Krattle

I did write a huge response, but I decided to delete it. I have never in my life, outside of a political debate, seen so much misreading, misunderstanding, misconception, and mistrust directed against me. You fail to understand simple sentences. You fail to understand even the most basic points I make. Every single thread I've posted in, I've had nothing but people misunderstanding every single word I've written.

If I may clarify my own word choice, please? By moralize I just meant that sometimes I would be far too harsh with people while discussing philosophical issues. If someone was wrong, I would call them names, effectively, rather than give reasoned arguments against them *even though I had them.* I'm not blaming Objectivism for this attitude I had at all. No, it was just my teenage self being too quick to dismiss people without using argument and persuasion, and too quick to want to feel alienated when there was quite a bit of good to be found in most people. I just wasn't willing to see that for a while. Again, this has nothing to do with Objectivism, just my false impression I took away from it during an impressionable age. I've since changed my attitudes. I find all this nonsense about Rand's personality to be, well, nonsense. I'm not going to believe a single word either Branden or Peikoff says. Either or both of them could be lying/exaggerating for any number of reasons. I never met Rand, couldn't form my own judgment, so I'm not going to pass judgment. And oh yes, you should read Branden's work for its own merits. It's a logical fallacy to conclude that a person's beliefs/work/whatever are invalid because that person doesn't hold true to his own beliefs.

I don't know how *you* can judge that he misrepresented Rand, as he was pretty intimate with her, while you were not. I think there are only a handful of people in the world capable of judging whether what he has said about Rand is "misrepresentation" or otherwise. Guilty of dishonesty??? I'm not even sure what you mean by this. People lie sometimes, you know, even rational people. And you haven't said in what context or why Branden was dishonest. May I point out that *this* is the level of argument presented on this forum against Nathaniel Branden: "Indeed. Branden is a turncoat second-hander mystic." Until you actually enumerate all the reasons he is deserving of such slander, I'm not listening to your childish name-calling. People have said he "misrepresented Rand." OK, show me exactly what he said that was wrong. Otherwise you're just making wild accusations without any evidence.

I completely agree with you, whyNOT. When I read Ayn Rand's novels and nonfiction, I became quick to moralize about people, quick to repress my own emotions and sexuality as evil, and was far too rigid about my own life and my goals. I've since reversed a great deal of this damage, but it's not the fault of objectivism per-se. It's that, as Branden says, irrespective of Rand's explicit philosophy, she expresses certain ideas in her novels that are contrary to her philosophy. Or, at the very least, it is easy to take away the wrong impression from her novels. E.g. that you are a worthless failure if you're not a John Galt. Rationality has nothing to do with being 'perfect' or never having made a single mistake in your entire life. No, an *irrational* person would think they're incapable of making a mistake or that they have never made a mistake, even though they in fact have. A *rational* person makes a mistake and doesn't deny it; he learns from it. Just as Rearden and Dagny both did. (Ayn Rand made mistakes with her philosophy and some pretty huge mistakes in her own life, just as *everyone* does). Yep, Rand had a benevolent world view, and that's something young o'ists seem to gloss over...they think Rand is 'up there' judging everything they do (this is, unconsciously, how I felt), and so they fear making even the tiniest mistake in their lives or not living up to some ridiculous standard of total rationality every second of their existence. You know, even totally rational people (assuming such a person exists), will make mistakes. It's called context of knowledge. Yet another principle of o'ism that seems to be overlooked far too often. If you think like this, you'll end up tearing your self-esteem to shreds. You'll never appreciate a single achievement in your entire life, and probably, eventually not be able to achieve anything because you're so worried you'll make a mistake. If, instead, you simply allow your passion and motivation to carry you as far as it can, you'll find happiness each step of the way. You'll be able to stop and smell the roses, as it were. I'm not rejecting objectivism and if you think I am, or that Nathaniel Branden is, then you haven't read a single word I or he has written. I felt a huge amount of recognition reading that essay, and had I read it 4 years ago I would have been much better off psychologically and in my interpersonal relationships. But I managed to correct my mistaken ideas on my own and feel much better for it. I don't denigrate myself anymore for making mistakes, big and small, or for not being the absolute most talented pianist/linguist/writer ever (those are my interests just so you know I'm not making stuff up). I know it's not a matter of how brilliant or talented you are at something that creates self-esteem or that makes you virtuous. It's whether you go about them rationally or not, and destroying your self-esteem for not living up to the (fictional) ideal of John Galt leads to less creativity and talent, if anything. I used to have nervous breakdowns, in fact.

Your second paragraph is exactly what I said. As for your first paragraph, obviously having social skills is a good thing, but I'm just talking about sex. I don't know how many times I have to say it, but if two people love each other and know each other very intimately and are totally honest about everything, then there's no "secret method" for driving the relationship toward sex. You can just ask, which is what I've done, and it works. It's really not that hard. Yes, like whyNOT, I'm also talking about seeking out casual sex regularly as some sort of pastime. When you do that, that's when you start to rationalize and fool yourself into thinking it's OK to do what you're doing. I don't care how enjoyable, healthy, pleasurable, WHATEVER sex is...it's infinitely more all of those things when you do it with someone you love. So why would you even bother having casual sex in the first place?

I was actually *very* explicit about my definition of casual sex, and the distinction is far from arbitrary. In fact, you just gave the reason for the distinction. Casual sex differs from. non-casual, or serious sex, because of *why* you're having it. Casual sex means sex just for the physical pleasure. Sex for the sake of sex. Serious sex is sex for the purpose of expressing your self-esteem and your love of the values someone else embodies. It sounds like many people think it's OK to have sex with someone if you know only vague abstractions about their values. You can't really know what someone actually values until you see them actually valuing those things. Anyone can say, "Oh, I love such-and-such" but that means *nothing* if they don't act to gain and or keep that value. That's why it takes more than a one-night stand to know someone's values.

I think you're misinterpreting the role of sex in relation to self-esteem. Just having sex doesn't create self-esteem; that's what promiscuous people are trying to do. They don't have any self-esteem to begin with so they try to conquer as many people as possible through sex in an *attempt* to fill the void, but you can't do that. Sex is an expression of whatever self-esteem you already have, not a means of creating it. What did Rand say? You can't say "I love you" without first saying the "I." Now, if you already value yourself and then you have sex as an expression of that, then your self-esteem will be bolstered, but you aren't creating new self-esteem. This is why sex is not a need per-se. People with low self-esteem do *not* need to have sex, it will only make things worse and they may become playboys as a result. I'm sorry, I uh, just don't see the importance of increasing one's "social ability" whatever that's supposed to mean. Having sex for the first time, with someone you love, will only be awkward because you haven't had sex before, but it has an incredibly natural feeling to it because you love your partner. Truly, if you love someone all inexperience can easily, easily be "forgiven." It's not a vice to be inexperienced at sex, and so I don't consider it a virtue to be experienced at it.

No, I have a great deal of respect for sex. I'm losing respect for people on this thread FAST. It's people like Lasse and you, Tito, who don't seem to respect sex.

And one more thing: orgasms. Most of the physical pleasure of sex comes from two thing: stimulation during foreplay and the orgasm at the end. You can get both stimulation and orgasm from masturbation. There is no difference between an orgasm caused by auto-stimulation and one caused by stimulation during sexual intercourse. The only difference is who is doing the stimulation. I AM NOT SAYING THAT MASTURBATION IS EXACTLY THE SAME AS SEX. I'm not a fucking idiot. Sex involves a great deal more than masturbation, but an orgasm is exactly the same whether it happens during masturbation or sex. Just go to wikipedia and read IN DETAIL the anatomy of an orgasm. It's nothing more than a physical response to stimulation. IT DOESN'T MATTER HOW YOU DO THE STIMULATING, THE EFFECT IS THE SAME. So, you can gain: 1) physical pleasure, 2) physical health, and 3) experience just by masturbating. Yes, you gain experience because you learn how *you* get stimulated and what does it most. 4) there is a certain thrill even to autoeroticism. So, oh, wait, you can get 4 of the 5 things you get from casual sex also from masturbation? If you really want, you can even watch porn while you masturbate so you can see the sex act.

OK, I'm going to deal with these arguments that casual sex is good. 1) It is pleasurable Wait, so now we're so low we do anything just because it's "pleasurable"? Is this even an Objectivist forum? Have you forgotten that the standard of morality is not "well, it feels good so I do it"? It's pleasurable to drink a fuck ton of liquor, but it's terrible for your mind, your physical health, and you feel like shit afterward. 2) It is physically healthy ?????????? Get on a fucking treadmill? 3) It can give you valuable practice for great sex later on with a romantic partner Again, if you love someone, experience is IRRELEVANT. 4) It can be a thrilling and adventurous experience ? Thrilling? This is an emotion. Not a reason. Seek adventure somewhere else. Go climb a goddamn mountain. 5) Sex and sexual intimacy is a basic human need just as much for singles as for those in romantic relationships NO IT IS NOT. Sex in and of itself is NOT A FUCKING NEED. You will not drop dead just because your dick isn't inside a vagina every single second you're awake. It's not going to "hurt your psychological health" to *not fuck*. It WILL hurt your psychological health if you fuck women you don't care about all the time. You need to find someone you LOVE, then have sex with THEM, as much as you want. That's the only time sex can be called a need - in a romantic relationship.

Umm, what does it matter how experienced you are at sex? If two people love each other, they won't care. You'll look past something as minor as "inexperience" in the bedroom. If you aren't willing to look past that, then you aren't in love with this person and you don't deserve to be in a serious relationship. To say that "gaining more experience" is a good reason to have casual sex is nothing more than a rationalization to fuck more people. Get your brain out of your dick/vagina. Here's a pretty good definition from wikipedia of "casual sex": Casual sex refers to certain types of sexual activity outside the context of a romantic relationship. The term is not always used consistently: some use it to refer to any extramarital sex, some use it to refer to sex in a casual relationship, whereas others reserve its use for one-time encounters, promiscuity, or to refer to sex in the absence of emotional attachment or love.[1][2] Sex before marriage is fine, sex with another person while you're married is wrong. With extramarital sex out of the question, let's look at the other types of "casual sex." One-time encounters, promiscuity, sex in the absence of emotional attachment or love. Well, one-time encounters? Maybe not the worst thing you could do, but how is it fun to fuck someone and never see them again? Please explain. Promiscuity: this is just wrong. Sex in the absence of emotional attachment or love: is this even true sex? It's just physical, you might as well be reading a textbook about how to conduct foreplay while you're doing it. Let's deal with "Casual sex destroys sex, since sex is a manifestation of deeply shared values." You said how eating a crappy fast-food hamburger doesn't destroy your sense of gourmet food just because you eat it once. We're not talking about a fucking hamburger!>!.!>!>!>! There is no comparison between sex and food whatsoever. You will die without food, you will not die without sex. I believe someone earlier said that your mind will be damaged if you don't have sex. How old are you? Fucking 12 years old? You're not going to "lose your mind" just because you don't fuck every single second of your existence.

I may have misunderstood people like JMeganSnow and Alfa at first. I admit this. When I was debating with you guys (and others) I thought that I was getting opinions like those of Lasse K. Lien. His opinions are what I'm trying to point out as wrong. 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. Lasse, if all you cared about was physical satisfaction, an orgasm caused by masturbation is exactly the same as an orgasm caused by humping. 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. 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? Why is the goal even sex!?!?!??!?!?! WTF is the point in having sex if you don't F*CKING LOVE YOUR PARTNER?! God...I'm sorry, I'm burnt out on this topic. I give up. Bye. Moderator, delete my posts.

Oh, don't misunderstand me. Note that I said this in my original post: "Only if you define universe as an incredibly limited entity within the realm of existence (i.e we exist within some kind of bubble) will I accept that theory." If we're actually talking about some yet unknown entity that's around 14 billion ly across, then that's quite acceptable. Just prove it. And it's fine that we don't know yet. There's no rush. I do have problems with the expansion of space that is so often inferred from red shift, a premise that is an intimate part of BB theory. Once you start talking about space expanding (and now it's at an ever accelerating rate), you're treating space as an entity. It's hard to deny the theory of expansion because there haven't been any valid alternative explanations of red shift (that I've seen). Halton Arp has one, but it proposes quite a few extraordinary ideas. Still, I haven't thrown it out even if the scientific community has... Exactly, relativity theory seems to treat space as an entity. For the longest time I had trouble understanding it until I realized that when it says space curves, it actually means that space curves. I just can't see that...if it's just "shorthand" then shorthand for what? What's going on if there isn't an entity called space that bends with the mass of the objects in it?

True, romantic relationships are very complex and varied, but there still have to be principles. Anyway, I like how *you* make an assumption about *my* dating habits. Maybe if you did date, you'd find there are more people out there with similar mindsets than you're willing to admit. Besides, the only way to find compatible people is to be out there, talking with people, dating. If you fail 20 times but succeed once, you still succeeded in the end. I also do not "date" in that sense of just dating for the sake of dating. I date in the hopes of finding someone compatible. How the hell else am I going to do it? Just sit around and mope about how lonely I am. Of course not.

Yes, I am saying I'm only willing to make it sexual if I'm fairly sure it's going to be long-term, and by long-term I mean years and yes, hopefully partner for life. That implies reaching a certain intimacy with the other person - an appreciation of their personality, their virtues, their interests, their goals, the way they work and think about life and bigger issues, and even a knowledge of some vices (if there are any). Most of all there *must* be mutual understanding of each others' sexual preferences. EDIT: For instance, what if you have sex with someone and you find out they're into S&M? Would it have killed you to get an intimate knowledge of your partner's views on sex before you went to the bedroom? Although I know some Objectivists think S&M is OK....whatever.

You're taking my wording far too literally. I mean that I'm not willing to have any short term relationships because I much prefer long-term ones, even if that means waiting years and years without relationships beyond friendship, I'm fine with that. That's what I've already done for the past 4 years anyway and I never felt this so-called urge or itch to have sex with someone. I obviously wanted companionship, but it's just not enough companionship if it only lasts a few weeks or a month or two.

God, has the whole world gone insane? Saying that fulfilling, long-term relationships are rare is *not an argument*!! I've had two in my life, and I waited 4 years in between. I dated, of course, in an attempt to find my next long-term partner. But I didn't stick around even if there was some compatibility. Maybe it's just personal preference, but I have to have long-term relationships. They're too much fun to give them up for a bunch of short-term flings.

I think Tokyo is extremely beautiful. I've been there so I have first hand evidence to support my claim. It really is as pristine as people say it is (and I went to some very distant parts of Tokyo far beyond the touristy spots). The people are indeed extremely nice. Maybe even nicer to me because I spoke to them in Japanese. I asked for directions from a cleaning lady, a random girl on a bike, and cops. All of them were helpful and courteous almost to the point of incredulity. The transportation is spotlessly clean, safe, and punctual. Most of all, the materialism is quite evident, especially in Ginza. I shopped around in some of the department stores there (Matsuzakaya, Matsuya, and Mitsukoshi). WOW. Here's a very recent photograph, with the new Tokyo Sky Tree under construction. It will top out at over 2000 feet by 2011.

Somebody mentioned L-O-V-E by Nat King Cole earlier. I would like to second that. Beautiful, classy, truly romantic love song. Not to mention Nat King Cole's voice is amazing.

I think Harriman (sp?) said it well in his lecture on physics. When you look at an empty room, you ask, what are we going to do with all this space? What you do is you arrange furniture in that space. But what you *aren't* doing is taking that "empty space" out of the room to make way for furniture. You're not saying, "let's get this darn space out of here so I can put some furniture in." In other words, space is a concept of method. It just denotes the distances between entities, not an actual entity itself. So there is no "outer space" per se. No, there are just a plenum of entities. And on the subject of infinity. There is actually infinity, of a type, but I'll state it this way. The number series is infinite; you can keep thinking of a larger number and never run out of numbers. But each number is still finite. Googolplex is huge, but finite. Applied to "outer space," you can keep going and finding new things (so far we've looked 14bl ly out, no?), but no matter how far away you move from your starting point (the Earth), you'll always be a finite distance away. So, even though we've only seen 14 billion light years out from the Earth, that doesn't mean we've seen to the physical boundaries of the universe. There is no such thing as a boundary to the universe (it is everything). It probably just means indicates a limitation to our technology, or perhaps, when we look that far out EM radiation becomes to garbled to resolve it. (alternative explanation for microwave background perhaps?). What I find VERY, VERY interesting is that astronomers keep finding fully formed, gigantic galaxies 13.5 and 13.8 billion light years away, almost completely contradicting the Big Bang theory. One more point: there should be no limit on how far back in time, how far away we can look. You can't say: oh, well we've only seen 14 billion light years out because beyond that point nothing has existed long enough for its light to reach us. Nonsense! You're now implying a beginning of all time, which can't exist. Of course there's stuff that existed 14 billion years ago, and even 25 billion years ago. We just haven't seen that far yet. Even if those entities had stopped existing, their light would still be traveling to us. One thing I can say for sure, I completely disagree with the Big Bang theory as beginning of the universe. Only if you define universe as an incredibly limited entity within the realm of existence (i.e we exist within some kind of bubble) will I accept that theory. But otherwise, the idea that matter, energy, and time began at one point is utter nonsense and contradicts the basic axioms of existence and identity. Time cannot begin, matter and energy cannot be created. Time exists within the universe because the universe is everything. You cannot create energy and matter because that would necessarily imply creation ex nihilo. Congratulations, you just contradicted several Laws of Conservation and the basic axiom of all thought: existence exists.

Yes! Thank you for stating my point so eloquently. Look, we're not talking about casually eating too much over the holidays. Most people rationalize that and then they have to loose the weight. But that's not as serious as sex. I've already mentioned the physical risks of casual sex. Protection is not 100% effective, and an abortion may be necessary. What if this woman doesn't want to have an abortion? You're suddenly up shit creek all because of something that was "casual." But what about the psychological effects? It's one thing to, say, regret becoming addicted to porn, but it's a *completely* different matter to regret having sex with someone you knew for a couple of days, were only vaguely attracted to, and had sex with on a whim. WHY IS THAT A GOOD IDEA??!?!! All those idiotic teenagers who just couldn't wait to have sex, porked some chick, got her pregnant, and now have a family at 16...oh yeah, I bet they LOVE the idea of casual sex now. Have you heard of masturbation? Maybe you should try it to relieve some of those "urges" or "itches." Sex is supposed to express the awesome depth of feeling you have for someone else - how much you admire them for their virtues, how much you love every aspect of their being. Sex is supposed to be an expression of *LOVE*. Not an expression of, "Oh hey I saw you from across the room and I've talked with you for 5 minutes. I barely know anything about you except the few anecdotes you've told me. Let's fuck." You can't fall in love with someone in one date or two. Love takes time and so therefore, so should sex.

Yes, but it's your sense of life, the values you uphold implicitly and, hopefully, explicitly that matter. I don't care if my wife doesn't openly declares herself an Objectivist. What matters is that she's rational, about her life and work and the philosophy that guides her.

I could easily have written this about my relationship. It's actually rather frightening how true this is for me. I'm in a relationship with a woman who is not explicitly Objectivist, but her philosophy is obvious when you see how she works, how she thinks. We've found that we both love each other for the values that we each love about ourselves.

Why? What is "casual sex"? Sex with someone whom you don't expect to have a relationship with outside the bedroom. Sex just for the physical pleasure? If you're just having sex for the physical pleasure, then why not masturbate? It's the same thing and there's no danger of hurt feelings, regret, abortions, or STDs. If the only thing you appreciate about your partner while having sex is his/her body, then it's not true sex. I think Rand would agree...

Yes, sometimes the extreme ones drive away potential believers. Abortion...yeah, that's one of the more despicable stances on the right. But in relation to what's going on now, it's almost meaningless. It *can* be dealt with in the future. The philosophical revolution in America and the world has to start somewhere; it's clearly already begun here, so we need to be out there supporting it with Objectivism.