Casual Sex

[DragonMaci]

Well I don't think it was entirely clear at the time what you meant. The confusion is because if that's what you meant, then why say that to Sophia at all? You're not contradicting what she said in the least.

Well, it seemed to me that she was arguing that different men cannot value sex to a different degree.

[Capitalism Forever]

I can't believe what is that I am defending. I am shocked.

It is absurd, isn't it? But this is what happens when people try to value sex without regard to whom they have sex with. If I were having one half-hearted relationship after another with one half-attractive woman after another, I too would soon find that I enjoyed finishing chapters of a book more than that.

The important thing to understand is that it is not sex as such that you primarily value, but the specific person you want to have sex with. You want to have sex because you are in love with someone--because you hold someone to be your supreme value--and not the other way around. Pleasure and happiness are the emotional reactions to achieving your values, and thus presuppose that you have some values in the first place, some things that you are acting to gain and keep. You enjoy sex because it is evidence that you have gained the person you love, much like you enjoy cashing your paycheck because it is evidence that you have produced something of value. Casual sex will not give you pleasure for the same reason cashing a welfare check will not: if there is nothing you have earned, there is nothing to be satisfied about. Satisfaction only comes out of living qua man, achieving your own values through your own effort. Those who seek it anywhere else are bound to conclude that sex does not make one happy, just like they have concluded that money does not make one happy.

[DragonMaci]

It is absurd, isn't it? But this is what happens when people try to value sex without regard to whom they have sex with. If I were having one half-hearted relationship after another with one half-attractive woman after another, I too would soon find that I enjoyed finishing chapters of a book more than that.

Are you suggesting someone here has done that? If so who?

[Inspector]

Well, it seemed to me that she was arguing that different men cannot value sex to a different degree.

Which is correct. They can have different priorities for relationships. But the nature of sex to a rational man is unchanging. Rational men do not differ in the value of, say, pride - they differ in the degree to which they have earned it or feel it individually. Not in the importance or value of pride as such - to the degree that you have earned it.

So, in brief, you are saying it wrong.

[DragonMaci]

Which is correct. They can have different priorities for relationships. But the nature of sex to a rational man is unchanging. Rational men do not differ in the value of, say, pride - they differ in the degree to which they have earned it or feel it individually. Not in the importance or value of pride as such - to the degree that you have earned it.

So, in brief, you are saying it wrong.

I have yet to be convinced nof that.

And how do you explain Jenni, who has done both, saying she enjoys finishing a chapter more? Would you say she isn't rational? She seems it to me from my overall dealings with her in the forum and chat. I haven't agreed with her on everything, but then that is never going to happen with anyone I have dealings with no matter how rational me and that person are.

[Inspector]

And how do you explain Jenni, who has done both, saying she enjoys finishing a chapter more? Would you say she isn't rational?

I'm going to answer this because you seem honestly confused and are not like you're trying to start trouble - even though your question is a thorny one.

That is one possible explanation - or more accurately that she wasn't being rational at the time. But I'm not going to accuse her of that as I don't know her situation well enough to say. (It would be bad form, besides.) I said before maybe if she took it more seriously, it would be better. Maybe there are other problems, as well. Maybe. I don't know.

Certainly the degree to which you don't take it seriously will make it lousy - mind and body are connected this way. If you don't do it as an act of pride and self esteem - it will be lousy. To the degree that you mess up any countless number of other things, it will be lousy. Thing is, I don't know her life - only she knows her life. I can offer some principles; I can't tell her what to do.

I can only offer the principle that values must be earned, and sex is no exception. You can't just have any old view of the importance of sex and then expect it to be wonderful. A rational man has a certain view, and to him it will not be a blasé experience.

Of course, there is another possible explanation (or additional explanation, if both are involved):

*Ahem*

Rational men do not differ in the value of, say, pride - they differ in the degree to which they have earned it or feel it individually.

You may want to read what I've said again, more closely.

[DragonMaci]

But I'm not going to accuse her of that as I don't know her situation well enough to say.... Maybe. I don't know.... Thing is, I don't know her life - only she knows her life. I can offer some principles; I can't tell her what to do.

Exactly why I told Sophia to only speak for herself not others.

I can only offer the principle that values must be earned, and sex is no exception.

I don't think Jenni disagrees with you on that. I know I don't.

You can't just have any old view of the importance of sex and then expect it to be wonderful. A rational man has a certain view, and to him it will not be a blasé experience.

Can 2 rational man that are both writers have a differing view of how valuable finishing a chapter is? Or do they have to have the same view to be rational?

You may want to read what I've said again, more closely.

Why? And which comments?

[DragonMaci]

Reminder: I am not in any way agreeing with Jenni's heirachy. Since I have only done one of the two activities (finish a chapter) and not the other (have sex) I cannot make the comparision myself. However, I doubt I would agree with her on which is more pleasurable, at least for me. I am simply defending her and her heirachy.

[Matus1976]

Good discussion, I'm going to plug a bit from my earlier essay on Love.

http://forum.ObjectivismOnline.com/index.p...mp;#entry127366

"Consider then, conversely, the person who seeks sexual only relationships. Sex is inherently an intimate act. Trying to remove Sex of it’s intimacy is an absurdity. When having sex you are going through all the physical motions of deeply caring about someone, you are touching and caressing them in ways not appropriate in all other social contexts. If you find yourself sleeping with someone, and then wake up with them asking yourself “hmm, is it ok to spoon with them or is that weird?” “Hmm, can I hold hands?” Well, you just engaged in the ultimate extension of physical intimacy! And now you are skittish about holding hands and lying with your bodies close to each others! If such thoughts surface in your mind, then you know intrinsically that you weren’t at the point of sharing the deepest of all physically intimate acts with them."

No I don't think casual sexual relationships are good or psychologically healthy, if you arent close enough to hold hands with someone, caress them, lie naked with them, kiss them for hours on end, physically pleasure them, then you certainly shouldnt be engaging in utimate expression of admiration and intimacy with them.

[Capitalism Forever]

Are you suggesting someone here has done that?

I didn't specifically encounter that premise here. (But note that it was the main premise of my opposition on the thread I linked to earlier.)

[DragonMaci]

I didn't specifically encounter that premise here. (But note that it was the main premise of my opposition on the thread I linked to earlier.)

Ah, I see and understand now. Thank you for clarifying that for me.

Caring who I have sex with, i.e., having very high standards, is why I am still a virgin at the age of 25.

[Lorenzo de' Medici]

Hello,

I read though as many posts as I could to try to catch up with what has been said. I unfortunately think that Ayn Rand did not fully develop Objectivism in regards to this/these issues. There are multiple issues to consider in regards to casual sex and morality.

From what I understand the question is: Is it immoral to have casual sex? I want to start with some of my own definitions:

Romantic Love: The highest form of Physical, sexual, mental, psychological integration between partners. Meaning the sexual partners see each other in this way. They see each other as reciprocally paramount in terms of value.

Casual sex: A sexual encounter/intimacy without true romantic love as the justification for the act.

Promiscuity: indiscriminate sexual behavior

Now I think we face a continuum: On the left we can place Promiscuity and on the right we can place Romantic love making with the ideal person, an expression, glorification of the highest level of physical, biological, emotional and psychological pleasure.

Paralleled to the continuum of Romantic Love and Promiscuity we can create of continuum of moral judgment. On one side Immoral the other side Moral.

Comparing these continuums simultaneously and in relation to each other would be one way of establishing an objective means of evaluation in regards to sexual behavior.

There are many things to consider in regards to sexuality in general and people have to conclude on their own judgment if their actions/values are rational, consistent and conducive to achieving their goals, contextually. Thus, a generalization about sexual behavior may not apply to a specific case and vice versa.

Consider these abstractions:

- A person that never has sex because no one meets the standard of true romantic love

- A person that falls in love with everyone and therefore will have sex with whomever, whenever possible

- A person that chooses to engage in sexual encounters with prostitutes

- A person that has sex with someone he dislikes

- A person that has sex with someone that he hardly knows

- A person that waits to evaluate the character of the considered partner

- A person that attempts to evaluate and consider rationally the many values and factors involved before engaging in a particular sexual activity or encounter

Love vs. Sex: We can evaluate these on a continuum scale:

Love on one side, disgust on the other. Parallel to this continuum: Would not want to be in the same room together, would love to sleep with this person.

Elements/factors that affect someone’s sex life and choices:

Hormones – pheromones

Biological

Romantic

Physical attraction

Mental attraction

Emotional attraction

Social acceptance – social status

Context

Value judgments

Morality

Consequences: Risk – health and pregnancy

Honesty and agreement

Multiple partners

Self-esteem and pride

Psychology

Experience – exploration, experimentation

Maturity

Time spent with the person

Clear intentions

The type of sexual/intimate encounter (what sexual acts of intimacy are committed)

All of these elements have an effect on what a man or woman’s sexual experience and life is like. And, we asses our partners and determine our actions either consciously or unconsciously. People vary in their ability to make these judgments. Some may not even consider all these factors before they decide to have a sexual encounter.

As a principle of Objectivism we seek out rational pleasure, rational self interest. I think it’s difficult to just formulate a blanket rule or judgment of how or why someone chooses or should choose to have sex with someone else. That is why I think Ayn Rand later made the statement to be cautious when judging the relationships of others. In most cases we are dealing with continuums like the examples I have given. This is why we see subjectivity and diverse opinions and abstractions between each other.

To conclude I would not categorize casual sexual encounters as immoral generally speaking. Sexual encounters I think can be enjoyable and moral without requiring that the act is solely justified by love, because there are more things to consider than just love.

[DragonMaci]

Consider these abstractions:

[1.] - A person that never has sex because no one meets the standard of true romantic love

[2.] - A person that falls in love with everyone and therefore will have sex with whomever, whenever possible

[3.] - A person that chooses to engage in sexual encounters with prostitutes

[4.] - A person that has sex with someone he dislikes

[5.] - A person that has sex with someone that he hardly knows

[6.] - A person that waits to evaluate the character of the considered partner

[7.] - A person that attempts to evaluate and consider rationally the many values and factors involved before engaging in a particular sexual activity or encounter

[Numbers mine.]

1. Missing context. Has he set his standards unrealistically high? Example: expecting perfection or near perfection. Or has he set realistic standards and just never meet a woman that meets them? The former is invalid standards because it sets him up for never achieving his the romance he desires and through his own fault. Such standards cannot be met. The latter is valid standards because such standards can be met. And if he does not get the romance he seeks it is because none of the women in his life lived up to his valid standards, which is their fault.

2. This person is immoral full stop. Love has to be earned for it to bring the full potential of happiness. A man that is indescriminate with his love will suffer the same psychological damage as one that is sexually promiscuous: he will feel a lack of self-worth.

3. Like I just said a man that is sexually promisuous will feel a lack of self-worth.

4. This is cause an even greater sense of a lack of self-worth than sexual promiscuous. In fact the man will feel a sense of self-hate.

5. See number 3.

6. What does this mean? Does it mean he evaluates her before entering into a romance? If so, then I put it to you that we always evaluate people, even of first sight. There is no such thing as entering a romance - or any other sort of relationship - without evaluation. Or do you mean something else?

7. See number 6. As for the rational part, well obviously if he thinks about it rationally then he is being moral.

Love vs. Sex

That is bad wording. No such issue exists. It is a matter of love and sex vs sex without love.

[DragonMaci]

Elements/factors that affect someone’s sex life and choices:

[Group 1]

Hormones – pheromones

Biological

Psychology

[Group 2]

Romantic

Physical attraction

Mental attraction

Emotional attraction

[Group 3]

Context

Value judgments

Time spent with the person

[Group 4]

Morality

Honesty and agreement

Self-esteem and pride

Maturity

[Group 5]

Multiple partners

Experience – exploration, experimentation

The type of sexual/intimate encounter (what sexual acts of intimacy are committed)

[Group 6]

[1.] Social acceptance – social status

[2.] Clear intentions

[3.] Consequences: Risk – health and pregnancy

[Groups and numbers mine.]

Group 1 are influencers, not but, with the exception of our psychology they have only a very small effect. Group 2 are the elements that make up love. They have a big effect. Group 3 are what lead to love. We cannot fall in love - or any other emotion - without them. Group 4 are things that are potentially - and should be - sought in a romantic partner. Group 5 are decisions about sex that will lead to the psychological harm I mentioned in my previous post. Group 6 are miscellaneous ones. I will address each indivually.

1. This is a non-issue. Your social status is not relevant to sex.

2. This is always a good idea in any relationship.

3. Alsways worth taking into consideration.

[DragonMaci]

All of these elements have an effect on what a man or woman’s sexual experience and life is like. And, we asses our partners and determine our actions either consciously or unconsciously. People vary in their ability to make these judgments. Some may not even consider all these factors before they decide to have a sexual encounter.

Yes, some do not consider them and that and that is a part of the problem. It is a part of what makes their decisions immoral and irrational.

To conclude I would not categorize casual sexual encounters as immoral generally speaking. Sexual encounters I think can be enjoyable and moral without requiring that the act is solely justified by love, because there are more things to consider than just love.

How could a man causing himself psychological harm be anything but immoral? And what else is there to consider other than love and the consequences of your actions? Can you name even one? If so I challenge you to do so.

[blackdiamond]

It is absurd, isn't it? But this is what happens when people try to value sex without regard to whom they have sex with. If I were having one half-hearted relationship after another with one half-attractive woman after another, I too would soon find that I enjoyed finishing chapters of a book more than that.

The important thing to understand is that it is not sex as such that you primarily value, but the specific person you want to have sex with. You want to have sex because you are in love with someone--because you hold someone to be your supreme value--and not the other way around. Pleasure and happiness are the emotional reactions to achieving your values, and thus presuppose that you have some values in the first place, some things that you are acting to gain and keep. You enjoy sex because it is evidence that you have gained the person you love, much like you enjoy cashing your paycheck because it is evidence that you have produced something of value. Casual sex will not give you pleasure for the same reason cashing a welfare check will not: if there is nothing you have earned, there is nothing to be satisfied about. Satisfaction only comes out of living qua man, achieving your own values through your own effort. Those who seek it anywhere else are bound to conclude that sex does not make one happy, just like they have concluded that money does not make one happy.

Unbelievable. You have stolen the words from my mouth, Mr. Forever.

As a matter of fact, I think sex should not even be a value (I'm still thinking about this), which means it should not even feature in one's hierachy of values as such. Sex is properly a RESPONSE to values (in another particular person). That person should be valued primarily because of the values he/she possesses - the choices he/she has made to make and keep his soul (virtues). Thus, sex is really the highest physical expression of one's soul. To treat it as anything other than a supremely (and exclusively) important act is to degrade oneself. It is the celebration of one's total soul (with a specially chosen kindred soul), which is why it is totally sacred and divine.

It is only with this attitude that you can come any close to understanding what Miss Rand meant when she said:

Tell me what a man finds sexually attractive and I will tell you his entire philosophy of life.

[Ergo]

On Myrhaf's blogpost on this topic: Inspector said: "Sex is a consequence of valuing another; not a primary or end."

Peikoff said: "Like happiness,... sex is an end in itself; it is not necessarily a means to any further end."

Peikoff said: "The subject of sex is complex and belongs largely to the science of psychology. I asked Ayn Rand once what philosophy specifically has to say on the subject. She answered: "It says that sex is good."

Peikoff discusses sex along a trichotomy: the value of sex for a rational man; the value of sex for an intrinsicist; and the value of sex for a hedonist.

The discussion of sex for the rational man focuses on the fully realized conception of sex as an ultimate emotional experience--a selfish affirmation of highly spiritual ideals. An emotional apprehension of one's own values; like art. Sex is an ultimate value and end for a rational man with an ideal partner. Sex is selfish--an affirmation of one's own existence, a reward for one's own virtues. However, Peikoff is careful to point out that the assumption here is "each is romantically free and the context is... appropriate." This includes living in a relatively free and rational society where the possibility of meeting one's rational ideal in a romantic partner is good and likely.

The discussion of sex for the intrincist focuses on the outright prohibition and damnation of sex. This includes the advocation of chastity and celibacy as moral and virtuous.

The discussion of sex for the hedonist focuses on the outright sundering of any discriminate standards for sex: sex as "mere sensory reaction." This includes the point that the hedonist premise is circular: sex is a value, not a virtue; therefore, to use sex or pleasure as a standard of value is to say that you should value that which you already value.

This leaves a large area of sex that goes undiscussed: namely, the following:

Sex with a less-than-ideal romantic partner who is not a soul-mate.

Sex in contexts, countries, and cultures that are not rational and in which men are not free.

Sex with someone one is merely dating.

Sex with someone one is not interested in pursuing anything long-term.

Under that last category, you could have the following:

1) Indiscriminate sex with any random hookup (hedonism/promiscuity)

2) Sex with someone who one actually despises, i.e., one has reasons to hate; for example, being aware of their disgusting or twisted philosophic values: this includes--as examples--Communists, Islamic Fundamentalists, self-proclaimed Objectivists. For example, having sex with someone who identifies as an Objectivist but is in fact a dogmatic moralist who has substituted philosophy for religion.

3) Sex with someone whose spiritual values one is not yet aware of, but whose optional values (like taste in music, movies, etc.) make an enjoyable companionship.

4) Sex with someone whose spiritual values you *expect* to be irrational due to the irrational culture or country you live in--for example, but are unsure if that is truly the case and if so, whether the motives are deliberate and malicious or benign and confused. For example, having sex with someone who holds irrational values not knowingly, not deliberately, and because of non-malicious confusion of premises.

Now, it should be beyond debate that 1 and 2 above are fully immoral in any given context for any individual in any culture/country: the first because it is subjectivist hedonism and an indiscriminate slavery to your sexual passions. The second because it requires either a willful evasion of the depravity of your sexual partner or because it requires harboring an actual contradiction of spiritually hating someone but physically enjoying the intimacy of this person (which is the same as the mind-body dichotomy of the hedonist in 1).

3 and 4 above are heavily context dependent; for example, if you are in the company of someone who is just *not* philosophically inclined, and so may admit that he has not fully thought about what his spiritual premises are; that he is a *doer* rather than a *thinker*. In such a case, you might have to assess his values as he presents them to you: optional values, decent behavior, tastes in music and movies, sense of humor, physical appearance, grooming, etc. If your assessment is positive, sex with this person--without the intention of pursuing long-term romance--is moral even though you may not have anything spiritually or philosophically common with this man.

It is a fact that there are more irrational people in this world. Which means, it is very likely that the next person you meet will be someone with mostly irrational premises. However, justice requires that do not assume to know what the person's philosophic values actually are unless you are given direct evidence of their depravity deserving condemndation.

For example, you may rightfully assume that someone is virtueous because he claims to be an Objectivist; however, your assessment would change once you discover that he is a dogmatist. If you were dating him and had sex with him when you honestly believed he was a virtuous Objectivist, you cannot be faulted for your error in judgement. Remember that knowledge is contextual and you have no omniscience. However, if you choose to have sex with the person even after you have re-evaluated the character negatively, then you are sundering your committment to your values and embracing depravity.

Likewise, in the context of non-ideal-partner sex (3 and 4 above), just because one can expect to meet more irrational people in one's life, does not mean that the person you are actually meeting at the bar or restaurant holds some depraved philosophic view. Perhaps they are just not smart enough to think things out, or they may not be inclined to think in philosophic terms. Your only obligation is to make an honest evaluation of the character of the partner--given your context and knowledge.

In the context of 3 and 4 above, if you are in an irrational society--like India, where I'm from--you must be prepared to meet mostly irrational people. Most likely, the majority of the people we meet in life hold a set of mostly irrational beliefs; nonetheless, many of these people are our friends, our colleagues, our family members, our teachers, our mentors, people whom we would also respect.

We don't despise the person unless we are clear of their reasons and motivations. It is rather infrequent to *despise* someone enough to not even talk to them, and in such cases, sex is not even a possibility.

Finally, your context will dictate if you wish to spend the time unraveling the underlying motive of the person's irrationality; sure, you have an obligation to investigate this matter if you are *serious* about dating this person or pursuing something romantic. But in the context of 3 and 4 above, if you are not interested in such a possibility, then you are well within your rights and morality to *not* assume the worst of your partner's motivations and enjoy his company for the evening and sex thereafter.

P.S. For a fuller discussion, visit Mryhaf's post on this topic.

Edited October 3, 2007 by Ergo

[Inspector]

Peikoff said: "The subject of sex is complex and belongs largely to the science of psychology. I asked Ayn Rand once what philosophy specifically has to say on the subject. She answered: "It says that sex is good."

This is quote that I have seen in the past ripped out of context by those who tried to rationalize promiscuity. Are we to think that the Objectivist ethics vis a vis sex begins and ends thusly? Sex is good! So sex is then, always good? Contextlessly good? The sex of the promiscuous - that is good? Sex as the hippies advocate it - which Ayn Rand called "the view of sex as an animal function" and "disgusting" -- that is good? Sex as it happens during rape - that is good?

No? (Even Ergo does not think so, as his examples "1" and "2" show.)

Then stop using that quote as a context-destroying cudgel.

Now, his other quote:

On Myrhaf's blogpost on this topic: Inspector said: "Sex is a consequence of valuing another; not a primary or end."

Peikoff said: "Like happiness,... sex is an end in itself; it is not necessarily a means to any further end."

I knew it was only a matter of time before he attempted to use that quote to refute my point. The fact is, however, that he is misquoting Dr. Peikoff. When a sentence does not end at the finish of a quotation, it is necessary to add a "..."

Because the quote actually goes like this:

Sex is moral, it is an exalted pleasure, it is a profound value. Like happiness, therefore, sex is an end in itself; it is not necessarily a means to any further end, such as procreation. This uplifted view of sex leads to an ethical corollary: a function so important must be granted the respect it deserves.

(the missing part from Ergo's quotation in bold)

The context that Ergo removed from the quote makes it clear that he is merely separating his view from the religious viewpoint that sex is strictly a means for procreation. It is not saying that sex, as such - sex divorced from the value of the partner - i.e. sex as the mere act of inserting body parts into each other - is an end in itself.

Note also that the next sentence of that paragraph, which Ergo also did not include, says that there is an ethical corollary in play here: that sex must be granted the respect it deserves. What does this mean? The next sentence is:

To respect sex means to approach it objectively. The guiding principle should be: select a partner whom you love on the basis of values you can identify and defend...

(bold mine; italics in original)

Given the whole of the rest of Objectivism, what does this kind of evaluation mean? Does it mean that you can hand-pick one or two values in a partner while blanking out their overall character and your total evaluation of them as a person? Does it mean that one can deliberately be ignorant of this overall value, if one has no long term plans for a relationship with this person - i.e. does a one night stand excuse such a blank-out? Is the only necessity of knowing someone's character based on the intention of forming a relationship or does a moral, rational man's sexual nature also require a recognition of this aspect of reality?

I have my answers to those questions, which I think anyone who has read what I have to say on this topic will know.

But let's take more of the guesswork out of it, a few paragraphs below:

No man desires everyone on earth. Each has some requirements in this regard, however contradictory or unidentified—and the rational man's requirements, here as elsewhere, are the opposite of contradictory. He desires only a woman he can admire, a woman who (to his knowledge) shares his moral standards, his self-esteem, and his view of life. Only with such a partner can he experience the reality of the values he is seeking to celebrate, including his own value.

Only with such a partner can he experience the reality of the values he is seeking to celebrate and this INCLUDES his own value. He cannot celebrate his masculinity, ability to attract, or other values that Ergo cited at Myrhaf's blog, with a partner who he does not admire, who does not share his moral standards, who does not share his self-esteem, or his view of life. It completely eliminates the point to attempt such a celebration with someone incapable of appreciating those values (because they do not share them).

And what of "to his knowledge?" Can he simply restrict his knowledge and assume the best? Fill in the blanks with positive values even though - by his own words: "...if you are in an irrational society--like India, where I'm from--you must be prepared to meet mostly irrational people..." ? Is this how a rational man evaluates reality - avoiding knowledge and deep discussion in order to force his sexual mechanism to act? Or, even worse as in his latest example - actually encountering irrationality but not stopping to unravel its "underlying motives" and simply assuming that those motives excuse it. And then, to bed! But of course you can't have a lasting relationship - you can tolerate that person's irrationality for something as trivial as sex, but actually putting up with that person long term? No, that is too much to ask.

This is Objectivism's view of sex?

[Ergo]

When Peikoff said that sex is an end in itself, like happiness, he was referring to sex in a rational context among rational individuals who find themselves as ideal partners. In this context, sex is like happiness--an end in itself, a moral value. I pointed out that Peikoff only discusses sex along these contexts: ideal/rational, intrinsicist, and subjective hedonist.

In non-ideal situations and contexts otherwise, sex is a means of experiencing one's own values, because the happiness is not ultimate in a partner who is not one's ideal.

If this is also Inspector's view and intention when he said that sex is a means and not an end, then I'll agree with him on this point. However, sex is still primarily an experience of values before it is an expression of values: although, this distinction disappears in the context of ideal sex with one's ideal partner.

[Prometheus98876]

[Numbers mine.]

2. This person is immoral full stop. Love has to be earned for it to bring the full potential of happiness. A man that is indescriminate with his love will suffer the same psychological damage as one that is sexually promiscuous: he will feel a lack of self-worth.

3. Like I just said a man that is sexually promisuous will feel a lack of self-worth.

I would say that he would already feel a lack of self-worth that would be one of the reasons he engaged in such behavior in the first place. You are probably aware of this, however it couldn't hurt to point it out.

Of course, you are definitely right in that this behavior will make the person feel a hell of a lot worse.

[JMeganSnow]

Well, this is new, people talking about my relationships. (Thanks for being polite, Inspector.) I think the context of all my statements is being completely ignored.

Well, you just engaged in the ultimate extension of physical intimacy! And now you are skittish about holding hands and lying with your bodies close to each others! If such thoughts surface in your mind, then you know intrinsically that you weren’t at the point of sharing the deepest of all physically intimate acts with them.

This is completely off the mark. Some people don't like casual intimacy even after you've slept with them (my ex didn't, and I don't like people groping me when I'm working, either). Yes, after you've slept with someone you may still need to properly re-establish boundaries for casual intimacy, especially in public. I may have allowed you to use my body for your enjoyment but it's still *mine*.

That's not to say that it can't be a turn-on when people take liberties, but it has to be done correctly. If it isn't, it can be terrifying.

My view is not that casual sex is good. My view is that casual sex is *impossible*, and that you don't have to marry or intend to marry someone in order to have non-casual sex with them. That's it. I'm not arguing in favor of sleeping with random strangers. I'm arguing in favor of not asking yourself "have I known this person for the prescribed amount of time and asked the prescribed questions?" before you decide how much you care for them (and why) and whether your relationship should include sex. That's it.

Now, as for why I think casual sex is impossible: if you *really* didn't feel *any* strong emotions, you wouldn't enjoy the sex. Now, as to whether those emotions are rational in nature, that's a question you have to figure out for yourself. That's why I always add those provisos about "rational" and "in context" etc. etc. etc. ad nauseum. Anyone else doing that? No. Hence why I think everyone else's opinion is full of bull.

[DragonMaci]

I would say that he would already feel a lack of self-worth that would be one of the reasons he engaged in such behavior in the first place. You are probably aware of this, however it couldn't hurt to point it out.

Of course, you are definitely right in that this behavior will make the person feel a hell of a lot worse.

True. I should of said: enforces his sense of a lack of self-worth.

[Maarten]

Now, as for why I think casual sex is impossible: if you *really* didn't feel *any* strong emotions, you wouldn't enjoy the sex. Now, as to whether those emotions are rational in nature, that's a question you have to figure out for yourself. That's why I always add those provisos about "rational" and "in context" etc. etc. etc. ad nauseum. Anyone else doing that? No. Hence why I think everyone else's opinion is full of bull.

I agree with Jenni. It is simply impossible to be attracted to someone without actually anything being present you are attracted to. In order for you to be attracted to something or someone there needs to be something you subconsciously evaluate as good, and that is what your emotional mechanism responds to. If casual sex is defined as sex divorced from value, it cannot exist.

Even if you count only objective values I think it is extremely rare for a person to only be attracted to someone based on subjective values. But in most cases where a person chooses to sleep with someone they just met their desire to do so is based primarily on physical beauty. But physical beauty is an objective value, and so is a very benevolent sense of life. You could argue that these are only lesser values and should not be enough reason to have sex with a person, but you can't say that this act of sex is based on no value at all.

There is definitely a large volitional aspect to a person being beautiful and healthy, and to the extent that they are these things this tells you that they have self-esteem and that they value their life. Perhaps it doesn't go further than that, but those things are both objectively valuable qualities in a person so a strong attraction felt towards these qualities is based on a proper emotional mechanism and as such says something good about the person feeling the attraction rather than something negative.

The main sin a person can commit when they just get to know someone is to shut down their mind and prevent themselves from learning more about the other person. But if you do not do that and all the limited things you do know about them are good, then I see no reason why it'd be wrong to sleep with them. Sure, sex with this person won't be as good as having sex with your ideal woman, because you just do not know very much about them and it is less meaningful to share this experience together for that reason. But that doesn't mean that it'd be utterly worthless, or that it would devalue other sexual relationship one may later have in their life.

And there are very many things a person can learn from less than ideal relationships that will better prepare them for future ones. Being successful in a relationship, or being able to please your partner in bed, is just another skill that you need to learn and you do not learn it by not practicing these things.

[Inspector]

In non-ideal situations and contexts otherwise, sex is a means of experiencing one's own values, because the happiness is not ultimate in a partner who is not one's ideal.

I don't agree with this - I agree with Dr. Peikoff's formulation: "He desires only a woman he can admire, a woman who (to his knowledge) shares his moral standards, his self-esteem, and his view of life. Only with such a partner can he experience the reality of the values he is seeking to celebrate, including his own value." (emphasis mine) Note that is including one's own value. No matter how ideal or non-ideal the situation, a rational man requires a partner that is worthy of him and his values in order to celebrate them - or else the entire point is undermined and will not work. He will simply not be interested in any partners if there are none available that meet his standards, and will celebrate his own value by himself.

However, to say that sex is a means of experiencing values is what I intended when I said it was a means and not an end. It is akin to pleasure - something that a man can set either in accordance with his flourishing or with his destruction. I mean my statement in the same way and for the same reason that pleasure is not an end in itself - but rather a means to the celebration of the achievement of rational values.

Here is Ayn Rand on pleasure:

Man exists for his own happiness, and the definition of happiness proper to a human being is: a man's happiness must be based on his moral values. It must be the highest expression of his moral values possible to him.

This is the difference between my morality and hedonism. The standard is not: "that is good which gives me pleasure, just because it gives me pleasure" (which is the standard of the dipsomaniac or the sex-chaser)—but "that is good which is the expression of my moral values, and that gives me pleasure." Since the proper moral code is based on man's nature and his survival, and since joy is the expression of his survival, this form of happiness can have no contradiction in it, it is both "short range" and "long range" (as all of man's life has to be), and it leads to the furtherance of his life, not to his destruction.

...Man's proper happiness must not depend upon or be derived from anything which is evil, low, contemptible, undesirable by his own standards.

(emphasis in original - note especially the mention of the "sex-chaser")

Edited October 4, 2007 by Inspector

[Inspector]

Well, this is new, people talking about my relationships. (Thanks for being polite, Inspector.)

Sorry about that - my purpose was to display how it is improper to speculate on the basis that he was, and I tried to be clear that I was not saying any of those things applied to you.

Now, as for why I think casual sex is impossible: if you *really* didn't feel *any* strong emotions, you wouldn't enjoy the sex. Now, as to whether those emotions are rational in nature, that's a question...

Indeed. And logically, I believe this follows: to say one is engaging in "casual sex," i.e. to attempt to treat things casually even though such strong emotions must be involved, is itself irrational.