Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Paeter

Regulars
  • Content Count

    8
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Paeter

  • Rank
    Novice

Previous Fields

  • Country
    Australia
  • State (US/Canadian)
    Not Specified
  • Relationship status
    No Answer
  • Copyright
    Copyrighted
  • Biography/Intro
    There is very little of substance that I could write here.
  • Experience with Objectivism
    I've recently started reading Rand's books and I've listened to a lot of her philosophy and have so far agreed with the vast majority of it.
  • School or University
    Adelaide University
  • Occupation
    Unemployed
  1. As far as I know, there is excellent scientific proof that the human mind is not a tabula rasa if by that you mean there is no innate human nature at all. There most certainly is and must be. Steven Pinker's a Blank Slate is a good refutation of tabula rasa. We don't have any 'innate knowledge' but we have a nature. This and a few other things is why I don't consider myself a 'proper' objectivist. Philosophically speaking, Rand is probably correct, there is no innate knowledge, but I think what is mixed up here is innate knowledge and innate nature.
  2. Thanks. I agree mostly but I find that people who have radically different sexual desires are outliers. Variation is quite limited. There is an 'aggregate expression' of sexual attractiveness and definitely of facial beauty which can be mathematically determined. It might simply be that the outliers are wired differently. As far as I can gauge, what you find sexually attractive is not a choice just as what you find tasty is not a choice. Some people don't like chocolate but most do. Some people don't like certain foods that most people like but they are only outliers who also don't have a choice. I think that loving someone can indeed make them more sexually attractive but it is only an amplifier for what was already there as raw sexual attraction. I suspect that it can be tweaked a little bit but not significantly. As far as Objectivism goes, so far this is the biggest thing I have a problem with. Ayn Rand's views on sex are no doubt very different from mine. She was a woman too and women have different evolutionary psychologies regarding sex. For a female, a man's looks had less importance for survival and replication. Since a man's value for a woman would be mostly based on the survival part and thus a man's personal qualities literally produce feelings of sexual attraction in females like looks do in males. But thank you for pointing out that this is not a big part of Objectivism.
  3. I only see two and as long as protection is used I don't see that the risks of pregnancy or infection are very great. The risks are so small that it'd be like not eating food because it might be poisoned or not driving a car because you might get hit by another car. Perhaps you mean other things that I'm unaware of. Sex to me has very few consequences. It's just cheap fun.
  4. All of this just leaves me even more confused about Objectivisms stance on sex and casual sex. I understand the love part. Could you say I find the taste of fat pleasurable because of my values? Well, yes, I suppose. I value fat because it is a calorically dense nutrient and helps with my survival. But this is biologically programmed into my brain. These values are a result of evolutionary psychology. To me, so are the values of sexual attraction. Youth meaning fertility. Being slender meaning youth and health. And so on. I'll come back and write more when I re-read these posts and read more about Rand. For now, I'm not sure if I simply disagree with the assertions or if I just don't understand the argument on this subject. I have to think about it more and learn Objectivist philosophy more deeply before I can really come to any conclusions.
  5. See. This is my problem with sex being only for the expression of love. It's silly. If you love a girl's mind then that's one thing but to have a long term sexual relationship with someone require a spark of sexual attraction otherwise, you are nothing but really close friends and having sex with her would be a sacrifice (maybe not altruistic but still) and not done for the pleasure of the sex. You might be pleased that you made someone you love happy by having sex with them and so it's not altruistic, but it's not giving yourself the sexually satisfying sex you would rather have. You need both sexual attraction and love for it to work.
  6. You see, I have no idea why some people hold sex as such an important act all the time. There can be sex for the act of expressing your sexual desire and love for someone and then there can be raw pure lust driven sex for the reason of getting off. It's not much unlike masturbation which is purely for the sexual release and pleasure of it, only more pleasurable, exciting, and enjoyable and instead of imagining you're having sex with that hot girl, you actually are. I'd like to understand why some people view sex as such a heavy topic. It's just a particularly pleasurable act between two people. Personally, I've only had two sexual partners both in proper relationships but not by choice I envy those who can get six in a year.
  7. This is the reason I had to join some forums to ask about this part of her philosophy. Up until now, as I read and listen to Ayn's philosophy, everything has been totally rational and understandable. I've agreed with practically everything (except for a state being necessary for capitalism). Everything follows well and it allows for a man to make his own rational value judgement. With this particular topic of casual sex, I understand her reasoning once she explains her view on sex but I do not understand why she assigns certain values and meanings to sex from which she draws the conclusion that casual sex is not OK. She never explains why she sees it the way she does. It's just sort of asserted to be that way. If it is that way, then you can understand how it could be a detriment to man's life but I do not agree that sex in all instances must be interpreted to mean what Ayn interprets it to mean. Sure, sex with someone you love is better and more enjoyable but that is not reason enough to class sex with someone you do not love as detrimental. I cannot see any reason why casual sex for the pure mutual enjoyment of the experience with someone else you find physically sexually attractive is detrimental to man's life. If masturbation is OK and one does not agree with the following: "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." then I see no rational argument against casual sex. I may make a thread on this explaining why I cannot understand Rand on this point. Why is sex so important to Ayn Rand. Where does all this importance come from? I've read some explanations but none have been satisfactory. I understand to females physical looks are less of a factor. Why must sex not be anything but a response to values? How is this rationally derived? Where does this come from? What if I value a woman's body in the matters of sex? If I were to really only have sexual desire for those who illicit the greatest values then why wouldn't I have sexual desire for men with these values? Why wouldn't I have sexual desire for 60-year-old obese women with these values? Does she denounce all physical attractiveness? To me, this is absurd. I've never gotten and never will get a raging boner from listening to a girl describe awesome values. Should I disregard my innate sexual drive to have sex with the most physically attractive females despite their values? Isn't that detrimental? I know it would make me pretty sexually frustrated and unhappy. Why can't I pursue both a meaningful relationship with physically attractive females and also pursue casual sex in the mean time when there are no girls who hold values enough for me to love? Lastly, the chances of meeting such a girl worthy of love and therefore sex is next to none. In this case, if casual sex is immoral, I'm left to a life of masturbation and celibacy. That, to me, is detrimental to my life. The other option is to lower my standard of love but love is not really a choice. On the same token, sexual desire is not a choice. I just have it for some girls and not for others. Finding and having sex as an expression of self esteem and intimacy with a girl I both love and have sexual desire for is optimal but I don't see why having sex for the pleasure of it with a girl I simply have sexual desire for is detrimental when it serves to bring me pleasure, human physical connection, satisfaction and enjoyment. I apologize if this is necroposting and for the somewhat in-cohesive rant. I'm trying to unpackage this notion of casual sex being immoral under objectivism.
×
×
  • Create New...