Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Contact Methods

  • ICQ
  • Website URL

Previous Fields

  • Sexual orientation
    No Answer
  • Relationship status
    No Answer
  • State (US/Canadian)
    Not Specified
  • Country
    Not Specified
  • Copyright

Recent Profile Visitors

1477 profile views

Krattle's Achievements


Member (4/7)



  1. Nor am I denying the importance of sexual attraction, which is partly physical (although sexuality is more importantly a function of the mind and not the body). But the OP as well as many Objectivists tend to treat real live people as if they were characters out of one of Rand's novels. The simple truth is that so-called God given looks and character + personality have ZERO causal connection. Certain things do, such as overall physical *condition* and hygiene because those are under direct volitional control. And so those should be given primacy over physical attributes that are totally outside the control of the individual, such as how long one's legs are or one's height. But the OP seems to be focusing on physical attributes to the outright exclusion of personality and character. The woman he is with is an amazing person by his own admission, but her body isn't good enough so she's unworthy of a romantic relationship. Frankly, that is the definition of shallow. If your standards of what is physically attractive have that little wiggle room, then I don't really see how you are capable of a healthy romantic relationship. Here's a thought, have you ever considered going to the gym with your girlfriend, or going on bike rides, or doing something physical? If her "unattractiveness" stems from too much body fat, or whatever you consider too much, then maybe you can work out together and she will lose that as a result.
  2. Alfa, you missed my point entirely. My point was that those things do not *necessarily* go together. That they do not logically entail each other at all. Yes, they may HAPPEN to be combined in a person but that's rare. You missed my point entirely... Has everyone forgotten Notre Dame de Paris? La Esmeralda was "in love" with the tall, handsome Phoebe whom she THOUGHT/ASSUMED was a dashing, gallant, caring man. Yet he was NONE OF THOSE THINGS. While, at the same time, the absolutely hideous Quasimodo who risked his own life to save La Esmeralda and who loved her deeply, never received any love from Esmeralda at all.
  3. I would like to add that a very important part of sexiness is how you handle your body, not what it looks like. Is a lean, muscular man sexy? To some women, yes, but not to all. Would he still be sexy if he were completely narcissistic and self-absorbed? If he spent every waking hour in the gym and had no time for you? If he cared more about his body than yours? Sure, he might still be attractive, but only to a women without any self-esteem. Is a voluptuous woman attractive? To some men, yes, but not to all. Would she still be sexy if all she ever did was preen herself? If her head were filled with nothing but fashion and makeup? If she stared at herself all day in the mirror and never paid any attention to your body? Or what if she hated her breasts and hips? What if she despised her body and its capacity to attract men? Would she still be sexy? Sure, she might still be attractive, but only to a man without any self-esteem.
  4. Fine, true, physical attributes can be *symbols* of spiritual values, but you have just refuted your own point by saying this. Let's take someone who is extremely confident, independent, and rational. You might think: he should be 6 feet tall with well-defined features. But he turns out to be 5'8" with pudgy features. The simple fact is: to a large degree, physical features are *not* determined by spiritual ones. To a very large extent, your height, ultimate body weight and size, capacity for muscularity, hair color, eye color, skin tone, susceptibility for diseases or conditions is ALL determined by genetics. I.e. it is completely and utterly out of your control. Now, you can exercise but that won't change your capacity for muscularity. Not everyone can be a bodybuilder. Nor will it eliminate congenital diseases. If your father and his father and his father all had heart attacks at a certain age despite their health, you are likely to get one despite your health. Your hair color and eye color are strictly determined by genetics and the only thing you can do there is dye it or use colored contacts. You can't change the type of hair you have either. Nor the type of nose, mouth, ears, cheeks, etc. You can eat well and exercise but your height is largely determined by genetics. I ate well and exercised my entire life, but I'm 5'8". It's impossible for me to change and it's outside the bounds of morality, so I don't care about it. To sum up, physical attributes can indeed be symbols or representations of values, but they are only that: representations. Not actualities. A tall man is not necessarily confident. A short man is not necessarily meek. A busty woman is not necessarily sexy (sexy is primarily a mental attribute), just as a flat-chested woman is not necessarily totally devoid of sexiness. To say otherwise is discrimination based on non-essential attributes, i.e. racism. It is also broad generalization from perhaps one specific instance in your life to all people. E.g. "I knew a tall, confident man once, so all tall men must be confident." Again, tall is totally irrelevant to determining the character of a man. Sure, if you want to concretize confidence in a *FICTIONAL CHARACTER* you make he or she tall. But that's fiction, that's the point of fiction. In reality physical attributes are nothing more than representations of values, not actualizations. A tall beautiful fashion model may be a complete idiot with the simplistic emotions of a little girl. She may just as easily be brilliant or at least of average intelligence. But not necessarily. She is not necessarily anything just because she's tall and beautiful. Also, while it may be true that you can't directly control what you find attractive, you can nonetheless control it. Because what we're attracted to is NOT some great, unsolvable mystery. Nothing is. What you're attracted to is the logical outcome of your values, whether you consciously recognize them or not, and of all the associations you have made throughout life. When you were 5 you saw an actress and loved her silky black hair. When you were 10 you looked at your first Playboy and you liked the look of some women's breasts. When you were 15 you saw a girl at school and loved the way she swung her hips as she walked. You never stop making such associations, and you are always in control of which ones you make. You can stop yourself and say that something is wrong, and why. You can go back and de-associate things. Yes you can change these things. To tie this in with my previous point, you may be attracted to the look of certain fashion models but that's all it is, an attraction based on appearances and what your associations have you led you to believe those physical attributes mean. But as an adult human being you *must* learn to separate the two, to understand that just because some woman is tall, thin, with long silky hair and a perfect figure doesn't mean she's sexy, confident, intelligent or anything at all. She could just as easily be utterly ashamed of her sexuality, a complete idiot, and totally lacking in all self-confidence whatsoever. At that point, a rational person would no longer be attracted to her and incapable of being sexually attracted to her. At least in my own personal experience.
  5. Oh yes, and I'm 6'8" with the body of Fabio and I'm a multimillionaire. You can say anything on the internet. As per your original post, yes, you are immature and hopelessly shallow. If you can't get past your own weird preference for "magazine cover" bodies, too bad. Anyway, why would you even come to this forum first? Your only posts are the ones in this thread. Why would you not talk to your girlfriend about this obviously serious problem first? Or a psychologist? Or someone, in reality, whom you trust instead of a bunch of strangers on some forum?
  6. So you mean she doesn't have DD boobs, flat abs, toned arms and legs, blah blah blah and all that bullshit? May I ask what you look like? Do you have huge pecs and biceps, washboard abs, 3% body fat blah blah blah? Are you 6' tall with blond curly hair waving in the wind and blue eyes, etc? No, didn't think so. Don't you think you're maybe being just a little bit hypocritical? You hold your girlfriend up to a physical standard that only a handful of people ever achieve and even then it lasts for only a few years because the effort it takes to maintain that look becomes greater than the time and energy you have. How old are you? 16? 18? 20? 22? 24? Get out of puberty, stop looking at the Playboys, FHMs, and Maxims. Those women are airbrushed, surgically altered, and their lives are *dedicated* to exercising and dieting. Real women don't look like that, period. Real women have some fat here and there, they don't have perfectly shaped boobs (that are surgically enhanced anyway), and you know what, all those magazine models have the personality of a wet tea bag. They're vapid, brainless, emotionally-immature nothings who stand around all day getting photographed. Genetically-determined looks are outside the province of morality. So stop treating them that way. And yes, there is a thread on this forum that attempts to prove that "God-given" looks are susceptible to moral judgment. Yeah....you do that. Tell me who is more sexually attractive: 1) a brainless whore with a fake plastic body who acts like an emotionally retarded child and is constantly preening herself and is dedicated to her image above all else OR 2) a women with a normal body who is nonetheless quite beautiful, who is intelligent and passionate and is going somewhere in life, and who loves you dearly and would do anything to please you physically, say sexy things to you, and who has no shame or embarrassment about her body.
  7. Oh for Christ's sake, there's no false dichotomy here. Did I ever put those two options out on the table? No, you did. The "dichotomy" is most meaningful sex ever vs. all other lesser forms of sex. No, quoting Rand is not an argument. But there's the whole philosophy of Objectivism behind those quotes. Also, I don't deny that you can have an enjoyable sexual experience that is not with a life-long mate. Did I ever say that? Again, no, but *you* seem to think I did. I just said that I don't think it's worth my time. I'd much rather seek out the life-long mate because the happiness derived from that kind of relationship is far too great to pass up, and nothing can be an adequate substitute. Sex deserves nothing less. You deserve nothing less.
  8. The physical act of masturbation itself may not be "metaphysically given," but the capacity to orgasm is. And all people are naturally curious about their bodies when they are young. That's where masturbation comes from: a natural curiosity about your own body and it's various functions and abilities. There is not a single immoral thing about discovering your own body. It builds self-esteem, in fact, to become acquainted with, safe, comfortable, and confident with your own body. Masturbation is perfectly moral and even desirable in many situations. When you want to discover your own body. When you lack a lover but want sexual pleasure. When your lover is temporarily away and you masturbate to thoughts of him/her. It can just as easily be immoral, depending on *what* you masturbate to. If your...material or the substance of your fantasies involved anything immoral, then the act would also be immoral. That would include anything such as child porn, rape, sado-masochism, necrophilia, scatological elements, and probably many other things I probably don't even want to think about. It can also be immoral if you masturbate all the time instead of having sex with your lover. It would also hint at a problem in your relationship. It would also be immoral if that's all you did, and it interfered with work and your livelihood. Although I doubt that can really happen. Pornography is, I think, debatable. First it depends on what you define as pornography, and the content thereof. If the content involves any of the above, then it is most definitely immoral. If it is simply the normal sex act, between two consenting adults then it is not immoral. However, a lot of pornography is misogynistic and degrades and demeans women. It also typically fulfills perverted fetishes, which is defined as sexual attraction to an inanimate object. That doesn't necessarily harm anyone...although I can't be sure...but it's psychologically destructive because it perverts the proper nature of sex. As for the morality of the actors: it's hard to say, but performing sex for money is rather like prostitution. What's worse is that they are performing sex with the knowledge that millions of strangers will be enjoying their "performance." It degrades sex to the level of exhibitionism. Overall, probably 99% of pornography is repulsive to anyone with any self-respect and respect for sex. Which is why I avoid it. A lot of other things are repulsive about most pornography. The actors are hideous, both female and male. They are usually surgically enhanced, which is a whole other layer of grotesque. They usually aren't the most quick-witted people around, to put it nicely. And the scenarios are often comical and stupid. If they are meant to fulfill someone's fantasy they certainly aren't fulfilling mine. "Pornography" that I think is totally fine, is nude or semi-nude pictures although I don't know if you can call that pornography. Even that is wrong, though, if you look at it while you're in a relationship. It would also indicate that something is wrong with your relationship if your lover isn't enough for you, so to speak.
  9. Yes, of course that's fine. Even Howard Roark worked in the mines to make a living. His dream-career was temporarily out of reach but he couldn't just die, so he did something else. In such a situation, staying alive is your first priority.
  10. Bluecherry and whyNOT, I agree with you both completely on this subject. Your posts have been a beacon of light in this thread filled with cynical and disgusting views of sex.
  11. Interesting, I thought that this being an Objectivist forum the reasons would be understood. Well, here they are: "Sex is a physical capacity, but its exercise is determined by man’s mind—by his choice of values, held consciously or subconsciously. To a rational man, sex is an expression of self-esteem—a celebration of himself and of existence. To the man who lacks self-esteem, sex is an attempt to fake it, to acquire its momentary illusion. Romantic love, in the full sense of the term, is an emotion possible only to the man (or woman) of unbreached self-esteem: it is his response to his own highest values in the person of another—an integrated response of mind and body, of love and sexual desire. Such a man (or woman) is incapable of experiencing a sexual desire divorced from spiritual values." --“Of Living Death,” The Voice of Reason, 54 "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 . . . . [sex should] involve . . . a very serious relationship. Whether that relationship should or should not become a marriage is a question which depends on the circumstances and the context of the two persons’ lives. I consider marriage a very important institution, but it is important when and if two people have found the person with whom they wish to spend the rest of their lives—a question of which no man or woman can be automatically certain. When one is certain that one’s choice is final, then marriage is, of course, a desirable state. But this does not mean that any relationship based on less than total certainty is improper. I think the question of an affair or a marriage depends on the knowledge and the position of the two persons involved and should be left up to them. Either is moral, provided only that both parties take the relationship seriously and that it is based on values." “Playboy’s Interview with Ayn Rand,” March 1964. Additionally, from my own experience in relationships the most fulfilling have been those based on huge numbers of shared values, always the most important - same political views for the same reasons, same view of religion (i.e. atheist), same basic understanding of morality, metaphysics, epistemology, same sense of romance and spontaneity, same appreciation of classical music and the same or at least similar interests (in my case Japanese, philosophy, music, etc.), and most of all shared respect, trust, and admiration. The physical aspect of such relationships, and I've only had one that deep (and am currently still in it), has been extraordinarily satisfying. Far more so than a "one-night stand" could ever be (I've never done such a thing and never will) or a so-called casual relationship/friends with benefits.
  12. Thank you! Amazing that none of other heterosexual posters agree. You should never have sex just to have sex. It cheapens the experience. And you're not going to learn anything from emotionless sex. I don't want to hear this crap about how sexual experience is a virtue. No it isn't. It isn't a moral issue. It only becomes one if you have a lover and you are unwilling to learn how to pleasure them. There's a problem there. But otherwise, no, and you can learn how to pleasure a man or a woman (depending on your sex) through experience *with your one true lover.* Have sex only with someone you love, don't settle for any less because it isn't worth it. The emotional rewards alone of meaningful sex with someone you love deeply are enough...should be enough...to drive any rational person who respects sex to wait to find a true lover: someone who shares emotions, values, interests, and everything with you.
  13. Um, and? That's like saying "those who argue for atheism simply haven't tried the other side! the people on the other side would argue that God *can* and *does* exist!" And, so what? Lots of people can argue lots of things; doesn't make them right just because they can. As someone who does believe in sex only with the single one you love and whom you may even see as a lifelong spouse, and who has had sex, I would like to defend this point of view. One that Ayn Rand very clearly defended in her Playboy interview for several reasons. Sex *is* properly only a response to one's highest values embodied in another human being. Any less and it wouldn't be worth it. Not that there's anything holding you back, but it just wouldn't be worth my time to pursue such a meaningless, go-nowhere relationship when I have the alternative of a (possibly) life-long, completely respecting, trusting, and loving relationship with someone who embodies all my highest values and maybe even lesser ones. The sex is amazing and can't be topped.
  14. I thought it was a pretty lame movie. The writing was confusing throughout, as if multiple plotlines and premises had been hastily smashed together. I was never sure if I was supposed to focus on: French invasion, King John's rise to power, Robin Hood's origin as a Luxley impersonator, Robin Hood's development into a bandit who stole from the government and gave back to the poor peasants, his love affair with Maid Marion, King John's relationship with the French princess, that guy he kicked out of his court, or what. There was way, way, way too much going on and far too little character development to make me care about anyone. Max von Sydow's character was the most well developed and acted but he got way too little screen time. The battle scenes were ponderous. I could never tell what was going on because the camera wouldn't stay still for even 1 second. They were also boring because I never really cared for Robin Hood's cause; the movie had never spent enough time making me care. Russel Crowe can't act, period. He had the same blank expression throughout the movie. Also, why would an archer be so ridiculously muscled? That's just ugly and not believable. He's not a freaking blacksmith. The bee grenades that Friar Tuck used were stupid and cheesy. And the SOLE reason his bee keeping was put in the movie was clearly so that he *could* throw those stupid bee grenades. The dialogue was blunt and on-the-nose. That's OK on a first draft, but not on the final product. Robin Hood said "I love you" to Maid Marion right after kissing her. No artifice to the script at all. I love you? The kiss didn't tell us that already? And sure, in real life people say "I love you," although they typically say a lot more than just that. This is a movie, it's supposed to be dramatic. There was very little emphasis put on Robin's actual taking from the government and his philosophy. It seemed almost like an afterthought in fact. Overall, I thought the movie lacked focus and so I never really cared about it. I really, really wanted to like it but I just couldn't. Shame on Ridley Scott after making such masterpieces as Blade Runner and Alien.
  15. You couldn't be more wrong. Karate originally meant "Chinese hand" in Classical Japanese because it was a form of martial arts adopted *from China.* Later, in modern Japan, the name Karate was changed to mean "empty hand" in an attempt to de-Sino-fy the word and make Karate more popular among modern Japanese. Kara = archaic Japanese for "China," and another homophonic kanji character kara = empty. Now yes, Karate is now considered Japanese and it has made its own developments in Japan. But it originally came from China, period. Also, the new movie sucks. That little kid Smith looks like he's hopped up on steroids. No 10 year old should be ripped. That's just frightening and disgusting.
  • Create New...