the nature of the thing he's trying to attain — and no less so than the person who, in his alleged quest to achieve romantic-sexual happiness, syllogizes himself into a permanent state of chastity. As Capitalism Forever pointed out, infinity is not the goal. As to my opinion, the goal is to find a person who is the best reflection of yourself. Given everything I know about romantic love, I truly cannot imagine how someone could reach the point of knowing that another person is so profoundly and personally a value to him that he would seriously consider marrying them — without the benefit of a sexual affair. [Emphasis mine] Nobody is saying that sex is irrelevant or purporting the idea of platonic love. Why would marriage to the ideal person have to be without a sexual affair? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MisterSwig Posted December 17, 2004 Report Share Posted December 17, 2004 What are your views on the social stigma placed on unmarried parents? I think the stigma comes more from being irresponsible parents than from being unmarried. Marriage is no longer the recognized fix to such social problems, unless of course you are caught up in the fishnet of conservative religion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Free Capitalist Posted December 19, 2004 Report Share Posted December 19, 2004 Kevin, I want to agree with you on the sentiment you expressed about students of Objectivism approaching love rationalistically, and I've seen this myself many times over. Sex is not an act left for that one highest value which you may or may not find, but for a person you can simply respect and admire - that's the minimum bar. However I do want to say that CapitalismForever is one of the better voices on this forum and that you went after him personally a bit too hard. I do see how what he said might be seen to justify what you said, but his previous history of posts runs very much counter to it. So cheer up, both of you guys! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
walsh Posted December 19, 2004 Report Share Posted December 19, 2004 I'd like to point out that Dr. Hurd tackled this same issue (abstinence among Objectivists and students of Objectivism) in a paper entitled Sex and Morality, available on his website for a nominal fee. I bought and downloaded it a while ago, and in true Dr. Hurd fashion, it is well thought out. I would recommend it highly. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.