Dating & Love

[writeby]

writeby: what do you mean by submission is conquest, etc.?

In the vernacular: A boy chases a girl until she catches him.

Call it conquest by attraction.

A woman will only submit to a man 1) who pursues her & 2) whom she wants to pursue her, whom she has "conquered" by getting him to pursue her in the first palce -- the pursuit as much the woman's idea as the man's.

In my experience, sometimes more. Sometimes the guy doesn't even know he's paying suit. ;o)

[Bearster]

Vernacular is all well and good, but I don't think it's precise or accurate to say the girl "conquered" the boy, notwithstanding the fact that rational relationships between men and women are consensual.

[Betsy]

A woman will only submit to a man 1) who pursues her & 2) whom she wants to pursue her ...

I prefer "surrender" to "submit."

To "submit" is to give up, unwillingly and perhaps resentfully, as an act of self-abnegation.

"Surrender," on the other hand, communicates the end of a heroic struggle, where one of the contenders, proudly and with dignity intact, acknowledges the victory of the other.

[Free Capitalist]

Don, I agree with Ash Ryan that you may be making an error in your claim that it's fine having sex with a person whom you don't exactly love. Here's my view:

Now, to have sex is a very intimate thing, a very private thing. It's not something you will joke about (not about your own, at least), and it's not an act which you generally take lightly, or with a shrug. There's an aura of sanctity around it, an aura of cleanliness, and of purity. Tell me if you agree so far. Now the question comes to the issue of, what kind of person is to be let into this circle of noble extasy (though it may sound cheesy, that's what it is, and those are the words that come to mind right now). You are saying that, although you disagree with being promiscuous, you believe it's fine to engage in this noble extasy with people that may be respectable, but aren't noble (though not ignoble either). When you'll have sex with that person, everything will be sanctimonious and holy about the act, except the person you'll be doing it with. When you'll wake up in the morning, and you'll remember the rapture the night before, you'll remember the girl you let into your most intimate circle, the girl with whom you were able to exercise you very essence as a guy, the girl with whom you were most free to be yourself, you'll wake up the morning after, and ask yourself - was she worth it? And the answer will have to be No.

That's the real question: "Was she worth it?" and not "Was it worth it?" If you're seeking the highest physical pleasure, you will ask the latter question, and you will not mind if you achieve it with a non-ideal woman. If you're seeking the highest spiritual pleasure, you will ask the former question, and you will mind if you try to achieve it with a non-ideal woman. Plus, as you probably already know, it is impossible to achieve the highest spiritual pleasure, the pleasure of the mind, the pleasure of expressing your masculine identity in the most profound way possible, with a woman who's not up to your standards. And that's what sex is all about - spiritual values, not physical stimulation. The physical aspect is, of course, an invaluable part of it, but it only a part, not the whole.

At the risk of appearing to psychologize, I will say it nonetheless: the very premise of your question, "Well what's wrong with doing it with someone less than perfect" shows that the morning after, you will ask yourself "Was it worth it", and not "Was she worth it". That's how I view sex as, especially as a guy - it's something you do to your partner. For me, if I'm going to be expressing my deepest essence as a guy, to do the sexual act to a girl, it has to be a girl who's worthy of doing it to. (Zeus bless the Internet and anonymity, huh? ) That's the view that I see to be absent from your posts. My goal in sex is not to get the physical pleasure of it, but to express myself on the most fundamental possible to me, i.e. to get the spiritual pleasure of it (which, thank Odin, is accompanied by physical pleasure as well).

So, how do I tie this to the Ayn Rand quote I reproduced above? There are different gradations of noble women. Though it may be trite, I have to use Atlas Shrugged again. Imagine a woman a little bit less than Dagny - someone who works a little less, someone who tries, and is hard working, and is extremely intelligent, but is not so as much as the Dagny in the book. Would she still be sexually attractive? You betcha! She's still noble, still cares very much about being pure and untainted inside. She is still extremely passionate about her work, and about life - the qualities which make her very sexy. So, though in the grand tally of things, she's not exactly equal to the real Dagny, she is still very desirable. Or, take Gwen Ives, Rearden's assistant. She was pretty hot too, from the little description she had. She's like a mini-Dagny right there. So there clearly are gradations in what constitutes noble. Maybe the phrase "woman who's the highest possible" is misleading here, because it implies a static standard, which would not be accurate. Clearly there are many different kinds of noble women, some nobler than others, but all very attractive. I'd take Gwen, but not Cherryl, for example. See the difference? Both are respectable and not ignoble women, yet one is attractive (to me) and the other one isn't. I'm capable of loving, and guiltlessly having sex with Dagny and Gwen, but not Cherryl. I can respect her, but not love, or do sex to her. Cherryl is a nice girl, but I'd feel bad the morning after - probably terrible, as time went on. That's how I would interpret the AR quote above - of course it would be great for me if I got Dagny, but if I got Gwen, I would not be compromising my values one bit. She's a feisty one .

Edited June 28, 2004 by Free Capitalist

[Bearster]

What FreeCapitalist said.

[Free Capitalist]

I thought I should write a short summary of the post I wrote previously, from fears that its message was hindered by clumsy grammar. What I wanted to say was that sex is eminently linked to the concept "ideal", or "noble". One cannot divorce sex from concepts like nobility by reasoning that it's a necessity, or other such devices. As a secondary point, I showed that AR's quote on the subject did not support the viewpoint I was arguing against. See my post above for further details on both of these points!

[DPW]

Now, to have sex is a very intimate thing, a very private thing. It's not something you will joke about (not about your own, at least), and it's not an act which you generally take lightly, or with a shrug. There's an aura of sanctity around it, an aura of cleanliness, and of purity. Tell me if you agree so far.

I do not. Those words are emotionally evocative but descriptively meaningless.

That's the real question: "Was she worth it?" and not "Was it worth it?" If you're seeking the highest physical pleasure, you will ask the latter question, and you will not mind if you achieve it with a non-ideal woman. If you're seeking the highest spiritual pleasure, you will ask the former question, and you will mind if you try to achieve it with a non-ideal woman. Plus, as you probably already know, it is impossible to achieve the highest spiritual pleasure, the pleasure of the mind, the pleasure of expressing your masculine identity in the most profound way possible, with a woman who's not up to your standards. And that's what sex is all about - spiritual values, not physical stimulation.

I'm not sure what you mean by "worth." I could guess, but I'd rather let you tell me.

So far as I can tell, we agree on the requirements of sex at its highest, but you somehow think that naturally leads to the conclusion that only sex at its highest can be a value. Okay, how do you prove that? Throwing a bunch of adjectives around will not do it. Let me therefore ask my question one more time: how is sleeping with someone who you respect and care about but do not love (when love is not available to you at that time) self-destructive?

At the risk of appearing to psychologize, I will say it nonetheless: the very premise of your question, "Well what's wrong with doing it with someone less than perfect" shows that the morning after, you will ask yourself "Was it worth it", and not "Was she worth it".

I'm going to ask for a favor: do not presume to know what I personally would or would not ask. I have not said one word about my sexual choices, including whether or not I would accept sex on less-than-perfect terms. Furthermore, I would emphatically NOT ask either of those questions the morning after: a rational man asks them before.

That said, I'm still waiting for evidence that for her to be "worth it" you must be in love with her.

[AwakeAndFree]

Just to make things clear: I think you should love the person you're sleeping with at least to some degree. You need to like him/her a lot, and to respect him/her.

However, I don't think you have to be completely in love with them - as I stated.

[DPW]

Just to make things clear: I think you should love the person you're sleeping with at least to some degree. You need to like him/her a lot, and to respect him/her.

However, I don't think you have to be completely in love with them - as I stated.

I don't understand your usage of "love" in this context. I was using it to mean "romantic love" which I do not believe means, "More love than friendship." It's a different kind of love, just as love for a child is different from both of those. They are incommensurate.

If you feel romantic love for someone, to whatever degree, I don't think there is any question but that, other things being equal, sex is appropriate.

By the same token, if you don't feel romantic love for someone, I do not think even the sort of love one would feel for a friend is relevant to whether or not you should sleep with him or her. On the contrary, if you love someone as a friend, I think it would be much more difficult to justify sleeping with him or her, because it would most likely have to lead to the eventual destruction of the friendship.

Offhand, mutual respect and honesty are the only minimum limits I would set for a potentially rational sexual encounter, depending on the context. I'm not sure I'm ready to endorse that as my final word, however.

========================

Some general comments on this thread:

What makes this issue extremely difficult is that it is so contextual, and depends primarily on an understanding of human psychology. The reason I'm even commenting on so complex an issue is because I can't stand to watch as some Objectivists ("If the shoe fits, wear it with my compliments") condemn acts of sex without any rational basis. Identification must precede evaluation, and no one has yet to identify the destructive consequences of less-than-ideal sex in the sort of contexts I've been speaking of.

My motive is simple: I think it is FAR healthier for someone to learn that he set his sexual standards too low than to experience the sort of guilt, repression, and sexual frustration that can follow from trying to obey the unjustifiable sexual commandments some here are trying to establish.

[Bearster]

I do not. Those words are emotionally evocative but descriptively meaningless.

I think there is a clear meaning to these words. I think the quote is trying to set the context, to describe it inductively.

...guilt, repression, and sexual frustration that can follow from trying to obey the unjustifiable sexual commandments...

What about the guilt of living with the feeling of having sacrificed one's self based on a feeling of lust without love?

I think the phrase "unjustifiable sexual commandments" is emotional and pejorative, but I am not sure it characterizes what's been said recently on this forum.

Certainly, speaking for myself and what I think Delaney meant, it's not about intrinscist, dogmatist "commandments" but about not sacrificing yourself to the feeling of a moment. Sex that is not "ideal", i.e. not with the right woman for the right reasons, is not good.

To be clear, I do not mean that:

the couple must be married

there is a minimum time limit before sex is OK

one must be a particular age*

sex is intrinsically anything

*though I think both people had better know and understand themselves, so this would usually preclude sex at age 18

[DPW]

I think there is a clear meaning to these words.  I think the quote is trying to set the context, to describe it inductively.

Once again, please attribute your quotes.

What about the guilt of living with the feeling of having sacrificed one's self based on a feeling of lust without love?

Well, there's no sacrifice involved in such a feeling; it's how you act relative to that feeling that determines whether you've engaged in an act of sacrifice or not. What I'm waiting for is proof, or even a bit of evidence, that sex without love is necessarily a sacrifice. No one has, as of yet, even attempted to do that. And I don't blame them: it would require a knowledge of psychology that I would hazard to guess not one of us possesses.

But that's exactly my point: one should not dogmatize or moralize about that which one is partially or wholly ignorant.

I think the phrase "unjustifiable sexual commandments" is emotional and pejorative, but I am not sure it characterizes what's been said recently on this forum.

It was meant to be emotional and pejorative, and it characterizes what's been said on this forum in exactly the way I said it has: people condemning sexual acts and offering no basis for doing so.

Sex that is not "ideal", i.e. not with the right woman for the right reasons, is not good.

That's either a bald assertion or a truism. What we're trying to pin down is what "right" means. Some have limited it to a much more restrictive context then I think can be justified.

[MinorityOfOne]

What about the guilt of living with the feeling of having sacrificed one's self based on a feeling of lust without love?

That's not much of an argument. I mean, if you don't accept that sex without love is immoral, why would you feel guilty about it? Answer: you wouldn't. So the onus is on you to show how it is actually and always a disvalue.

[AwakeAndFree]

I don't understand your usage of "love" in this context.  I was using it to mean "romantic love" which I do not believe means, "More love than friendship."  It's a different kind of love, just as love for a child is different from both of those.  They are incommensurate.

I disagree completely. Romantic love is experienced much more intensely than the love of a friend.

You don't get heartbeats when a friend calls you, and you don't feel physical pain when he is away. With romantic love, you do.

There is no friend that I can't live happily without - but without my fiance I would be miserable. Romantic love is MORE LOVE than the love of a friend.

In his lecture on Love, Sex and Romance, Leonard Peikoff said that Ayn Rand used to say: "My husband is not my friend, he matters to me!"

[DPW]

I disagree completely. Romantic love is experienced much more intensely than the love of a friend.

You misunderstood me. When I said, "I was using it to mean 'romantic love' which I do not believe means, 'More love than friendship,'" I didn't mean to imply that romantic love could mean less love than friendship! What I meant was that the difference between love for a friend and love for a romantic parnter is not one of degree but of kind (thus: "They are incommensurate."). I'm sorry I was unclear.

[AwakeAndFree]

Well - can't you say you love your wife MORE than you love your best friend?

Supposedly, you love both. You can't love both the same, so it must be also a matter of degree.

I agree that it is essentially a matter of kind, but one kind is by definition not just different, but also superior.

[DPW]

I agree that it is essentially a matter of kind, but one kind is by definition not just different, but also superior.

Sure, but let's remember how this issue was raised. You said:

I think you should love the person you're sleeping with at least to some degree. You need to like him/her a lot, and to respect him/her.

That equates liking with loving, which is fine in the context of friendship, but you raised it in the context of sex. I took that to mean you didn't recognize a distinction between "generic" love and romantic love.

But keeping in mind what it's now clear you meant: I agree. Romantic love is inherently more intense than the love associated with friendship, even though its intensity is not its distinguishing attribute.

[Bearster]

There are two completely different contexts here, and each must be examined separately. I will address the female first, and then the male.

For the woman, sexual intercourse represents total submission to the man. She opens herself up to him, literally, and is vulnerable to him. For this reason (if not for others) she ought to be extremely careful in choosing a man. What is his moral stature? Can he be trusted? Once she is in that position (I say this figuratively and literally), he can have his way with her in any manner he chooses.

Second, she is giving herself to the man totally. What kind of man he *matters* to her more than almost anything else! This goes way beyond trust into the issues of who can she look up to, and what she judges to be heroic. What kind of woman looks up to Eddie Willers?

I'd like to take an aside here, and address the fact that this (like everything else) is contextual. It is not intrinsic. One woman might properly look up to Mr. Willers (Cheryl comes to mind), but another certainly could not (e.g. Dagny). Dagny was much smarter and better integrated than Eddie.

Third, and this applies equally to the man, sex is an intimate act. Who is appropriate for intimacy, to share an act which is not only so private but so important? One's standard for this is, of course, different (and higher, if one can compare apples to raisins and say they're bigger) than one's standard for friendship.

I do not see anything casual, happy-go-lucky, unimportant, or easy-come-easy-go about sex.

The man's context is quite different.

One of the first thing one notices is that a virtuous woman--one who has pride, in particular--does not sell herself cheaply. The kind fo woman who does, is not particularly virtuous.

Even if the man is not vulnerable to the woman in the way she is to him, he has to be aware that because she knows that she is, she will act accordingly. He expects this from a good woman.

As an aside, early on in life, I found that I was not interested in topless clubs, even the expensive high-end ones. Upon some introspection, I realized it was because it was a scene full of people who didn't have much of a sense of their own worth. I didn't want to be around people who are sacrificing themselves--even if this doesn't necessitate me sacrificing myself.

Second, to paraphrase another poster here (sorry, I don't recall who said this), he is validating his very essence as a male, his masculinity. Such validation depends on this being a proper relationship with a woman who is not merely virtuous, but feminine. A woman who concretizes his values and sense of life.

If a man has sex casually, he's validating a MUP. He's saying that sex is good, and it's important--and this is the best possible to me. This directly undermines his masculinity (which is strength and confidence), because to the extent he has casual sex, he reinforces the notion that ideal sex is not possible to him. This is subtle, but important.

Third, the man is aware of the woman's worship of his heroism and masculinity. He expects this (again, from the sort of woman who is proper for him--Eddie wouldn't get this from Dagny, he'd be aware she looked down on him). But it's only meaningful if he respects her and sees that she is virtuous. What is the value of hero-worship from a woman who is not virtuous, or able?

So to get back to the quote I said I had meaning, sex for both men and women is sacred, high, sublime, noble, ecstatic, private, important. Declaring that one can't get a better partner is a rationalization and/or manifestation of a MUP, and doesn't make a good reason for slumming it.

Let me ask a question to really drive home the point. In this discussion, we've ackowledged that it's not sex with a vicious person on the table. Ok, good. But it is merely about sex with a person that one does not find suitable for full, romantic love.

Ok, why not? Guys, what kind of woman does this mean? What have you judged about her in order to conclude she's not "love material"?

Gals, what kind of guy is this? You sorta like him, but don't have a deep feeling of love? Why not?

I bet that the answers to these questions may help put this issue to rest.

We've been presupposing that

[DPW]

Let me ask a question to really drive home the point.  In this discussion, we've ackowledged that it's not sex with a vicious person on the table.  Ok, good.  But it is merely about sex with a person that one does not find suitable for full, romantic love.

Ok, why not?  Guys, what kind of woman does this mean?  What have you judged about her in order to conclude she's not "love material"?

Gals, what kind of guy is this?  You sorta like him, but don't have a deep feeling of love?  Why not?

I will address your other points later (and thank you for such a thoughtful response), but I would like to answer this question now.

What are some things that would cause a guy (or girl) to not fall in love with someone they would nevertheless sleep with under certain circumstances? Here are a few that come to mind:

-The girl has all the virtues of character he admires but her sense of life is not in sync with his.

-The girl has all the virtues of character he admires, but she is not his type physically.

-He is on vacation and won't know her long enough to fall in love with her before they part ways.

-He is falling in love with her, but isn't yet in love.

-He is ugly or physically deformed and simply cannot do any better.

-He is repressed and is trying to work on that, but due to the state of psychology, won't be "well" until much later in life.

[writeby]

"Vernacular is all well and good, but I don't think it's precise or accurate to say the girl "conquered" the boy, notwithstanding the fact that rational relationships between men and women are consensual. "

I'm here using "conquer" to mean win him. And a woman most assuredly wins a man (up to a point) when she gets him to pursue her - just as he has, to the same extent, won her by getting her to want him to pursue her. She has won his interest and he, hers.

It is a "victory" for both of them, dramatized, if you will, by the sexuality of each. In the end, the woman's submission to the man is an acknowledgement of his victory over her; and the man's pursuit of the woman is his acknowledgement of her victory over him. This is birds & bees stuff, guys.

None of that means, obviously (I'd thought), that there is anything coercive or deceitful or fraudulent about any of it. It's the dance of courtship. Sheesh. Has the culture become so emotionally repressed no one any longer understands just what wooing entails? (See AS for Galt's wooing of Dagny and vice versa, e.g., "Wear the blue one next time. It'll look just as beautiful." Analyze that.)

I wasn't aware this was a technical philosophical dissection of the psychology of romantic love. I'd thought, as the thread's title seems to suggest, that this was simply "miscellaneous" subjects of interest, which would involve a general discussion. I approached as if it were Good Copy - not ITOE.

Indeed, there is much similar in this discussion with the indignant responses to that light and gay story that AR elicited when she tried to point out that that is exactly what all of the philosophical discussions, etc. are about: living in such a world with a sense of lightness and gayety.

As for substituting surrender for submit, see TF & AS for cites of this very term and their context.

As an aside, as pointed out by Dr. P. in his memoirs of 30 years with AR, Frank O'Connor was a man of great integrity but lacked AR's intellectual genius. This was the main motivation for AR having an affair with (that b******) Branden. In the end, though, integrity did win out.

That said, I'd also like to point out that it was Mr. O'Connor who "saved TF," who spent the night talking with AR and *helping* her to think through some very dark feelings that she was having regarding the state of the then current culture (& in the late 30's, early 40's, that state was pretty dismal).

Miss Rand did not have to "teach" Mr. O'Connor the fundamentals about reason, egoism and Individualism. He knew them when they met. Please see Who Is Ayn Rand for further reading on this point.

From the tenor of this discussion, I can tell I'm out of my depth. My view of romantic relationships is that they are indeed rational, but that includes emotional, i.e., when there is sufficient value, both fundamental and optional, to include complimentary differences, between a man & a woman, the woman indeed wishes to be conquered by the guy, the guy does indeed chase her until she catches him and when she does, has indeed conquered him - as he has her.

Nothing could be more consensual - or sensual - than that.

As for what you're trying to work out as to what constitutes indiscriminate sex, what constitutes a proper sexual partner and a genuine romantic love partner (one thing you're leaving out is simple physical chemistry, i.e., individualized, optional physical values that causes one to respond amorously rather than just sexually), etc. - good luck with all that.

[Betsy]

[O]ne thing you're leaving out is simple physical chemistry, i.e., individualized, optional physical values that causes one to respond amorously rather than just sexually), etc.

Hear! Hear!

That's why everyone isn't in love with the same man or woman. We all have our own unique personal values and preferences in optional matters like looks and personal style and that really matters. It is the irreplaceable uniqueness of the person one loves that makes him such an incredible personal value.

[AshRyan]

Dr. Gotthelf has a great article that's relevant to some of the issues brought up here called (from memory) "Love and Philosophy: Aristotelian vs. Platonic." Has anyone read it?

By the way, welcome to the board, Steven! It's nice to see you here.

[MinorityOfOne]

I listened to about half of his tape on that subject before my walkman decided to eat it. I rescued it, but I've been reluctant to try to play it again... what I heard of it was great, though.

[Free Capitalist]

I do not. Those words are emotionally evocative but descriptively meaningless.

Not meaningless at all! All these words describe sex, intimate relationships, as being of a certain kind, of a certain quality. Or at least of having that quality for a decent person, because certainly playboys can treat sex as irrelevant. The first, and natural, inclination is to treat sex as something special, and there are many reasons why this is so: as AR said, you're naked in body as well as in spirit, etc. The whole point of my quote above is to explain that there's a certain high standard with which most people judge sex. Establishing this point is important for establishing the next point: if the sexual act means a lot to a person, it necessarily follows that the person they are doing it with must mean a lot to that person as well. Now I'm being purposefully vague here, and I'm not saying that the partner must be "loved", or anything like that. You don't need to define love for yourself in order to have sex - your subconscious will judge the person for you, based on your values. So all you have to do is, to ask yourself: is this person worthy enough for me to engage in this most private of all activities with? Once you put it that way, then there's no point in trying to figure out whether this person is ideal or not. By definition you will choose a partner who is a manifestation of your own highest values, because only that kind of a person is worthy to engage in sex.

So you see, it's critical to define and identify what sort of activity sex is. If it is, as someone said on CapMag, just like a handshake, if you view it just as a handshake, then it's no big deal. But of course it's impossible to respect yourself and consider sex as a handshake, so you will view it as something more than that. The higher you value yourself, the higher you value the act of sex, and the closer to your highest values your partner has to be.

[Free Capitalist]

Again, I purposefully omitted an elaboration of why "it's impossible to respect yourself and consider sex as a handshake". That really gets beyond the scope of a forum, and reading some AR will help with that. Just saying that in case you will challenge me on assuming that sex is worth more than a handshake.

[DPW]

Establishing this point is important for establishing the next point: if the sexual act means a lot to a person, it necessarily follows that the person they are doing it with must mean a lot to that person as well...So all you have to do is, to ask yourself: is this person worthy enough for me to engage in this most private of all activities with? Once you put it that way, then there's no point in trying to figure out whether this person is ideal or not. By definition you will choose a partner who is a manifestation of your own highest values, because only that kind of a person is worthy to engage in sex.

Okay, this I consider an argument. And it's not bad either. But there's just one problem with it: it doesn't mesh with reality. It is, in my view, a perfect exercise in rationalism. I don't think you can argue that people can't get many (legitimate) values from sex and enjoy sex on many different levels and in many different contexts. If you can, you know a lot more about human psychology than anyone I've ever met. In any case, I'll give you the last word on this subject.