The Wrath Posted September 21, 2006 Report Share Posted September 21, 2006 (edited) [Mod's note: Merged with an earlier thread. - sN] A couple of recent threads have made me wonder why this is the stance of Objectivists. Why is it that Objectivism considers it immoral for a man to have sex with a woman that he doesn't value? Sex is a physical desire and, in most people, a psychological need. If a man cannot find a woman whom he can truly love, what is immoral about having safe sex with women he meets at bars, to fulfill his physical and psychological needs? As long as she has no delusions that he is in love with her mind, I see no reason that this should be immoral. The same applies to prostitutes, in my opinion. No one would claim it is immoral to buy food from a woman that you don't love. Why, then, is it immoral to buy sexual gratification from a woman you don't love? In both cases, money is exchanged for something that fulfills the physical and psychological needs of the customer. Edited October 4, 2006 by softwareNerd Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RSalar Posted September 21, 2006 Report Share Posted September 21, 2006 Why, then, is it immoral to buy sexual gratification from a woman you don't love? In both cases, money is exchanged for something that fulfills the physical and psychological needs of the customer. In my opinion the people who think it is wrong to have sex for pleasure outside of a love relationship think that sex is evil and degrading. Why else would they think it is immoral? I personally think sex is good ... no … I take that back, it is GREAT!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Wrath Posted September 22, 2006 Author Report Share Posted September 22, 2006 But that seems to be the common thread among posters on this board yet, at the same time, none that I know of think sex is evil and degrading. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LaszloWalrus Posted September 22, 2006 Report Share Posted September 22, 2006 This might sound like a strange question, but I pose it in an attempt to answer your question/statment by analogy: What is wrong with having sex with a corpse or an animal? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lathanar Posted September 22, 2006 Report Share Posted September 22, 2006 In my opinion the people who think it is wrong to have sex for pleasure outside of a love relationship think that sex is evil and degrading. Why else would they think it is immoral? I personally think sex is good ... no … I take that back, it is GREAT!! Love is only a portion of it, it all comes down to the reason your doing it. Do some reading on hedonism. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Inspector Posted September 22, 2006 Report Share Posted September 22, 2006 In my opinion the people who think it is wrong to have sex for pleasure outside of a love relationship think that sex is evil and degrading. Why else would they think it is immoral? I personally think sex is good ... no … I take that back, it is GREAT!! Yes, why else besides the religionist reason would anyone possibly restrain themself from any hedonistic action? /<sarcasm> That is precisely the false dichotomy that exists on every other issue out there. This time, it is applied to sex. Moose, What would be helpful is if you let us know what part of your question has not been answered by the other threads. I'm specifically thinking of the most recent thread that was active as of a few days ago. Narrow it down a little, I mean. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Wrath Posted September 22, 2006 Author Report Share Posted September 22, 2006 The recent threads are about strippers and such. I'm talking about the idea that sex has to be an expression of love and value for the person you're having sex with. I understand that a life of hedonism is immoral, because it precludes more important aspects of life. However, there is nothing wrong with pleasure-seeking, provided that physical pleasure does not become the sole focus of one's life. If I were single and got horny, I fail to see what would be wrong with me going to a bar, in the hopes of picking up a girl to satisfy my physical desires. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IAmMetaphysical Posted September 22, 2006 Report Share Posted September 22, 2006 If I were single and got horny, Sex is a physical desire and, in most people, a psychological need. My objection to "sex just for physical pleasure" rests on my disagreement with these two statements. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lathanar Posted September 22, 2006 Report Share Posted September 22, 2006 The recent threads are about strippers and such. I'm talking about the idea that sex has to be an expression of love and value for the person you're having sex with. Try this thread Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Inspector Posted September 22, 2006 Report Share Posted September 22, 2006 Try this thread Yes, that's the one I meant. Especially the beginning where I provide the source material. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
konerko14 Posted September 22, 2006 Report Share Posted September 22, 2006 A lot of you are mentioning hedonism. But what is wrong with pursuing a pleasure that doesnt have any negative consequences? You would experience the sensation of that pleasure without negative consequences, so in effect, that would be a good decision to pursue the pleasure. Im trying to connect this to a sexual experience. What are the negative consequences of having sex with a person you dont value? If there are no significant degradations, then seeking the pleasure doesnt seem to be a wrong choice. This might sound like a strange question, but I pose it in an attempt to answer your question/statment by analogy: What is wrong with having sex with a corpse or an animal? The corpse and animal didnt give you consent to have sex with them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vladimir Berkov Posted September 22, 2006 Report Share Posted September 22, 2006 I too think many of the objectivists on this board are on the wrong track concerning sex. I think this is a result of two things. 1.) Objectivists' reluctance to admit the strongly physical and instinctual nature of sex. 2.) Ayn Rands rather odd personal view of sex which is woven into her novels as well as her non-fiction. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Inspector Posted September 22, 2006 Report Share Posted September 22, 2006 Im trying to connect this to a sexual experience. What are the negative consequences of having sex with a person you dont value? If there are no significant degradations, then seeking the pleasure doesnt seem to be a wrong choice. This is the problem: There are always bad consequences when you approach sex that way. The idea that you can have hedonistic, physical-only sex and not involve emotional or psychological consequences is a myth (started by the hippies, most likely). A lot of people just don't believe that. They just think they can divorce all mental aspects from sex and it will all work out. That sex doesn't have to be about values. That they can make non-A out of A if they try really hard. I fear that many will just have to learn this the hard way. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Groovenstein Posted September 22, 2006 Report Share Posted September 22, 2006 Inspector, since you frequently comment on this subject (and I recall you having noted that you often find you are repeating yourself), perhaps you would find it helpful to take the arguments advanced with which you do not agree, and address them one by one in a blog people could access. I am not at all trying to discourage you from forum participation, I just thought you might find this idea helpful. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bold Standard Posted September 22, 2006 Report Share Posted September 22, 2006 A couple of recent threads have made me wonder why this is the stance of Objectivists. Why is it that Objectivism considers it immoral for a man to have sex with a woman that he doesn't value? Don't confuse views discussed on this message board with the official stance of Objectivism on any issue. I do not believe that this is the Objectivist stance, and I think a case can be made against this being Ayn Rand's position. However, I have noticed that it is the position of many on this message board. I'm not wanting to argue one point or the other; I just wanted to make the distinction between the stance of Objectivism (which nobody here can speak for, officially) as apart from the stance of particular Objectivists or students of Objectivism. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrassDragon Posted September 22, 2006 Report Share Posted September 22, 2006 A couple of recent threads have made me wonder why this is the stance of Objectivists. Why is it that Objectivism considers it immoral for a man to have sex with a woman that he doesn't value? My answer: Because sex is by its nature an expression of value, you have a pyschological contradiction if you have sex with a woman you don't value. Your body is saying, "I value this," and your mind is saying, "I don't value this." My personal experience--feeling terribly/guilty/bad after having sex with someone I don't value, even a long time later--seems to me to me confirm this fact. Sex is a physical desire and, in most people, a psychological need. I disagree with both of these premises. Sex isn't a psychological need - you can do just fine without it, and many people do. Sex cannot also be said to be just "physical desire," because a goat or something could provide a lot of the same physical stimulation as could a woman, but you probably don't have any physical desire to have sex with a goat. (Or a moose, as the case may be ) Rather, sex is "physical desire creating value." You create value by having sex with someone you value, and achieving value is one thing (besides, say, metaphysical joy) that leads to happiness. In both cases, money is exchanged for something that fulfills the physical and psychological needs of the customer. If you're analogizing sex with fruit, I think sex with a prostitute could be said to be rotten fruit. For the above reasons - it doesn't create value, it destroys value (or creates negative value). As a footnote to my comments - as far as I know, they're consistent with Rand's writings, and thus Objectivism. If this is the case, it's not surprising (to me) that many people on this forum would feel that sex with someone you don't value is immoral. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RSalar Posted September 22, 2006 Report Share Posted September 22, 2006 Maybe a quote would help: October 6, 1949 Philosophy of Sex and Morality--By Ayn Rand Note: The reason why people consider sexual desire insulting to a woman is, in the deepest sense, the fact that to most people sex is an evil, low, degrading aspect of man's life. Since most people, in their philosophical premises, have damned themselves and life on earth, their sex desires and actions are an expression of evil (this is clearest in the case of desire for a woman consciously estimated as one's inferior). On such a premise, sexual desire is insulting to the woman who is the object of it. Conventionally, the man is supposed to redeem this insult by the so-called higher, spiritual implications of marriage; but, if marriage is not involved, sexual desire is supposed to be insulting. The twisted element of truth here is that sex has to have a high spiritual base and source, and that without this it is an evil perversion. But the actual relation of sex and spirit is not the way they believe: they believe that sex is evil as such, and that the spiritual aspects of marriage serve to redeem or excuse it, or make it a pardonable weakness which has no tie with and is opposed to the spiritual elements of the relationship. They do not suspect the essential, unbreakable tie between sex and spirit—which is the tie between body and soul. On the right philosophical premise about sex, on my premise, it is a great compliment to a woman if a man wants her. It is an expression of his highest values, not of his contempt. In this sense, a husband would feel honored if another man wanted his wife; he would not let the other man have her—his exclusive possession is the material form of her love for him—but he would feel that the other man's desire was a natural and proper expression of the man's admiration for his wife, for the values which she represents and which he saw in her. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Groovenstein Posted September 22, 2006 Report Share Posted September 22, 2006 RSalar, what are you saying? More specifically, to whom and what are you responding with that quote, and what is your take on it? If you intend to continue suggesting that one can be only a puritan or a hedonist, I highly recommend that you reconsider that intention. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Felix Posted September 22, 2006 Report Share Posted September 22, 2006 This is the problem: There are always bad consequences when you approach sex that way. The idea that you can have hedonistic, physical-only sex and not involve emotional or psychological consequences is a myth (started by the hippies, most likely). A lot of people just don't believe that. They just think they can divorce all mental aspects from sex and it will all work out. That sex doesn't have to be about values. That they can make non-A out of A if they try really hard. I fear that many will just have to learn this the hard way. This is a good point. I feel like this, but haven't been able to back it up with reason, as I saw none. Which negative consequences follow from hedonistic physical-only sex? Can you expand on that? It would be helpful. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RationalBiker Posted September 22, 2006 Report Share Posted September 22, 2006 I see that Bold Standard has already posted a wise disclaimer, but I thought I would add my own as well. I think everyone should be mindful of the fact that values are not intrinsic, they are personal to each individual (as in) - to whom and for what purpose. I would be very weary of any claim that physical-only sex is universally bad or a disvalue. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LaszloWalrus Posted September 22, 2006 Report Share Posted September 22, 2006 Im trying to connect this to a sexual experience. What are the negative consequences of having sex with a person you dont value? If there are no significant degradations, then seeking the pleasure doesnt seem to be a wrong choice. The corpse and animal didnt give you consent to have sex with them. My point with the corpse/animal example was to demonstrate sex TOTALLY divorced from spiritual values; even if the animal enjoys the experience, it is still wrong. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Inspector Posted September 22, 2006 Report Share Posted September 22, 2006 The twisted element of truth here is that sex has to have a high spiritual base and source, and that without this it is an evil perversion. Wow, that's about the clearest I've ever heard Ayn Rand speak on the subject of this thread. And, with that quote, I don't think that there can be any mistaking what her position was. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Inspector Posted September 22, 2006 Report Share Posted September 22, 2006 (edited) Inspector, since you frequently comment on this subject (and I recall you having noted that you often find you are repeating yourself), perhaps you would find it helpful to take the arguments advanced with which you do not agree, and address them one by one in a blog people could access. I am not at all trying to discourage you from forum participation, I just thought you might find this idea helpful. I've actually done that for another topic (the Communist term "state capitalism"). The reason I don't is because I honestly don't ever mean to get into these debates. It's just that, as you can see from the above quote, Ayn Rand had a very strong position on this subject. So strong that I am stunned when people don't get it. I hope from here that I can just link to that topic (or just ignore them) and be done with this subject. Oh, anyway thanks for the tip. 'Preciate you looking out for me. Edited September 22, 2006 by Inspector Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lathanar Posted September 22, 2006 Report Share Posted September 22, 2006 Wow, that's about the clearest I've ever heard Ayn Rand speak on the subject of this thread. And, with that quote, I don't think that there can be any mistaking what her position was. Here's more quotes from Rand' interview I think are rather appropriate. I would say that a selective and discriminate sex life is not an indulgence. The term indulgence implies that it is an action taken lightly and casually. I say that sex is one of the most important aspects of man's life and, therefore, must never be approached lightly or casually. A sexual relationship is proper only on the ground of the highest values one can find in a human being. Sex must not be anything other than a response to values. And that is why I consider promiscuity immoral. Not because sex is evil, but because sex is too good and too important.and What sex should involve is a very serious relationship. and Physically, sex is merely a capacity. But how a man will exercise this capacity and whom he will find attractive depends on his standard of value. It depends on his premises, which he may hold consciously or subconsciously, and which determine his choices. It is in this manner that his philosophy directs his sex life.Hopefully this will end the question of where Rand's stance was. This is a good point. I feel like this, but haven't been able to back it up with reason, as I saw none. Which negative consequences follow from hedonistic physical-only sex? Can you expand on that? It would be helpful. As I've been understanding it, you gain pleasure from obtaining values, you don't gain values from obtaining pleasure. Pleasure is the consequence, not the root cause. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
konerko14 Posted September 22, 2006 Report Share Posted September 22, 2006 My point with the corpse/animal example was to demonstrate sex TOTALLY divorced from spiritual values; even if the animal enjoys the experience, it is still wrong. Yeah, I understood what you were saying. But I wanted to say that the reason it is wrong to have sex with a corpse or animal isnt necessarily because the act would be divorced from spiritual values, but because the entities didnt give permission to the living human. 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.