why is sex for physical gratification wrong?

[Inspector]

Why is it necessarily indiscriminate?

Yes, good question. It's discriminating allright... in any way besides one which considers the partner's mind.

(that's as phrased by Moose when he posed the question)

[softwareNerd]

Bold Standard, Ayn Rand did use the term "purely physical". I did a brief search on the Objectivism Research CD, for some relevant quotes.

Sex is not a separate nor a purely physical attribute of a man's character: it involves a complex integration of all his fundamental values.

Just as "Platonic love" is evil hypocrisy—so is purely physical sex, which is an evil destruction of one's values.

I must add a caution though, lest those two quotes be taken out of context. Searching through the CD, I was struck by the number of times Ayn Rand spoke about sex and how good it was. So, to form a complete view, one would need to quote a lot of stuff.

[RationalBiker]

Yes, good question. It's discriminating allright... in any way besides one which considers the partner's mind.

Inspector,

I realize I wasn't very clear in that I asked that question very generally, but I still want Lathanar's answer. And I certainly recognize that it is a common convention to offer one's own answer to questions which are not specifically directed to a particular person, so I don't fault you for providing your thoughts.

With due respect to you and your committment to your position, I wholeheartedly disagree with your assessment of what is necessary for sex to be moral, valuable, and/or fulfilling. I have lilterally spent HOURS reading your position (and others) in several threads on here, and a quite volumous thread on another forum, and in all that time, with all the quotes and all of the proclaimations, I have yet to be convinced that your position applies to all men, at all times.

Various people, on this forum and that, have provided the evidence of their own lives to dispute aspects of your position, and I personally have known people whose lives refute it as well, though I have no expectation for you to give any weight at all to me or those people. It appears to me that those who have used their lives as examples to refute your argument must in your book either be dishonest or evading because you seem to dismiss the value of their testimony. No matter, reality is the final arbiter, not you or me.

I, on the other hand, take your word at face value that sex for you and your life has been everything you claimed it to be based on your values and experiences. I just don't think that that applies to all men, at all times like it seems you do. It is this that has led me to believe you have somewhat of an intrinsic view of the value and purpose of sex. I may be wrong, but the evidence of your words is there for anyone to interpret for themselves.

I have left my personal life out of this and will continue to do so for the most part. However, I will say this without sharing too much personal detail; I think that it would have been quite valuable for me to have had other intimate relationships (to include sex) prior to this relationship. There are three primary reasons for this; 1) even if a relationship doesn't last, a lot can be learned from it that can be carried over to the next one, sexual dynamics included, and 2) other relationships can provide a benchmark for finding what one believes to "the one" relationship which is worth committing the rest of one's life to. 3) the acquistion of that knowledge and experience could quite reasonably make the "ultimate" relationship that much better. I consider myself to be happily married, I love my wife and our marriage has provided me with an incredible son. However, there may always be that nagging little question in the back of my mind; could it have been better with another person? I don't foresee ever having resolution to that question. It is true that the question could concieveably occur regardless of the number of relationships one has had, but I think it's far less likely when one can make more informed comparisons. That said, I caution anyone against drawing conclusions or pyschologizing me or my relationship based on these scant few details.

With respect to Ayn Rand quotes, I have seen many cited by you that might appear to support your position, and many cited by others that would appear to support their position. It is apparent to me that quotes do not an argument make. I'm highly doubtful this dispute will be resolved by quotes (and honestly I'm doubtful it will be resolved at all.)

Note that I am in no way trying to discourage you from participating in this thread or others on the same topic. Rather, what I'm trying to communicate is that with respect to your position, I got it and I don't agree. I'm asking other people questions now to see if something new or different can come from their answers or their perspective.

Edited September 23, 2006 by RationalBiker

[Inspector]

No matter, reality is the final arbiter, not you or me.

That much is certainly agreed.

[Antonio]

To start with, I am leery of the practice of quoting Ayn Rand and trying to interpret how she would want someone to behave because Objectivism is not a religion and I am loathe to treat Rand and her words in a way similar to the way Christians treat the words of Jesus Christ and his apostles or Muslims and the writings of Muhammed. To be sure, however, Rand's words are interesting and enlightening and excellent food for thought and she was a brilliant thinker. I agree with most of what she wrote and said. Among that is the notion that everyone should think for him or herself based on Objective standards. But she did not found a religion.

That said, if one has objective standards of such facets of life like behavior, law, art, beauty, etc. there is nothing wrong with finding value in a person whose body is what one's standards would consider a beautiful physical form. After all, that is the case in art all the time. I find the beautiful physical form even better in person.

It is not wrong to get physical and psychological pleasure from experiencing the five senses with a person one finds to be of great physical beauty, as long as that standard of beauty is based on an Objective standard that his highly discriminate. That kind of sex is different than sex based on love or even friendship.

For instance, I like women who are curvaceous, not skinny, tall, with distinct lines of body definition and very toned legs, large symmetrical breasts and a perfectly symmetrical, round behind and a pretty face that has striking angular features, and feminine hands and a pretty, straight smile. We've all seen statues and paintings like this made by artists who had similar standards and created or painted representations of what they see as human physical perfection. It is pleasing to the eye so much so that it is pleasing to the mind.

I've sought out women (and married one for higher, moral and psychological reasons because I admire her values) like that because being in their presence pleased me, and having sex with them moreso.

That is different than debased, animalistic sex because it is highly discriminate and requires an appreciation of distinct forms. There is nothing wrong with that.

Edited September 23, 2006 by Antonio

[Lathanar]

Why is it necessarily indiscriminate?

When you are having sex just for the pleasure of it, what can you discriminate on? You have to pick someone, or something as the case may be, yes. If you start looking for someone that simply looks like they will be a good lay, or some nice docile looking sheep, what values are you choosing other than what you think will give the highest amount of pleasure for the effort? Where are you deriving that value from to say it's being discriminating? I don't find indiscriminate, casual sex to be immoral soley because it's not a response to values, it's also where the values being responded to are derived from.

There's a lot of positions being stated and half of them seem to be that you must find certain amount of value in the other person and the other half that the person must be the highest value in their life. I have issues with some of the value flinging Rand does in her descriptions of sex, it gets contradictory at places and is hard to sort out, but some of the value flinging on here is much worse. Sex should be a response to values another person holds that match your own, in other words, you should like each other. How much you should like each other before jumping in bed is up to each person.

[edit for clarity]

Edited September 23, 2006 by Lathanar

[Lathanar]

That said, if one has objective standards of such facets of life like behavior, law, art, beauty, etc. there is nothing wrong with finding value in a person whose body is what one's standards would consider a beautiful physical form. After all, that is the case in art all the time. I find the beautiful physical form even better in person.

It is not wrong to get physical and psychological pleasure from experiencing the five senses with a person one finds to be of great physical beauty, as long as that standard of beauty is based on an Objective standard that his highly discriminate. That kind of sex is different than sex based on love or even friendship.

Not to pick on you, but your response is a nice case in point so I'll use it. This is not discriminating sex. Your are picking someone to sleep with based on what you value without regard to what they value. At that point you might as well be sleeping with a good looking sheep, as long as it looks good, who cares what or if it thinks?

[JMeganSnow]

Well, yes and no. As you say in the next part of your post, that "value" could be entirely irrational. The value, in other words, could be enitrely a figment of their imagination; an evasion of the facts.

People can make it "work" with such evasions, at least enough to go through with the act. But in the sense of making it a pleasureable experience, even physically speaking, this will fail.

Valuing something does not presuppose that it's a rational value, at least in the case of humans. You can certainly build up a web of evasions and lies about why you value someone--Francisco in AS explains that this is how many people wind up with a completely screwed-up sex life, unable to desire what they admire--but, nevertheless, you will be unable to enjoy sex unless you act on your fundamental convictions.

If you really think that your body is a bunch of instincts, needs, and gross urges slung together outside your control, you will, of course, be attracted to the idea of letting it go off and satiate its desires without your interference . . . not that you can actually do this in reality. That is, in fact, why it's immoral to try to pretend that you're a piece of meat: you aren't.

If, however, you recognize that desire is not simply a matter of chemicals, but of your automatized, chosen value-judgments, you will also not just "want sex" but want sex with someone that has certain characteristics. Those specific characteristics are highly dependant upon individual and situation and may change over time as you live and attain greater stature, so I don't presume to dictate them to anyone.

[JMeganSnow]

Not to pick on you, but your response is a nice case in point so I'll use it. This is not discriminating sex. Your are picking someone to sleep with based on what you value without regard to what they value.

You're assuming that great physical beauty is something that "just happens" and has no other meaning. Trust me, this is a load of hooey. You know something they value: their appearance. You may not know everything that they value (or why), but I doubt that you can know that much about anyone without, say, being married to them for fifty years. Maybe not even then.

You don't have to have the Vulcan Mind Meld in order to recognize that someone values something that you also value (their appearance, perhaps, particularly the aspects of their appearance that you find most appealing) and for this to draw you to them. And, depending on your personal situation, that draw may make it a good thing for you to sleep with them.

[Antonio]

Not to pick on you, but your response is a nice case in point so I'll use it. This is not discriminating sex. Your are picking someone to sleep with based on what you value without regard to what they value. At that point you might as well be sleeping with a good looking sheep, as long as it looks good, who cares what or if it thinks?

Presumably, she would think the same of me. At least in my experience they have told me so, so they value something in me as well. To clarify though on my point before, part of the reason I have my favorite physical type is that it is incumbent on appreciation of human beauty, humans being the highest of creatures and because physical attraction to other humans is a natural part of humanity.

It is, after all, natural because that's the instinctual basis of reproduction. On the other hand, it is not natural for an animal of any kind, human or otherwise, to have that reproductive instinct with another species. Because nature, to be commanded, must be obeyed, one disobeys nature by having sex with another species. On the other hand, I view my conclusion of what makes a woman physically the most beautiful as my commanding nature.

I am taking an instinct, and using the capacity of cognitive reason and logic unique to humans to refine it, in much the same way that we take the instinct to want to be warm and not only create a covering for our bodies, but create clothes that is comfortable or aesthetically pleasing. Or taking the instinct of seeking shelter from the elements and not just going into a cave or under a tree, but building sophisticated structures.

So I take my natural attraction to the opposite sex and refine it to a specific standard of beauty that most pleases me. Now, this is on a physical basis only and doesn't cover the intellectual side. As far as the need of the other woman, I guess I hate to put it this way, but I'm frankly just being selfish by wanting to have sex with a beautiful woman whose appearance and sexual skills please me.

You're assuming that great physical beauty is something that "just happens" and has no other meaning. Trust me, this is a load of hooey. You know something they value: their appearance. You may not know everything that they value (or why), but I doubt that you can know that much about anyone without, say, being married to them for fifty years. Maybe not even then.

You don't have to have the Vulcan Mind Meld in order to recognize that someone values something that you also value (their appearance, perhaps, particularly the aspects of their appearance that you find most appealing) and for this to draw you to them. And, depending on your personal situation, that draw may make it a good thing for you to sleep with them.

Exactly! Well put.

If someone works out, uses products that make their skin or hair nice, wear makeup in a way that accents naturally positive features and wears clothes that is flattering to one's body type, they value themselves as a human enough to have pride in their appearance and be proud of who they are. Even if, say, I disagree with someone politically, I admire that they care enough of the value of humanity to care about themselves and their value as a person like that.

Edited September 23, 2006 by Antonio

[RationalBiker]

When you are having sex just for the pleasure of it, what can you discriminate on?

Species.

You can keep trying to equate having sex with a human being for their physical beauty to having sex with sheep, but it does not logically follow. Your first question above suggests that you do not recognize that a person has discriminated, at the most fundamental level, by species. Bluntly speaking, I know you can't be that stupid. So yes, if a person would just as soon have sex with a telephone pole or a guinea pig as another human being, I would agree that that represents 'indiscriminate sex'. However, once they pick someone in their own species, they have started 'discriminating'. At that point, it's a matter of degree as to how much they discriminate.

At the most fundamental level, the primary difference between sex with a person and sex with an animal is that you are actually sharing or exchanging a value with that person, and the potential exist for greater value sharing in the future. Unless one is raping the other, they are sharing a great physical pleasure with each other. The mere fact that they sought each other's consent in the first place is evidence of that. The same thing cannot be said of the animal. The animal has no concept of sharing and has no concept of exchanging value. While the human DOES think (though you may not know much about what yet), for all intents and purposes, the animal DOES NOT.

Even if a person initially sets out merely to experience physical gratification with another person, the possibility exists that their shared experience can lead them developing a relationship of far greater value in the future. Yes, I would agree that that is probably a highly inefficient way of seeking out one's "soulmate", if that is what one were intending to do. However, sex with a pig will always remain sex with a pig. There is no future in it. There was no trade of value to begin with, nor will the possibility ever exist of a trade of value. This would indeed be mindless, valueless sex. I would agree, within any context I can think of at this point, that having sex with an animal does speak volumes about a person's self-esteem, and the distinct probabilty of epistemological, emotional or psychological problems. (and just in case anyone cares to make a "life on the farm" case for sex with animals, I'm not really interested) However, once they have decided to stick with human beings, a greater understanding of the context must be known before one can objectively derive such conclusions.

value flinging

I have no idea what you mean by this term.

How much you should like each other before jumping in bed is up to each person.

This may be as close as we will get to agreement on this issue.

[JMeganSnow]

Yes, good question. It's discriminating allright... in any way besides one which considers the partner's mind.

Not . . . quite. If you accept my theory that it's actually not possible to have enjoyable sex with someone you don't value in any way whatsoever, you wind up remembering that you can know a lot about someone just by looking at them. For example, I can look at some fake-tanned, bleached-blond teenybopper wearing a tank top and shorts that between them only contain enough fabric to make a pair of socks . . .not to mention the body glitter and bubble-gum-pink lip gloss . . . and know, absolutely, that here is an utter airhead that doesn't deserve any further consideration whatsoever. Given, she may grow out of it, but until then: AIRHEAD.

"Great physical beauty" is only a term meaning "appeals to my personal esthetics", and, given that people use clothing, hair, and physical appearance as a method of communication, this also means that if someone appeals to your personal esthetics, they also have at least some of the mental states that lead you to derive your personal esthetics.

It is possible, though, that many people draw these conclusions without ever consciously noticing them. I've certainly had any number of men tell me that they don't notice/care about whether women pluck their eyebrows/dye their hair/what have you, but when they run into a woman that doesn't, they treat her differently. Actions speak louder than words.

Projecting an appearance that matches your mind is a matter of integrity and it's wrong to assume that your first impressions are the work of some kind of shyster until you have evidence to the contrary.

Let me sum up all my posts for ease of reference:

Sex purely for the sake of physical gratification? Doesn't actually exist. Is it wrong to pretend that you can have sex for purely physical gratification? Well, duh.

Sex with someone purely based on their physical appearance? Fine, depending on context--just like sex for other reasons. If you found a woman only middling-attractive but of stellar mind and slept with her, no one would care. In fact, they might respect you for finding spiritual matters more important than physical ones. It's the same thing if you find a woman fantastically attractive but only of middling mind.

Now, ideally, you would get both--just like you would ideally get your dream job right out of school. In my experience, it takes a rare person indeed to even be qualified for their dream job or perfect relationship right out of the starting blocks. There's a good chance you wouldn't even know it if it bit you. You could insist on utter austerity in the face of imperfect qualifications, but why torture yourself unnecessarily? That is the question I have never seen given a satisfactory answer. Failed relationships can hurt, but from what I've seen they never hurt more than endless repetitions of "I'm not ready for a relationship" or "I can't find anyone good enough." The first kills your self-esteem, the second kills your admiration for other people.

[The Wrath]

I haven't had time to read all of the rather lengthy posts in this thread, but I have to say it's amazing how a thread on sex becomes so long so quickly.

Edited September 23, 2006 by Moose

[JMeganSnow]

Important Issue + Hotly Disputed = Many Lengthy Posts

Elementary mathematics.

[RationalBiker]

Sex purely for the sake of physical gratification? Doesn't actually exist.

I think this is pretty much where my thinking is going. One must have necessarily made some value judgments, consciously or unconsciously, when selecting another human being to have sex with. Knowing what those value judgments are and the full context under which they are being made would be essential for determining the morality of a given act.

[RationalBiker]

Elementary mathematics.

Actually it's a special branch of math called Forum Mathematics.

I think there are coefficients involved based on the controversy of the actual issue and the intensity with which each poster holds their position. Unfortunately I don't know the exact formula.

[Lathanar]

Species.

You can keep trying to equate having sex with a human being for their physical beauty to having sex with sheep, but it does not logically follow. Your first question above suggests that you do not recognize that a person has discriminated, at the most fundamental level, by species. Bluntly speaking, I know you can't be that stupid. So yes, if a person would just as soon have sex with a telephone pole or a guinea pig as another human being, I would agree that that represents 'indiscriminate sex'. However, once they pick someone in their own species, they have started 'discriminating'. At that point, it's a matter of degree as to how much they discriminate.

Forget the reason of why I am doing an act, just that I chose the settings? I don't care who I sleep with as long as they are a) human, b ) female is enough to make it discriminate non-casual sex?

At the most fundamental level, the primary difference between sex with a person and sex with an animal is that you are actually sharing or exchanging a value with that person, and the potential exist for greater value sharing in the future.

Ok, you sleep with a woman who is absolutely beautiful. What value did you gain? Would you gain less value from admiring their beauty if you didn't sleep with them? Are you gaining value simply by being able to say I slept with her?

What value do you get simply from sleeping with someone without consideration of who they are, what their values are or what they represent? People keep saying that a man who sleeps with beautiful woman is discriminating based on the value he finds in her beauty. So what? What about the woman? That is not a situation of finding your values in another, he is not concerned with the woman's values are so how could he even exchange them? What if she's a communist? What values are you celebrating then? Forget the ideology as long as I find value in her form. In this context, the less you know about a person when you sleep with them, the better, as long as you're pursuing your own values ignorance is bliss when dealing with other people.

Edited September 23, 2006 by Lathanar

[RationalBiker]

Forget the reason of why I am doing an act, just that I chose the settings? I don't care who I sleep with as long as they are a) human, b ) female is enough to make it discriminate non-casual sex?

Are these statements or questions? The above two sentences are incoherent to me.

Ok, you sleep with a woman who is absolutely beautiful. What value did you gain?

Just below the section you quoted which prompted this question, I wrote;

they are sharing a great physical pleasure with each other.

You may personally not get any value from a great sexual experience with someone unless you share more, but that does not mean others do not. Aside from what is being shared, one can learn things about one's own sexuality, one's sexual technique, etc.

That is not a situation of finding your values in another, he is not concerned with the woman's values are so how could he even exchange them?

It's very confusing when you make statements and end them question marks. Is this a statement or a question?

In this context, the less you know about a person when you sleep with them, the better, as long as you're pursuing your own values ignorance is bliss when dealing with other people.

Whatever you are talking about here has no relation to what I'm talking about.

[Lathanar]

Are these statements or questions? The above two sentences are incoherent to me.

They are questions. I'll do a question at atime and work through it if it's esiear.

Is the fact that I pick a human woman to sleep with mean it has gone past indiscriminate sex?

For the questions you answered

they are sharing a great physical pleasure with each other.

That is hedonism when pleasure is the value. I say it is immoral.

[~Sophia~]

Sex purely for the sake of physical gratification? Doesn't actually exist.

It does exist. Humans do have physiological sexual needs. Arousal and a strong desire to release sexual tension can happen by itself, meaning not in response or based on any value judgments. Since your body can get to this state by itself and since to think or not is a choice it is possible to have sex purely for physical gratification. You have no control over getting hungry but you do have control over how you choose to satisfy your hunger.

In order for your mind to make a correct evaluation, and then following that, for your body to respond in harmony with your chosen values you must present your mind with all the necessary facts. If you do not acknowledge some of them - you mind will make an incorrect evaluation and your body will respond incorrectly.

If you only consider someone's physical appearance and never bother to find out more, you may never know that for example this person is a nihilist. In essence, you are dropping context. Without knowing all the facts you are able to have sex with this person (after all you do value beauty - as you should) but I would dare you to try after you do know the full truth about this person. And if you still can - your problems are beyond the scope of this discussion.

Total mind and body integration is not something we are born with. It is a goal we have to strive for. It can only be achieved by never evading reality, by never blocking anything from your mind so that your mind can always make correct evaluations. It is only then that your automatized responses will be in accordance to your chosen values. If you fake reality, in this case by blocking parts of it, you will never achieve integration.

I do not believe that one needs love in order for a sexual relationship to be proper. But it is never moral to turn off your mind to any aspects of reality. A moral sexual relationship, not based on love, is the one in which you acknowledge all the necessary facts about the other person to allow yourself to make the correct value judgment, judgment based on full context and in accordance to your chosen values. After you do that and rationally decide to have sex – it is not immoral even if you are not interested in pursuing a relationship with this person (I can think of many reasons why you may not want to or are be unable to).

Casual sex is not immoral but it can be.

[RationalBiker]

Is the fact that I pick a human woman to sleep with mean it has gone past indiscriminate sex?

Yes, for purposes of your comparison to sex with animals being the same as sex with humans. It's a very minimal amount of discrimination, but as I said, it's a start.

That is hedonism when pleasure is the value. I say it is immoral.

Let the record show, so mote it be.

Casual sex is not immoral but it can be.

Is this the first time we agreed on something? (j/k)

I agree with this statement.

[Inspector]

I do not believe that one needs love in order for a sexual relationship to be proper. But it is never moral to turn off your mind to any aspects of reality. A moral sexual relationship, not based on love, is the one in which you acknowledge all the necessary facts about the other person to allow yourself to make the correct value judgment, judgment based on full context and in accordance to your chosen values.

How could you do the part in bold, conclude you don't love them, and still want to sleep with them? If you're truly not evading anything and truly conclude they're not all that and a bag of chips, then on what basis are you deciding to have sex?

Failed relationships can hurt, but from what I've seen they never hurt more than...

And that is of course where we differ.

I'll have to chew on the rest of what you said.

To start with, I am leery of the practice of quoting Ayn Rand

Both you and RationalBiker mentioned this so I will address it:

Quoting Ayn Rand on an Objectivist forum in answer to the question of "Why do a lot of Objectivists think 'x'?" is entirely proper. It says, "a lot of Objectivists think 'x' because it is in fact a part of Objectivism."

Obviously, it then gets into questions of why this conclusion is drawn and so forth, and arguing about whether it is consistant, rational, applies to situation "x," etc. You'll notice I'm not using quotes for that part of the discussion.

[Inspector]

That is different than debased, animalistic sex because it is highly discriminate and requires an appreciation of distinct forms. There is nothing wrong with that.

It is different only to a certain degree. Making the choice only on the basis you listed is to choose one's sex partner without any consideration for their mind or values (beyond whatever values gave rise to that appearance). This is precisely what Ayn Rand was condemning in the passages listed and what I have been arguing against here.

So, I disagree. There are quite a few things wrong with that. A physical appearance will only tell you so much about a person's character and values. It won't tell you enough to know whether it is a good idea to hop into bed with them.

As a reducto ad absurdum, I offer Christian Bale's character from American Psycho. Or any other well-groomed serial killer.

Honestly, I really doubt you mean your position the way you have written it. You don't see anything wrong with sex with a person who you can't stand their personality, their values, their convictions, etc, just so long as they're good-looking?

[Lathanar]

Yes, for purposes of your comparison to sex with animals being the same as sex with humans. It's a very minimal amount of discrimination, but as I said, it's a start.

Then sleeping with a sheep is discriminate sex. If we can't agree even on the very basics of what discriminate/indiscriminate sex is then there's not much point in continuing this.

For the quoting Rand, I believe a lot of the quotes put forth in this thread were in response to 'Rand never said what her stance was' type of statements.

Edited September 24, 2006 by Lathanar

[Inspector]

Also, to Antonio:

Humans do not have instincts. You might want to check the currently active thread on this.