RSalar

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.

You are misinterpreting what I am attempting to do. I am not pitting Rand against her philosophy. I am trying to show that having an affair (or whatever you want to call it) can be a moral act. It seems to me that if Dr. Peikoff can say (which he publicly has done in the documentary previously mentioned) that, as far as he knows they did have an affair, then it should not be off limits here. To appear to be protecting Objectivism by limiting discussion of this important topic (because it is so controversial) only gives credence to those who believe that the philosophy needs protection (and I don’t believe it does). Objectivism is good because it stands on its own two feet. It should be “defended” with reason but it needs no shield of concealment. (And I am not saying you are trying to conceal anything.) There is sufficient evidence to indicate that it is highly likely that the affair did occur—and anyone who studies Objectivism will eventually discover this fact. So we have two choices: 1) Deal with it head on, or 2) avoid the discussion. It seems to me that avoiding the discussion is not in the best interest of Objectivism.

Since you are interested in justice I am sure you can provide the post # to back up this accusation.

I think I understand your intended meaning but a net loss (as such) is not the deciding factor in determining if a choice is moral or not—it is how that choice was made. "A rational process is a moral process.*) It's up to the two of them to work out what they think is or is not in their best interest (and each are responsible individually for their own morality). They may make mistakes along the way -- but what they decide to do or not do, if based on their reasoning, is moral (in the context of their lives, their relationship, and their happiness). Once their actions extend beyond their relationship, those actions can be judged by the moral concept of rights. If the woman has a problem with her boyfriend going to strip clubs she can ask him to stop and if he refuses then she can leave him. The man in this relationship must decide for himself if the value of going to strip clubs is a higher than the value he receives from being with the girlfriend. If she decides, based on her rational judgment, that she wants to allow or even encourage her lover to go to strip clubs, his decision to go (with her permission) may be wrong (and result in a net loss) but it is not immoral on that basis alone. *I quote John Galt: "A rational process is a moral process. You may make an error at any step of it, with nothing to protect you but your own severity, or you may try to cheat, to fake the evidence and evade the effort of the quest—but if devotion to truth is the hallmark of morality, then there is no greater, nobler, more heroic form of devotion than the act of a man who assumes the responsibility of thinking."

I never demanded anything. All I said was, "Before one can "agree" with it in its entirety one would have to understand it in its entirety." I think that is a true statement. How did I misuse the mind-body dichotomy concept? Do you mean when I said: If you agree with her philosophy you have to apply it in your life? Doesn’t Objectivism hold that it is wrong for someone to believe one thing and do another? And you are saying that is not what is meant by the mind-body dichotomy—the lack of integration between mind and body? If that is not what it means then what does it mean?

Thank you for asking, softwareNerd. So far I know I agree with John Galt when he said: "This much is true: the most selfish of all things is the independent mind that recognizes no authority higher than its own and no value higher than its judgment of truth."

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!!

She said: "I appreciate all opinions on this topic and will commit to replys." So it is fine for us to explore other scenarios--maybe she will start letting him go and he will learn that he doesn’t need to any more. Maybe they will fall deeply in love because of her open mindedness and understanding and they will live happily forever and ever …

It's a yes or no question and all you said was that you are not sure about a whole lot of things. You seemed pretty sure of yourself when you made your accusations about me--and you know far less about me than you know about Rand (I hope). So lets have it: Was she a subjectivist/hedonist for having the affair?

You keep calling me all these different names. I’ll spare you the embarrassment of asking you to explain what purpose that serves.

You are helping me make my point. Two lovers can have whatever type of agreement they wish to have. It is their private business (as long as they do not violate the rights of others)--and if a wife (or girl friend) decides it is okay with her if her husband (boyfriend) goes to strip clubs then it is totally moral and proper. I know a guy who lies to his girlfriend about playing golf! To those who think it is so bad and immoral to go to strip clubs I wonder which they would rather have: an honest partner who gets “permission” to go to strip clubs or one that lies about playing golf?

Do you plan on getting around to answering the question?

"In a man of fully rational, fully integrated convictions, emotions follow the judgments of reason as an unforced, automatic response." Ayn Rand letters January 3, 1961. I would assume that "desire" for an attractive woman (looks alone) would be an emotional response based on man's "animal" nature. Even a rational man is still an animal. A rational man according to Rand (IMO) would not have this animal desire, he would only desire the women that he reasoned are of high moral character. And since his emotions are not off in space, (they are in his body) his body would naturally respond in a physical way (in this case the sexual desire would manifest itself in his groin). My point is that if this is true then unless an "Objectivist" had a physical response while visiting a strip club he could honestly say that he did NOT desire the naked women that he watched while drinking beer with his buddies.

A fair question. What kind of evidence would satisfy you? 1) Written firsthand account or admission of one of the participants, 2) accounts of close personal friends of the participants, 3) eye witnesses, 4) other. If you have seen Michael Paxton’s Documentary: “AYN RAND a sense of life”, what did you think of Dr, Peikoff comment about the affair? (Do you consider it evidence? Do you need evidence beyond any and all doubt or just beyond any reasonable doubt? Further, if I do present this evidence and you became convinced it did happen, would it change your opinion of the morality of going to strip clubs, hiring hookers, and/or having affairs?

I was responding to and commenting on JMeganSnow's definition. I can not find the term “Objectivist” used by Rand to describe a person in any of her writings. I would like here definition and meaning of this term. The other people you mention can no longer get her endorsement and authorization so what they say about it is not necessarily what she would say. Anyone can call themselves an Objectivist and argue vehemently that they qualify but that alone cannot and does not make them into something they are not.

There are other ways to expand your mind other than your chosen career. Why not work in Small Town, earn your living by treating flue symptoms and delivering babies, for 1/10 of what you could earn in NYC. Then once your doctor workday is over spend rewarding time studying the life cycle of the Arctic mole and photographing landscapes. In this hypothetical scenario your central purpose is not doctoring for maximum material gain, instead it is to experience and enjoying the people, topiary and fauna of Alaska. Now, since your career (productive work) is not your central purpose, it fails the Objectivist Ethics test standard.

So do you also think that Ayn Rand's affair with Nathaniel Branden was immoral and "subjectivist/libertarian" and offensively hypocritical?

I was asking the question as it relates to material gain being an essential part of a man's "central purpose." The NYC -vs- Small Town, AK is a hypothetical case. I was wondering if, because material gain is an essential part of her formulation, one should consider the amount of material gain over the non-essential spiritual considerations. According to the, "thinking rationally and working for material gain is central to a happy life," theory (my distillation of her formulation) one must engage in a "constant upward motion from one achievement to another, higher one, driven by the constant expansion of his mind, his knowledge, his ability, his creative ingenuity, never stopping to stagnate on any level. " The Small Town job does not provide this--it provides "spiritual values" instead. I believe these other spiritual values are as important (and sometimes more important) than the income and the challenge, but it appears to me that she was strictly referring to material gain alone.

So moral sexual desire to you is: "“Consider that sexual desire is a response to personal values. For a rational person, it is not a desire for mindless, indiscriminate indulgence, but a feeling that results from the embodiment in one's lover of one's highest, most important values.” Going to a massage parlor is not (necessarily) a mindless, indiscriminate indulgence. Yes, it is an indulgence but choosing the right one is very important. You should look for cleanliness and a low chance of being raided by the cops. You also want to make sure that the women are skilled and beautiful. If you do not use your reasoning ability you could end paying a lot for a low quality experience or you could even be arrested. The rest of the quote, " ...but a feeling that results from the embodiment in one's lover of one's highest, most important values," is a little strange. Does this mean that you can only have a moral sexual desire for your lover? Wouldn't that mean that masturbation is not moral? Also ... do you believe in the “no mind-body dichotomy” theory that basically says (I think) that a desire is not a desire unless it manifests itself in a physical response? In other words, do you believe that a “moral sexual desire” can be a mental activity alone or does it have to manifest itself physically in one of your erogenous zones?

By "your nature," do you mean RSalar's or Man's nature? By the above do you mean that it does matter how productive you are after the "minimum material gain" threshold is met or that after it has been met then the amount of production is not important? Let's say that X career is being a doctor in a small town in Alaska where at best I will earn $80,000/yr and X+Y career is being a doctor in NYC where I could make $800,000/yr: Based on material value alone the NYC location is my obvious choice but I love the recreation that Alaska offers and I hate big cities. (NYC= BIG MATERIAL/small spiritual value. Small Town Alaska=BIG SPIRITUAL/small material value) If I base my decision on Objectivist Ethics do I work in NYC or in small town Alaska?

Do you believe that it is possible for two lovers to have an agreement (that is moral according to Objectivist Ethics) that permits such acts as going to strip clubs, hiring hookers, and/or having affairs?

Why would it have to be "published" to take physical form? Wouldn't transforming a blank sheet of paper into one that has words on it (namely your thesis) meet the physical manifestation requirement? The more important issue might be: Is this one copy of your paper a material value to you? The problem that I am now wrestling with is this: Career A produces X material gain for my effort. Career B produces X + Y material gain for the same effort. Assuming I potentially could pursue either career (i.e., I have the physical and mental ability – and both careers are available in the marketplace), is the amount of material value I produce (or could potentially produce) a significant factor in determining the morality of my choice? If it is not, then productive work for me could produce very little material gain (like paintings that never sell), even though my work is good according to my highest standards. It would be possible to imagine a “productive career” that produces so little material value as to not even allow my continued existence on this planet. Since the purpose of productive work is to allow me to exist and to ultimately find happiness the amount of material gain has to be an important consideration. Since the amount of material gain is important then the question becomes: how much is enough? And this brings me full circle to where I was at the beginning of this thread. Why not work hard for 20 hours a week, make lots of money (even if you do not enjoy your work) and then spend the rest of your time pursuing things that do bring joy and happiness? In this scenario the independently wealthy man could research and solve philosophical problems without any concern for material gain—and be very happy in the process. But his "productive work" would no longer be his central concern. Happiness without a career being the central purpose ... Oh Boy!!

Can you explain what you think "moral sexual desire" is? I personally would be very interested in your view.

I agree, and the Ayn Rand fans that believe there can be only one moral agreement between lovers should do more research into Rand’s life before stating their condemnation so emphatically.

If you want to know the purpose of this thread you will find it in my opening post. I never said that.