Lathanar

That's femininity, different thread here I don't think hero worship is really germane to this thread.

1) What is your definition of affair? I think that may be part of your problem here. 2) Where in any of the published literature does it say having an extra-marital relationship is immoral? 3) What does her sleeping with Nathaniel that have to do with strip clubs? I see nothing to deal with, and these issues are probably better dealt with in a separate thread.

Here's more quotes from Rand' interview I think are rather appropriate. and and Hopefully this will end the question of where Rand's stance was. 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.

Try this thread

I'd say you have the right to make as much noise as you want as long as it does not impair someone else's property, i.e. you need to sound proof yourself as best you can. The same can be said you can shoot a gun on your property all you want, but you better make sure the bullets don't go onto someone else's. You are initiating the action and are responsible for it's effects. Property damage issue. That does not invalidate rights.

Love is only a portion of it, it all comes down to the reason your doing it. Do some reading on hedonism.

That enters a whole other subject. Nudity is not lewdness. What have they done improper by being nude? I don't think anyone would argue that the majority of our decency laws in this country are built upon christian moral principles, or that the social conventions around nudity are based on the same. One of the corner stones is the original sin from eating the forbidden fruit. What was the first thing Adam and Eve did after eating the fruit? Why did they do it? Answer that and you'll see why I think the not quite so arbitrary conventions on nudity in our society are wrong.

I was wondering how long someone would bring this one up. Clothes are supposed to perform a competely utilitarian purpose, protection, sanitary, etc.

I disagree. It may not be immoral to go nude, but it is definitely a moral issue in our society. If you tried to remove the laws against public indency/nudity you'd get all sorts of rejections on moral grounds from the religious groups.

The difference is walking in public nude will get you arrested for indecent exposure. Nudity in a film will reduce the audience allowed to view it, etc. If going nude were simply a social gaffe, I doubt anyone would really discuss it at any length. Social views on nudity are a much stronger moral issue than shaving your legs.

I'm not catholic nor ex-catholic so I don't see what that has to do with it. If you're taught for so long that nudity is bad and wrong, then when confronted with situations of public nudity, I don't see why it is so hard to believe that the result would be shame. Not that their bodies are to be ashamed of, but it is shameful to be nude. It would be very interesting to find a study of how many adolescent kids in junior high/high school experience ill feelings towards having to change clothes in front of their peers. When I went to school, there were many who refused to and would rather put up with whatever ridicule from other kids over hygene then expose themselves in front of others. There's ample historical references to stripping people naked in public as a major form of humiliation. There are many many online articles about the taboos against nudity you can research for yourself.

What about the sexual insecurities and uneeded shame that the taboo of nudity brings? What about the underlying reasons why society treats nudity as unnacceptable? You may attribute it to hiding it so it's of more value sexually, but I don't think that's what a majority of the rest do.

As a rational person I'd say I'd want to admire the perferction in the human form. As a married man I'd say two breasts are all I need. So the whole point of hiding the sexual organs is to make them more sexual?

But is it a rational man-made fact? You could view it as an evasion, we know there are breasts under that bra, but we can't see them. Why is it rational to have to hide what we know is there.

Just because they are there doesn't mean your going to have sex with them. Every person you meet has (or at least should) have sexual organs under their clothes, you know they are there. Some clothing accentuates the fact that they are there. So what is the difference if you see them or not, other than social taboos.

How do you come to this conclusion?

I think you misunderstood what I was asying. I said This does not say they are certain of their value, and I think it coincides with the boundaries of your definition. The last part of my statement You can be certain that someone has value to you, but you may not be certain of their value, they may not be a represntation of ALL your values. I would not lump those into casual. I like this.

Can we try and put a better definition to what constitutes casual sex? For example in SN's post he brought up I would not consider sex for someone who "likes the way another person looks and likes many things about them, but aren't really in love with them" to exactly be called casual sex. I'd consider casual to be along the lines of sex with someone you really don't know anything about, but not necessarily that you aren't certain of their value.

Perhaps defined wasn't the best term to use in that instance but ya'lls following posts were what I was hoping to trigger anyways, so I'll take it. I can accept your metaphysical aspects of sex But I have a hard time translating that to Responding to values, fine. Responding only to all values is taking that a lot further without intermediate steps of how you get there. There would be a lot of virgins walking around, I've been a very immoral person if that's a requirement for sex. I view that idea sort of as a moral standard for sex qua man, the ideal sex.

Is it metaphysical fact? I don't offhand remember it being defined that way and I have no materials on hand to look. This sounds a bit like the determinists arguments against or for homosexuality and other 'abnormal' sexuality on the basis of we have no choice.

You do not gain moral pleasure from the physical actions you are chosing between, you gain pleasure from chosing the correct action to perform. That is what brings long term happiness, by making the correct decisions in your life that prolong it, not by doing what feels good.

So your idea of a rational value judgment is which physical act will gain me the most pleasure? That places the standard of your values, of your morality, as being whatever gives you the most physical pleasure, not rational reasoning. Choosing between two evils is not making a rational decision.

Morally, you live for the pleasure and happiness you achieving from rational value judgements, not from physical pleasure. I was replying to David's line about hedonism, not the love in sex. I don't recall ever seeing Rand state there must be love in sex or that sex without love is immoral. Just that sex be discriminate and based on rational values instead of the physical pleasures obtained.

Hedonism is physical pleasure as the standard for value and morality, not reason. What feels good is good. It's viewing pleasure as a goal, not as a consequence. True pleasure is a result of rational value judgements.

It'd be interesting to see how much of the businesses would leave if this ever occured.