[Proportional responses in civil law]

Basically I've always been of the oppinion that the government should give out just punishment for the violation of rights, in essence and "eye-for-eye" mentality - but I have heard very good arguments for going beyond that and figured I would see what you guys think of the subject.

I have personally not been able to argue well against this position, that has been presented to me by other objectivist friends.

To concrete the issue, if you use grafitti to vandalise someones property, in most cases a fair retribution would be a substantial fine or perhaps a few weeks of prison.

But if our goal is to prevent vandalisation to begin with, why not implement "unfair" laws - say a five year minimum for vandalising property?

Surely this is proportionatly extreme, but proportion is no virtue in foreign relations - why would it be so domestically?

Im quite certain the amount of people vandalising would go down hugely if the sentences where really creating a huge disincentive.

To take the discussion further, it would not seem a just or proportionate response to execute someone for the crime of aggrevated assault or vicious rape - ten to twenty years in prison would seem more reasonable and "just" (obviously there will be contextual differences, but I can see none that would justify execution, atleast in civil cases) but executing them certainly would create a greater disincentive - aswell as assuring they dont repeat the action.

I am not saying that I support disproportionate or unjust sentencing, the reason I have a problem arguing against these positions is simply that it would seem practical for me to live in such a society.

I have no intention of doing anything that would be considered criminal under Laissez-Faire, so how would it not be selfish and thus moral for me to advocate such positions?

[Who should we be supporting Israel or the Palestinians]

In Norway it is clearly wrong - they have no enemies.

- While I obviously dont support the draft in Norway (allthough I found the experience of military training quite enjoyable myself) I must point out that this is not the case.

Norway is a part of NATO, and has about 500 soldiers in Afghanistan. That may not seem like much, but keep in mind there are only 4.5 million people living in Norway to begin with, and from the drafted soldiers about 5% continue to be professional soldiers serving abroad (primarily Afghanistan). Just last week we lost four soldiers in the line of duty.

If we dont have any military there is obviously little incentive for NATO to keep including us, and considering that we share boarders with Russia it certainly helps being a part of NATO.

The Russians deployed somewhere from 100-250000 soldiers on our boarders back in what I think was 1995 as a military exercise. We did not know it was an exercise however. Our boarder defence consists of four hundred soldiers. So we definetly need an army - and our NATO membership.

However, one can not judge Israel in the same manner, as the context is so very different, the draft in Israel is an existential imperative, rendering moral judgment irrelevant.

- I dont think it is, the impression I have is that most Israeli youth have no problem serving in the army for a few years to protect their nation.

If it had not been for the fact that you have to be of the Jewish race to serve in IDF (unless your born in Israel, or convert to Judeaism) I might have considered enlisting myself.

They should have no problem aquiering personell without forcing those whom have no interest in warfare to risk their lifes against their will. Thats slavery.

[Youth and (lack of) sex]

People who are comfortable with their sexuality are usually able to maintain a good relationship and don't need to prove anything by sleeping around. I've never seen unrestrained promiscuity as a sign of self-esteem.

- What do you mean when you say "comfortable" about their sexuality?

And this general idea that less sex = more confidence is no axiom.

It may be that some seek sexual encounters to validate that they really are the great people they belive to be - and certainly meeting a girl that find you interesting and charming is going to effect your level of confidence (just as if you where constantly rejected at some point it would not help), but there is no reason to think that this is generally the main motivator.

And even if it was to be, I cant see how that would imply anything about them being comfortable about their sexuality, though I am still not certain of your definition of the term.

A man should be concerned about finding a woman worthy of having sex with, not having sex in itself. This is the problem I find when most people tell someone they "should've had sex by now." The point is that sex means that there's someone worth having sex with

- No, sex means simply that - intercourse.

What makes a girl worthy by your standards?

For me it comes down to being cute, interesting and fun to hang around.

if said person isn't, then there is no reason for someone to have had sex.

- Sure there is! Its provides tremendous physical pleasure.

When you go to an gourmet restaurant it does not lead anywhere, and probably isent even healthy for you - but it is enjoyable there and then.

It is a good experience. There is nothing evil in that.

There are many more factors to consider aswell, first of all that if you find sex enjoyable you should seek it in a larger degree while you are still young and in that sense relatively physicaly optimal - otherwise I suspect it may be something you could end up regretting later in life.

Off course not if you end up having your first sexual encounter at 28 and end up happily married - but rather if you should have your first encounter at 28, marry and then get divorced at forty.

There is also the question of experience, I am fairly certain I was quite bad during my first encounter, but these things change drastically with experience.

I fear that if your experience is exclusively with one you would not have aquired the same skills - and when you do meet the women of your dreams, how would she react if you are on the same performance level as her first boyfriend at fourteen?

[Mosque on the Twin Towers ruins]

In the scale of insanity the fundamentalist is the most dangerous specimen, operating on an almost sociopath level, whereas the saner among them tend to be closer to minor mental ailments- still suffering from impaired judgment, but less so.

- This is true, but my point is that fundamentalism in Islam is waaaay more common then it is in Christianity (200 or so times greater perhaps?).

This is a consequence of the nature of both scriptures, as explained previously.

There is no way most muslims at some point will be as secular as most Christians are. The Quran simply does not make it an option in any fashion.

[Mosque on the Twin Towers ruins]

It is not "egalitarian" to say all religions are equally wrong. It is a statement of fact. The factual claims made in the Bible are no more or less true than those in the Koran. In fact, if one is truer than the other, it would probably be the Koran, since it was written much more recently and by (more or less) a single person...

- Im talking about equality in how bad it is, not how wrong it is.

Islam is obviously wrong, as is Christianity.

Was this your only prior point?

Cause that seems to have little relevance in the discussion.

As you point out the Quran is written by one man (well, woman, Muhammed was illiterate) - and insted of coming with vague stories and statements like the Bibel, the Quran is pretty explicit about how one should kill infidels, homosexuals, women who dont "behave", etc.

The Bible also states similar things, but seeing as its so much more open to interpretation (and consequently why there are waaay more Christian movements then Muslim ones) these things are no longer the oppinion of most christians.

While maybe one in ten thousand Christians would belive homosexuals should be executed if they have intercourse with the same sex - the same number in the muslim world would probably come closer to 30-60% somewhere - maybe more, considering that most muslims still live in the old countries with much less western influence.

Consequently Islam is a much bigger threat then Christianity, and the battle against it of superior - not equal - importance.

Muhammad really did gain a political following in Medina, and then go back to conquer his former detractors. If Jesus Christ even existed (which is far from certain, by the way), he was not born in Bethlehem and many of his escapades are pretty low on the historicity scale.

- I am well aware of this. How is it relevant?

Trying to break up Islam into two dominating sects (Shi'a and Sunni) is no more accurate than breaking up Christianity into three (Catholic, Protestant, and Orthodox). Although, in both cases, each particular denomination can be lumped into one of those categories, there is wide disparity within them. I'm not going to give a full taxonomy of the different sects within both Sunni and Shi'a Islam, but suffice it to say that they are wide and varied.

- Could you give me.. Oh say, like 1000 examples? Considering Christianity got like 25-26000 I mean..

As mentioned there is not much wiggleroom in the Quran. There are no big theological disagreements seperating them. Or could you perhaps point to a few?

If you want to argue that there is a "true interpretation" of either religions, then I challenge you to do so.

- You could just read the Quran (its boring though, prob a chapter would suffice), its pretty streightforward.

Just like Mein Kampf is pretty hard to misunderstand..

Off course, some do interpret what Muhammed is claimed to have done, instead of written down - and sometimes these differ. Like the beating of women is allowed in the Quran, but some claim that since Muhammed did not do it himself its really not..

But there internal differences can not even start to compare to Christianity.

And when it comes to the practical actions selfproclaimed members of the seperate religions perform to this day - there is just no way you could consider them "just as bad". There simply not.

[Mosque on the Twin Towers ruins]

It somewhat boggles my mind that there would be such disagreement on this issue.

Most Oist I know in real-life would never make the obvious egaliterian error it is to equate all religions as "equally bad".

Claiming something is equally bad is no different then claiming it is equally good - to any promoters of reason this should be clear.

Christianity is MUCH better then Islam.

How they used to function is no argument against there presence today, and it should be obvious that most christians do not advocate theocracy - atleast comparativly in numbers to the muslim population.

When it comes to "there is no true interpretation" this is also false.

There are about 26000 different christian communities, while there are about two dominating Islam movements (where I would presume 98% of muslims would place themselves) - and their difference is purely based on strategy and the practical organisation of the movement - not about the word of the prophet.

The Quran represent "gods" excact words communicated through Muhammed. This is much harder to creativly interpret then the bible.

I know Christianity is much stronger in the US at present then it is here in Europe, and that may influence ones perspective on this context - but to be honest I can not see how anyone could consider the two religions an equal threat to humanity and liberty. They are not.

[Iron Man 2]

If a country was free in every aspect besides that it violated the intellectual property of armsmakers then it would obviously still be worth defending, as it would not be a significant enough negative. USA today is far from this, which comparatively would be quite the ideal-state, and is despite of that obviously worth defending atm.

I do however recognize that it is somewhat of a silly question, as a scenario where the armstrade based in the US would be unwilling to trade with the US military with regards to lifesaving weaponry seems quite unlikely - but it was a subject I have not previously considered, which is not a frequent experience when applying objectivism to concrete politics.

I assume you would agree that the military can temporarily confiscate private property during a military campaign if they view it as necessary to defend the nation? (Such as stationing soldiers in a private estate to withstand an invasion, etc) - if so, would this not also apply to the requisition of intellectual property given that there where no other ways of gaining that military advantage?

The point has been made that lifeboat ethics does not apply to the realm of ethics, but in this case that would be kind of silly considering that any case involving how to win a war necessarily would fall under a lifeboat context (the movie is an exception to this, so in that context im not advocating that the government should be able to steal his technology).

In such a context, I cant see any way that violating the intellectual property rights of the manufacturer would not be a selfish and legitimate act.

Or am I missing something?

[Iron Man 2]

This may be a bit of a spoiler;

but is there no case where a military violation of copyrights could be morally justified?

Lets say you have a local manufacturer that does not want to trade with the US Army, while the confiscation of his technology would severly reduce the losses of American lives?

I obviously realise that such a practice would damage the level of development in the long run (as people would have less incentive to produce) - but could it not be applied to lifeboat ethics?

It would seem somewhat rationalistic to NOT violate copyrights if it would increase the odds of winning an armed conflict drastically.

Lets say you have a local manufacturer that does not want to trade with the US Army, while the confiscation of his technology would severly reduce the losses of American lives?

I obviously realise that such a practice would damage the level of development in the long run (as people would have less incentive to produce) - but could it not be applied to lifeboat ethics?

It would seem somewhat rationalistic to NOT violate copyrights if it would increase the odds of winning an armed conflict drastically.

[Objectivism and Dating]

Depends on your view of how a proper relationship should work, personally I always pay on the first date (most dates, really, but whos counting), but appreciate that she makes some sort of effort to pay for herself aswell - just to wave it off as absurd .

[Gambling]

This was a pretty huge bump from 2005, but regardless I would like to comment, even though the original poster probably is no longer paying much attention .

I've traveled around Europe and Africa the past year playing poker tournaments, and made a decent (not huge, but sifficient) profit. I love it, the andrenaline, the mindgames, the prestige, etc.

I also enjoy playing casinogames when im traveling, especially blackjack where you sit down knowing you'll get an on average about 98% return on your money, while having some drinks and cheering with your tablemates every time the house busts.

Its entertaining and social, and by no means immoral - unless you're wagering other peoples money (say you have a household, and bust your family budget on a drunken bend in Vegas) or wagering money you by no means can afford to lose and thereby justify the gambling to begin with.

[Becoming a US citizen?]

I'm assuming you can have your pick of a Norwegian college, and have the state pay for your education.

- The first ten years of public education are mandatory and "free". The following three optional years are free aswell. Following that (what I would call higher education, relativly) are not free, but you do get a government-loan of about 15 or so thousand dollars annually to pay for it.

And, if your parents are productive taxpayers, they are morally justified to send you there if they want to, and you're morally justified to accept their gift.

- After one year as draftee in the navy aswell as paying taxes of absolutely everything I do I have no moral reservations towards exploiting whatever options are there, but that does not change the fact that its still cold and dark in this region.

Besides, if I stay around for five years to study I could find myself with a girlfriend and a kid - then im pretty much obliged to stay here for the foreseeable future, which is not optimal .

Trying to move to the US as an uneducated 18 yo. on the other hand, is pretty much impossible. It would be hard to find a job all the way from Norway, and even if you do, they're not likely to give you a work visa.

- Im twentyone, but besides that I guess the same applies .

But what about the American dream here?

Would love to board a plain, bring a few thousand dollars and see where it can take me.

But I guess thats not an option anymore, atleast to the extent it was in the "good old days"..

Anyhow, appreciate the input

[Becoming a US citizen?]

After seeing Dr. Brooks introduction to some GOP event, where he mentions how he and his wife realised they only lived once, and figured that a life in the USA was optimal, it made me question what im still doing in Norway, knowing I fully agree on this topic?

Dont get me wrong, Northern-Europe is OK. We have free speech, decent money and freedom to an extent in general.

But its small, its cold, and it could be much better.

So basically my situation at the moment is that im applying for higher education here in Norway, but im not sure if any of them will allow me to relocate when im finished. Not sure if they will qualify me for much else then domestic work. Especially law school (obviously there is no huge demand for experts on Norwegian law abroad) that im strongly considering for the moment.

So I was just wondering if anyone knew how hard it would be to attain an American citizenship, what kind of jobs you could take as an uneducated foreigner, to what extent American studies restrict foreigners from participation (If there are strict performance-requirements im sure my options are fewer, as I know American universities do not value Norwegian grades to a great extent. And im not running streight A's by Norwegian standards either, so.. ), and so on.

Any suggestions would be helpful, thanks for your time

[Who would assume the position of dictator?]

http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0001525/

But I could be wrong...

[eRepublik Game:]

I am, however, researching alternatives. Brazil, Sweden, Bulgaria, Pakistan, Australia, China and Thailand are low-tax alternatives. It just does not look to be possible to run a business in Norway.

- At least not if the premise is Svalbard, as the online population probably exceeds the real one

But this sounds way fun, and considering im Norwegian im just gonna download it and hope Oist stick around in Norway

[Does psychological coercion exist?]

Off course seeing someone naked does not necessarily imply some destruction of the mind, nor am I claiming so.

But if you would, for example, stop a bunch of kids and expose yourself and start masturbating/etc I would seem that as an act which there is no rational reason for allowing.

And since I have no intention of ever doing so, but may consider getting kids at some point or atleast value a society where kids can grow up without sexual advances from grown men it would be in my interest that such behaviour was punished somehow.

But are we saying that there can be no laws against such, as phyisical violence is not a factor?

[Does psychological coercion exist?]

There is no crime but trespass

- Really?

It would seem obvious to me that people exposing themselves to kids or unwanting strangers should be punished in some way.

However, I guess its not directly use of physical force - but on the other hand it would seem in my interest to have a society where such people where put behind bars.

Lets say its not a couple right outside the school yard, but a fat man in his late sixties having a decent solo performance. Is his violation only trespassing? (And not even that, if its a road he has legally rented).

If the answer to that is no, should we define the crime based on the esthetical perceptions of whomever is watching?

And does that mean that whomever sees it fit can roam around naked with no fear of any legal retribution?

[Objectivist Voting]

If a hundred people live in the constituancy, and all of them need the road to get to work, but still somehow havent managed to build such roads then how would a vote on issue make any difference?

Surely the politicians dont have any more money then that in the possetion of its one hundred citizents, and considering that this is vital for all the inhabitants it would seem absurd that they wouldnt make it without the interference of government if it was financially possible or efficient .

When it comes to the general debate the ideal political system is obviously a constitutional republic where one can elect whomever one wants for whichever office is neccesary, but where such an election is merely a formality as the candidates themselves wont wield any real power - given how restricted they are in there options to begin with.

However, the best option is still a bad one, as no constitutional republic (or any form of government for that matter) can survive longterm unless it has the support of its voters.

If the majority of the population are socialists, then socialism WILL influence the politics of that nation, if not immediatly then atleast over time, no matter what..

[The "How many past partners have you had?" question]

Whoa, perhaps I didn't make a crucial thing clear enough here. It isn't about *how much* sex you've had or just any sexual encounters you've ever had. You can have a history of screwing a thousand strangers

- This meens I've still got some playing field left. Quite releving obviously

If you used to screw a ton of strangers, but changed your mind and were to decide "No more! Never again! People have got to earn their way into my

bed from now on, baby! " then now all is well.

- Also releving, is this something I could postpone say.. Five or six more years?

as long as you don't take so much time up on sex you start missing work and running behind on bills and stuff.

- Its kind of funny you should mention that, as it was a reoccuring problem in the Navy. One had to back on base by 06:30, sometimes a challenge on fridays. However, depending on your commanding officer, this was considered a legitimate reason for delay.

Ok, but joking aside, I agreed all along (think I made a point of it) that its a less rewarding experience having casual sex with someone you barely know compared to someone your in a comiteed relationship with.

If that person also shares your values it would be even better. But I have no experience on that topic, so im just guessing.

If it does not do you any longterm harm, then how is it more to ones interest not having intercourse up to the point where one gets in a comiteed relationship?

I dont see that a pursuit of that would exclude more casual relations in the meentime.

One could make the argument that no sexual interaction over a long period of time could be a psychological disadvantage, as it probably would effect your selfesteem. This would not be the case if one had made a conscious choise (explicitly turning down chances) - and that a negative response towards oneself as a consequence would be irrational. But then again alot of irrational emotions are hard to fight - take simple things like fear of flying, etc.

So as far as I can see, your shortterm consequences are decent (physical satisfaction), your longterm consequences are not that bad, and the abstence of any sexual relations could be a bad thing.

But obviously one would ideally have a nice girlfriend whos smart, funny - share your interest aswell as your perspective on philosophy and politics.

But I dont know anyone like that in my areacode..

Before trying to discuss this further I'd like to make sure your clear on this.

- Check

Offtopic:

(If the other examples help at all, with the Nobel Peace Prize example, they could become legitimate and meaningful again if they started only giving it out to really good people and decided to make it official that they no longer support their past awards to people like Obama and Al Gore. )

- I cant remember the last deserving person to get the award, and if one where to give it to people who actually did something good one would probably go against the explicit will of Albert Nobel..

And as long as nobody really cares who gets it anyways, why not use your seat on the commission to get a chanse to meet Obama?

If it had not been for the fact that Mr Jaglands English is on the level of my Mongolian, he might get something out of it..

[The "How many past partners have you had?" question]

Good post and im getting your point.

Your right that having casual sex makes you (or demands of you) not necessarily equate sex with love.

And as far as I can see the reasoning this is a negative is that when your actually having sex with someone you are indeed falling for/etc than that experience will not be as rewarding as it otherwise would have been had it not been for your prior experiences?

I can partly agree with that, and guess I can see some good reasons for not taking sex that lightly. Which is more then I could say prior to this debate, for the record.

But still the implication is that having to much sex necessarily cheapens the experience - which may make sense theoretically, but again I would claim it not to be the case personally.

The experience of intimacy with a steady partner is, based on personal experience at least, still quite different and a much better experience.

Off course, my first longer relationship started of after I had already had alot of experience - so I had already partly "cheapened" the experience if you will.

You can desire somebody just based on their body, so on the other end of things, can you romantically love somebody for who they are and yet not desire them sexually, to have them physically?

- No. That would seem absurd to me. If I love someone romantically (which I doubt I have so far) I would certainly want to have intercourse with the woman in question.

like you look at it as somebody can be one or the other and that's good enough, getting desire for somebody physically and mentally is just a nice bonus.

- The latter is obviously more then a bonus in a relationship. But I guess that its two different worlds, if your out with your friends just trying to pick up girls then physical apperance is obviously going to be the main factor. Any other perspective would be strange given the context.

When your looking for a girlfriend, obviously her values, interest and sense of life comes into play in a much more relevant role, which will in turn alter your perception of them.

But your premise is that doing the one thing will influence the other.

Thats obviously true to an extent, but the question still remains (imo) if it is so influencial that it would be in your selfinterest to shut out the first "world".

[The "How many past partners have you had?" question]

Bluecherry:

Sorry, didnt notice your response before you made me aware of it now.

Not my intention ignoring it off course . To my defense, my reply was five minutes after your post, which probably means I was writing a reply before yours became visible.

There are some screwy people out there who don't realize their own contradictions. There probably aren't a WHOLE lot of people who fit that exact trait list I gave, but I'd bet some do and anyway, the point is more to make this a girl who has a ton of stuff about them that goes so far against your values. There are definitely PLENTY of people who will fit that bill in some form, so it isn't some unrealistic thing.

- Thats probably true. Im sure most girls I've been with do not share my values to a consequent degree. Then again I hardly preach Objectivism much unless someone asks, and for selfperservation rarely have a philosophical or political quiz prior to intercourse

Anyway, depending on what you mean by "meet", there are plenty of females on this site your age who out and out oppose socialized health care in all forms. They do exist if you have some patience and go looking.

- That is a good point. I must admit I somehow regret registering with my full name at this point..

maybe even if you gave her some time to talk about her views of sex she'd tell you herself since after all, she thinks what she's doing in that case is a good thing.

- Im not trying to be very arrogant on this point, im not that attractive or anything, but if a girl whishes to sleep with someone out of pitty, shes not going home with me .

I'm not bashing wanting more physical stimulation at all, no, my point is more the old point about how the ends do not justify just any old means. If your means are corrupt, the result is tainted.

- Well, I dont think I agree on the methods being that bad.

Boy meets girl, boy complements girl, boy asks girl who she is, what shes doing in town, boy takes girl for a cigarette, boy tries making out with girl, boy eventually goes home with girl.

Theres alot of things that have to match up before getting to the final stage of it obviously.

And I dont see how it is corrupt or anything.

I never go out alone, stay sober and try to fool drunk girls or anything like that. I go out with my friends, get a few beers and sometimes end up with a girl. And I would definitly say my day was better with that conclusion.

[If you had to choose between your life and the life of a stranger]

When where discussing lifeboat ethics, it would appear to be a question of degrees in this scenario.

Under the alternatives you have written up, the answer is obvious and you presummably knew it prior to asking.

Lets take the other extreme, either you shot the stranger or you scratch your arm to the point where it is slightly uncomfortable.

In that scenario, it would seem quite cruel and immoral to kill the stranger rather then applying a smaller amount of insignificant damage to yourself.

Whats interesting (I agree that the subject as such is not, since its got nothing to do with real life, and is basically a debate for the sake of debating. But still, thats fun sometimes to ) is if you put up scenarios beetween the two.

Lets say you either choose your arm/leg or the strangers life, for example.

At what point from small insignificant injurie to life-disrupting injury/death would you chose to kill the stranger is in my oppinion a much more interesting, and quite tough, question.

[The "How many past partners have you had?" question]

Also, no offense, but please check your spelling Lasse. It's bad and it makes it hard to read your posts. If English is your second language I can understand, though.

- It is, and this is probably my first time writing anything in English since my last post on this forum about a year ago.

Which makes it challenging to write proper english, and as it would be quite a hassle to look up every single word im writing in every post, theres not that much I can do about it

Lasse, if all you cared about was physical satisfaction, an orgasm caused by masturbation is exactly the same as an orgasm caused by humping.

- First of, thats not all i care about. Secondly, no off course its not (!)

Orgasm achieved on your own is not comparable to intercourse. The latter usually goes on for quite a longer period of time, and the overall experience is obviously something quite different.

Im not going to go into more details on the specifics, but sex is not the same as masturbation.

If you go to bars and pick up women for one-night stands (this is what I mean by casual sex), then the goal is more than just sexual satisfaction, it's a sense that you succeeded at a conquering someone, which is a totally different feeling from falling in love.

- This is true. I never made the claim that you fall inlove after one night stands. You probably dont.

Why do people not want to fall in love? Why is OK to just pork every f*cking thing in sight but, in all that time you spent f*cking, you never tried to find someone you could fall in love with and have really intimate sex with them?

- Its not as like because you have casual sex your never going to find a relationship, or that the two are connected at all.

You can do both.

Why is the goal even sex!?!?!??!?!?!

- Because sex is fun? Just as a partial goal of selecting a restaurant is finding one with good food. Why? Because it taste good.

Why do you like driving snow-scooters? Because its fun.

Alot of times the goal of an action is merely to have fun, or experience something you perceive as good.

This is obviously a selfish course of action. And can be applied to your question here.

WTF is the point in having sex if you don't F*CKING LOVE YOUR PARTNER?!

- Because its still a better way to spend your friday evening then by yourself.

Again, that you dont experience the ultimate does not meen the less ultimate is somehow worse then the abstence of the whole experience...

[The "How many past partners have you had?" question]

To turn it around: the girl having the quickie with you is also refusing to know, evading, the real person that is you, therefore, she's also faking it.

So here you both are, putting up pretences about yourselves, and each other,

- Pretences?

Limited information does not equal abstence of information, nor does it equal lying.

You obviously get to know eachother to some extent prior to coming in a situation where anything more is possible at all.

and you want to tell me that this is real? and that this pleasure?

- Uhm, yes..?

Then what about the morning after.

Any little, white lies about calling her soon?

- Rarely.

Its not like you dont call someone again even though you had a one-night-stand with them. Some you do, some you dont, and some you never got the number to begin with.

Do you seriously believe that your self-esteem can survive all this deceit?

- Yes.

please don't try to equate casual sex with rational selfishness. If you feel good, it's a range of the moment thing, that has nothing to do with egoism, but plenty to do with egotism.

- Off course its got something to do with rational selfishness. If I decided to only have sex with Objectivists for example, I would not have sex. Or switch lanes, which is not much of an option either .

That does not meen that sex cant be something important, intimate and meaningful, off course.

But that does not meen its immorall to have sex when its not as important, intimate and meaningful.

Satisfaction IS in my interest, as long as any potential longterm effect wouldnt make it something else.

And so far I can not see that being the case.

Told you: been there, and as they say, You can't kid a kidder.

- You obviously had quite a different additude going into it. Im obviously not going to state I think its in my interest if I dont.

If I thought it was not, I wouldnt do it.

But as long as it appears obvious that it does, it would be silly not doing it.

[The "How many past partners have you had?" question]

Would you want to have sex with somebody still at all if you were to learn they were a fundamentalist Christian intent on seeing abortion outlawed, health care socialized, generally thought rich people were evil and deserved to be knocked down a peg or twenty and that everybody should be forced to devote a certain amount of their time to “volunteerism”

- Well, the question is not in my oppinion based in reality (along the "what if somebody buys every single house on earth, where will we live?" line ). First off fundamentalist christians dont get drunk, and prob dont have casual sex. And if they do, they probably dont do it with Objectivists .

But personally, given your specifics, I would not. Primarily because of her position on abortion, which makes the risk/reward scale conclude its not worth it.

When it comes to healthcare and bashing rich people - Definetly would.

But then again, I've never meet a girl my age who oppose socialised healthcare. And I dont meen Obamas solution, I mean outright government monopoly on all important procedures.

and that they wanted to have sex with you as an act of charity because they figured you probably aren’t the type who many people would want to have sex with often and it is a virtue for them to take pity on what they believe must be making you feel bad about yourself?

- How would you know her motives?

If she expressely stated "you disgust me, but if you make it quick then OK" - then that would take some of the charm out of it obviously .

But since she probably wouldnt say so (and I doubt this happens much at all), I dont see how this could be a part of our decition making.

Why are you intent then on hurrying up having sex before you know what so much of the rest of what your getting into bed with is if it could change your assessment and desire so much? It isn’t as if you’ll suddenly explode if you don’t have sex with somebody else soon enough.

- Its an oddsgame, most girls in there early twenties are not radical christians (not here, anyways) - and would probably not sleep with you out of pitty.

But if you had the impression that she didnt, and it turns out afterwards that she infact did, well - so what?

Done is done. You had your fun. Ok, she didnt like you afterall. That wouldnt affect me to a degree which would make it more rational not having casual sex at all.

So, I having a sneaking suspicion that in many cases people may be having sex with others “casually” simply through a desire to evade the actual nature of who they are involved with.

- I doubt that.

What they really want is basically just another body to use as a fancy masturbation aid to make things better, but since that doesn’t exist with current technology states today, they try to pretend as if that’s about all there is to another person they have come across, or perhaps treat another person like a doll in that case where they take something like it has no existing personality and graft a desirable one onto it with their imagination.

- To make things better? What things need to get better?

You could say it does nothing more then give you instant satisfaction for that night. But theres nothing inherently wrong with instant satisfaction.

I dont see why you would come with this doll-imagery. Its obviously a real person your having sex with, and shes having sex with you. You both went out looking for a good time, you both got it - its a voulantery deal (meaning both parties consent and by any trade principal implying they both gain from it)

[The "How many past partners have you had?" question]

There are basically two ways to be square with yourself in life. The first way is to have high standards and live up to them. This is difficult, though. A much easier way is to have low standards, trivial standards, or no standards and do whatever feels good at the moment.

- Why are high standards/doing what feels good contradictory?

Im interpeting high standards as actually doing something with your life. Getting a job you find respectable, and get good at it.

But why would your high expectations of yourself stop you from going out once a week, pick-up some girl and stay at her place?

That would automatically suggest you have a low expectation of your own life or the value of yourself?

I can understand how your personal deevaluation would be a negative (obviously) - but deriving this as a necessary effect from having an above average amount of sexual partners makes, to me, little sense.

There is another point to be made, and that is if your going to exclusivly have intercourse with people sharing your beliefs then odds are your not getting laid at all. Ever.

Is that a superior moral option?