The Purpose of Sex

[themadkat]

Not quite, at least in the typical case. The typical person who takes the "sex only for procreation" line does so based on faulty ethical reasons. So, guard against the "everyone is selfish" fallacy, where Mother Teresa becomes selfish because she wanted to be altruistic.

Are you disagreeing that sex and romance are optional values? Or just saying that the reasoning behind "sex is only for procreation" is necessarily flawed, no matter what the person's context? I'm not quite sure what you mean by that.

Certainly in my case the statement is reversed...I'm all about gettin' a piece but most affirmatively NOT trying to procreate, in fact I'm actively avoiding it.

[softwareNerd]

Are you disagreeing that sex and romance are optional values? Or just saying that the reasoning behind "sex is only for procreation" is necessarily flawed, no matter what the person's context? I'm not quite sure what you mean by that.

No, not "no matter what the person's context". I was talking about the typical case of someone who says sex is only for procreation, and thinks so as a principle, rather than the slightly different "given the options I have for sex (like my aged husband who already has 6 wives), I'll only do it for procreation".

There's definitely a sense in which sex and romance are optional values; and there are contexts where -- given the concrete options -- it may even be a disvalue, However, except for some outlier examples, I do not think they can be a disvalue in principle. This is particularly true when you broaden the field from sex to the wider "sex and romance".

Edited May 11, 2009 by softwareNerd

[themadkat]

No, not "no matter what the person's context". I was talking about the typical case of someone who says sex is only for procreation, and thinks so as a principle, rather than the slightly different "given the options I have for sex (like my aged husband who already has 6 wives), I'll only do it for procreation".

There's definitely a sense in which sex and romance are optional values; and there are contexts where -- given the concrete options -- it may even be a disvalue, However, except for some outlier examples, I do not think they can be a disvalue in principle. This is particularly true when you broaden the field from sex to the wider "sex and romance".

Oh, ok, I see what you're saying. But don't you think there are some individuals that just really won't care that much about sex and romance, and don't need them in order to have full and complete lives? That's what I mean by optional values. I don't know, but I can imagine how for a particular person there are just other values they would rather pursue much more. I personally am not one of those people - I've been happily paired for eight years now, and never had anyone but him. For me, this has been a great value. But I still think that sex and romance can be an optional value for a particular person when they simply don't value it that highly compared to other things, like perhaps an all-consuming career, a hobby or job requiring constant travel, etc.

[JASKN]

For me, this has been a great value. But I still think that sex and romance can be an optional value for a particular person when they simply don't value it that highly compared to other things, like perhaps an all-consuming career, a hobby or job requiring constant travel, etc.

Even people with intensive, demanding careers have a romantic aspect to their lives. I used to think like you, that a career could and does trump romance; in theory it sounds OK. But it seems like every time I read about a person I couldn't imagine being more successful in his busy life, he was married for years, sometimes had several children, or had several long-term romances before he died. That tells me that, even though he was a leader in his business industry, or was a world-famous artist, he still deemed romance important enough to include in his idea of success.

Personally, I doubt that most "good" lives are void of romance. I think you would be hard-pressed to find an otherwise successful and content person who spent or spends his life romance-less.

[intellectualammo]

Oh, ok, I see what you're saying. But don't you think there are some individuals that just really won't care that much about sex and romance, and don't need them in order to have full and complete lives? That's what I mean by optional values. I don't know, but I can imagine how for a particular person there are just other values they would rather pursue much more. I personally am not one of those people -

I am, in a way. But also, there might be guys who do love women, but they themselves aren't exactly loveable or too likeable. Or guys who try not to get involved with others, because they know what they themselves are like in relationships. Some seek out willing sexual partners, without commitments, or whores, or some buy a Real Doll (if they can afford one), etc. I'd rather not go more into this, as I do, in my writing offline.

But I still think that sex and romance can be an optional value for a particular person when they simply don't value it that highly compared to other things, like perhaps an all-consuming career, a hobby or job requiring constant travel, etc.

And I still think you're right.

That tells me that, even though he was a leader in his business industry, or was a world-famous artist, he still deemed romance important enough to include in his idea of success.

I find out such things too when reading about, say, Lisa VanDamme, who is married w/child(ren) (can't remember the #). But I'm more interested in ones that were/are in a marriage/relationship and their literary passions dominates other passions, taking time with, and attention away from, their partner, and the effect it has on both, and how the hell it can work out, if it could.

[Capitalism Forever]

Some are just not attracted to opposite sex or same sex, and the causation is probably nothing but guesswork.

I don't believe in "guesswork causation." I think both what you are attracted to, and whether you are attracted to anything, are primarily the functions of your psychology, and are strongly influenced by the volitional choices leading to your value-judgments. I don't think people are "born that way," neither homosexual nor asexual; they become that way through the ideas they accept.

I can fully understand it if a man is much more enthusiastic about his career than any of the specific women he meets. But if he were to meet the most awesome woman in the world and she left him cold, then I would say that his value system was in some serious need of revision.

[Myself]

I don't think people are "born that way," neither homosexual nor asexual; they become that way through the ideas they accept.

And how did you come to that conclusion?

[Kaiwai Gardiner]

I can't think of a better reason to have sex with someone; You admire the person, share the same values and morals, and enjoy the person's company above any other persons. This sounds like the person I would like to wake up next to every day!

Agreed; to me, sex is the most intimate way of two expressing their deep love for each other. Heck, if we were to go off in the 'religious' direction, even within Judaism the first purpose of sex is actually for the expression of love between two people; procreation merely being a secondly/spin off from the first but not the purpose of the first.

[JASKN]

But I'm more interested in ones that were/are in a marriage/relationship and their literary passions dominates other passions, taking time with, and attention away from, their partner, and the effect it has on both, and how the hell it can work out, if it could.

The point I was trying to make is that those kinds of people don't exist. If the highly successful person meets a sexual interest, he will want a romance and will develop one if possible. All the other kinds of success in the world cannot give you the same things as a deep romance. Who will tell you things about yourself that you couldn't have thought up yourself, that will then benefit the other aspects of your life?

Conversely, a deep romance without a successful career or the pursuit of one is doomed to fail. Where will you gain the self-esteem to hold up your side of the romance?

Edited May 12, 2009 by JASKN

[Kaiwai Gardiner]

The point I was trying to make is that those kinds of people don't exist. If the highly successful person meets a sexual interest, he will want a romance and will develop one if possible. All the other kinds of success in the world cannot give you the same things as a deep romance. Who will tell you things about yourself that you couldn't have thought up yourself, that will then benefit the other aspects of your life?

Conversely, a deep romance without a successful career or the pursuit of one is doomed to fail. Where will you gain the self-esteem to hold up your side of the romance?

Successful career is subjective given that success is defined by oneself and not by others. For example, if you only have the capacity (due to ones intellectual limitations) to be a trash collector, but you strive (and achieve) to be the best trash collector - you're still a success in your given career.

Edited May 12, 2009 by Kaiwia Gardiner

[JASKN]

Successful career is subjective given that success is defined by oneself and not by others. For example, if you only have the capacity (due to ones intellectual limitations) to be a trash collector, but you strive (and achieve) to be the best trash collector - you're still a success in your given career.

Sorry, my point was not to provide an exhaustive definition of a successful career, which, yes, is relative to each person, but to note that a successful person would also be a romantic.

[JMeganSnow]

The point I was trying to make is that those kinds of people don't exist. If the highly successful person meets a sexual interest, he will want a romance and will develop one if possible.

And keep in mind that "highly successful" doesn't necessarily mean "highly busy and preoccupied". One of the benefits of making it is that you're under less immediate pressure than you were when you were still en route.

I, for instance, have no interest in a relationship at this time. I'm living in someone else's house, I'm going to college, I'm working all the time, I'm not exactly prime relationship material and my requirements are SO specific that it's just not worth the effort. So I've tabled it as something I'll get around to eventually--but my own personal success/career/interests definitely come first. And if I did meet the most amazing man in the world, I certainly wouldn't be interested in a relationship at this time because I have good priorities and he wouldn't be interested in me anyway.

[JASKN]

I, for instance, have no interest in a relationship at this time. I'm living in someone else's house, I'm going to college, I'm working all the time, I'm not exactly prime relationship material and my requirements are SO specific that it's just not worth the effort. So I've tabled it as something I'll get around to eventually--but my own personal success/career/interests definitely come first. And if I did meet the most amazing man in the world, I certainly wouldn't be interested in a relationship at this time because I have good priorities and he wouldn't be interested in me anyway.

Not to tell you what you want, which would be horribly presumptuous and insulting, but really, if you met the man of your dreams, you wouldn't arrange your life in such a way to keep him in it while you were going for your other goals too?

[Alfa]

Also, why don't you think the man of your dreams would see past those minor problems? I don't know what the man of your dreams is like so i'll only speak for myself here, but if I met the girl of my dreams I could easily live with her being busy all the time - knowing that she's ambitious and things will get better - because that kind of person would be such a major value.

I can definitely see where your coming from though, as your situation sounds very much like my own. Personally i'm laying kind of low as I don't have much time to go chasing after girls and I like to keep focused on more immidiate goals, but I wouldnt avoid it and assume that i'm undesireable.

[Capitalism Forever]

I don't think people are "born that way," neither homosexual nor asexual; they become that way through the ideas they accept.

And how did you come to that conclusion?

I believe I addressed this in the Homosexuality thread, but since that thread is over sixty pages long and neither I nor probably you will want to search through it, let me briefly summarize my position here:

Sexual arousal can be achieved in two ways, 1. by the stimulation of certain parts of the body through direct contact, and 2. through an action or attribute that one evaluates as sexually exciting. Either of these two (or even just thinking about #2) is enough to achieve some arousal, and arousal will be the strongest when both are present.

#1 is a non-volitional reflex that one is born with, and is independent of who or what thing does the stimulating; its effect is dependent on the subject's health and energy level, but pretty much nothing else.

#2 is an emotional reaction and as such, depends on the subject's ideas on what kind persons or things he wants to have sex with. As a bare minimum, he has to judge them as capable of performing the stimulation mentioned under #1--but since a whole lot of things are capable of doing that, one cannot get excited by each and every one of them. Excitement, by its nature, is reserved for the top few things on a list of what is capable of performing a certain function; thus, in this case, sexual excitement will be felt for those things one judges as the best suited to give one the stimulation mentioned under #1. The criteria you use to make this judgment are entirely up for you to choose: you can make an objective decision based on the nature of your organs and the personal qualities you have identified as the worthiest of being excited about--or you can uncritically adopt the criteria used by those in your social circles, or be guided by your whims, etc.

Most people accept the idea that members of the opposite sex, especially ones possessing certain further attributes, are both capable of performing the stimulation in question, and also the best suited to perform it. But even within this group, there are great differences in opinion of what the most desirable attributes are; I, for example, do not like women who are skinny to the point of looking malnourished, and cannot imagine how physical contact with them could be anywhere near pleasant, while other people don't seem to mind this. Then, there are people who judge men and women to be equally well-suited to stimulate them, and thus become bisexuals. There are also people who draw no lines in this respect between humans and other mammals, and go on to have sex with animals. I have even read a story about a guy who gave "autoeroticism" a whole new meaning--by falling in love and having sex with his cars! I think it is no stretch to induce from this that the same mechanism must be the explanation for homosexuality and asexuality as well: some people judge members of the opposite sex to be inferior with regard to the potential to stimulate them, and therefore don't get excited by them--and some people don't seem to think that anything can stimulate them sexually, or at least they don't think that anything should stimulate them sexually, so they don't get sexually excited about anything.

[Kaiwai Gardiner]

I believe I addressed this in the Homosexuality thread, but since that thread is over sixty pages long and neither I nor probably you will want to search through it, let me briefly summarize my position here:

Which doesn't address a single issue relating to homosexuality/same sex attraction - it is long winded globby-goop. It is up to you to demonstrate at a moment in mine or someone else's life that we consciously woke up and decided to be attracted to the same sex; that is, we actively decided at some point to reject the apparent 'natural' (calls to nature by their very construct are dubious to begin with - they're merely an extension of the 'eww yuck' argument) desires of attraction to the opposite sex in favour of same sex attraction.

Until you can nail that down - the basis of your argument will be on how you feel, and feelings on the matter is nothing more than emotions born out of ignorance, fear and lack of understanding and/or empathy with a possible feeling that you must impose you world view to achieve stature to your own path that you live.

Edited May 12, 2009 by Kaiwai Gardiner

[Capitalism Forever]

Successful career is subjective given that success is defined by oneself and not by others.

Ouch.

[Capitalism Forever]

Which doesn't address a single issue relating to homosexuality/same sex attraction - it is long winded globby-goop. It is up to you to demonstrate at a moment in mine or someone else's life that we consciously woke up and decided to be attracted to the same sex; that is, we actively decided at some point to reject the apparent 'natural' (calls to nature by their very construct are dubious to begin with - they're merely an extension of the 'eww yuck' argument) desires of attraction to the opposite sex in favour of same sex attraction.

Until you can nail that down - the basis of your argument will be on how you feel, and feelings on the matter is nothing more than emotions born out of ignorance, fear and lack of understanding and/or empathy with a possible feeling that you must impose you world view to achieve stature to your own path that you live.

Not sure what you are talking about. Why would it be up to me to demonstrate a claim I haven't made? And why "is" feelings on the matter nothing more than emotions born out of ignorance etc.? Don't you have your own feelings on the matter, or are they too born out of ignorance?

[intellectualammo]

I don't believe in "guesswork causation."

Poor choice of words on my part. But finding the causation, rather.

I think both what you are attracted to, and whether you are attracted to anything, are primarily the functions of your psychology, and are strongly influenced by the volitional choices leading to your value-judgments. I don't think people are "born that way," neither homosexual nor asexual; they become that way through the ideas they accept.

They certainly can become that way by choice (as I might be umbrella'd under asexuality somewhere), but whether or not they were born that way, I can't answer.

I, for instance, have no interest in a relationship at this time. I'm living in someone else's house,

I don't think I will ever be able to, or want to rather, live with another person/people again. After living on my own for over three years now, I seem to keep to myself more and more (except for forums and work of course). I'm not interested in pursuing a relationship. But ones pursue me though, and the last one (3-4 years ago) wishes she'd never met me because of me being an Objectivist and my reading habits and writing things down - just made her feel "uncomfortable", and when she said that, I moved out that night, left 1G of $ on the table to cover my three month verbal lease I had with her, one before that was in hysterics (I'm serious too) over me not accepting or returning her advances the way she'd wanted me to, she took it out on herself bad, thinking she wasn't smart/good enough because a man like me rejected her like that. Seems like whatever it is I do, the other person gets hurt. I've found much needed peace after what I've had to overcome, and what I know now about myself as a person, personality wise.

I'm going to college,

I'm not, and won't, even if it's distance learning now.

I'm working all the time,

I've been doing that for well over a half decade now. Hardly any days I take off, mainly has to do with my court orders now, but I also enjoy working. Now since I have a K2, it just feels like excercising while being read to. I can't tell you exactly how frustrating it is to be reading or writing, and have to (this is hard for me to say) stop, and go to work, but I can say at one point last year I was on a major writing purge and had someone let me into the office at work in order to look at the calendar and everyday available I requested off for in that month and part of the next...and I got them. 128 hours or so I took off, but worked the weekends though, since I still was able to make time-and-a-half. since they want me as a courier for the hospital on the weekend.

I'm not exactly prime relationship material and my requirements are SO specific that it's just not worth the effort.

Oh yeah, I'm with you there. Again I explore all of this in my writing offline. Wouldn't want to post anything in regards to it, until I am sure my workings are safe under a copyright or the like.

And if I did meet the most amazing man in the world, I certainly wouldn't be interested in a relationship at this time because I have good priorities and he wouldn't be interested in me anyway.

I feel this way some. My "dream-come-true girl"...I wouldn't want to turn any of that dream into a nightmare for her and/or for me. If they want their "dream to come true", in regards to me, if I was somehow it, fucking know what you are waking up, then.

[MichaelH]

Not sure what you are talking about. Why would it be up to me to demonstrate a claim I haven't made? And why "is" feelings on the matter nothing more than emotions born out of ignorance etc.? Don't you have your own feelings on the matter, or are they too born out of ignorance?

I think it might read better if the sentence stops sooner. Unless you listen to people who are gay about their experience, your feelings on the matter are nothing more than emotions (sentence stops here!).

At best, you're making naive guesses. A lot of interesting knowledge comes from naive guesses! Once you make a guess, you have to check it against reality.

Besides, sex is fun!

Edited May 12, 2009 by MichaelH

[Capitalism Forever]

I think it might read better if the sentence stops sooner. Unless you listen to people who are gay about their experience, your feelings on the matter are nothing more than emotions (sentence stops here!).

At best, you're making naive guesses. A lot of interesting knowledge comes from naive guesses! Once you make a guess, you have to check it against reality. Unless you talk to a gay person about their experience - and drop the guesses when the facts don't support them - you're not checking against reality.

Besides, sex is fun!

Are you guys having some kind of contest on who can talk more incoherently? Let me see if I can decipher you ... You're saying that if I listen to gay people talk about their experiences, my feelings will become more than emotions? I thought feeling and emotion were synonyms, but yeah, I think I can relate to what you're saying. Second part ... ooh, wait, I think I completely misunderstood you on the first part. You're saying I should talk to homosexuals to see if they confirm my theory, right?

"Besides, sex is fun!"--I can only make a naive guess on this one, but I think you must be addressing this to asexual people, trying to convince them to change their mind. Is that close?

[JASKN]

The criteria you use to make this judgment are entirely up for you to choose: you can make an objective decision based on the nature of your organs and the personal qualities you have identified as the worthiest of being excited about--or you can uncritically adopt the criteria used by those in your social circles, or be guided by your whims, etc.

[...]

I think it is no stretch to induce from this that the same mechanism must be the explanation for homosexuality and asexuality as well: some people judge members of the opposite sex to be inferior with regard to the potential to stimulate them, and therefore don't get excited by them--and some people don't seem to think that anything can stimulate them sexually, or at least they don't think that anything should stimulate them sexually, so they don't get sexually excited about anything.

I'm glad you summarized your ideas in a single post.

It is wrong to say that anybody chooses who or what they find attractive, because it doesn't happen that way. There is not a point in one's life, young or old, where one says, "I want to be attracted to... this." Sexual attraction is automatic. It is possible that people or events at a very young age help influence what kind (or kinds) of person(s) one wants, but since nobody (that I have ever heard of) remembers this, it is a rough theory at best.

On the other side, things that happen to you throughout your life might change your sexual attraction particulars. Somebody abused you in this or that way, so you don't like plaid shirts or brown hair or whatever anymore. You get older, you're attracted to your age group. But these are minimal changes and are still not chosen. So any way you look at it, sexual attraction is not determined by choice.

As was mentioned, if you actually talked and listened to some gays, you would get one single story which goes like, "I have always found men/boys sexually arousing, as long as I remember." Likewise, talk to straight people, or bisexual people, or anybody, and you will get the same story. Do you remember when you chose your sexual attractions?

If what you deduce does not match up with what actually occurs, then your theory must be flawed, and you should induce some more to find out how.

[JMeganSnow]

Not to tell you what you want, which would be horribly presumptuous and insulting, but really, if you met the man of your dreams, you wouldn't arrange your life in such a way to keep him in it while you were going for your other goals too?

One of the major qualifications for "man of my dreams" is someone who finds *me* interesting, charming, irresistible. But how can you find someone who *hates their own appearance and bad habits* charming and irresistible unless you have some sort of weird self-esteem issues of your own? I don't want some sort of freakish and mutually-destructive relationship, which is what I'd get if I went with someone who wants me as I am now.

So, no, if I met the "man of my dreams" for the person I want to become, I'd do my best to avoid him because I don't believe that you can get the reward before you do the work.

[JASKN]

So, no, if I met the "man of my dreams" for the person I want to become, I'd do my best to avoid him because I don't believe that you can get the reward before you do the work.

OK, fair enough. But it wouldn't be fair to not mention that I think you've done plenty of work already, which is obvious from your posts. You are one smart cookie.

[Alfa]

I'm glad you summarized your ideas in a single post.

It is wrong to say that anybody chooses who or what they find attractive, because it doesn't happen that way. There is not a point in one's life, young or old, where one says, "I want to be attracted to... this." Sexual attraction is automatic. It is possible that people or events at a very young age help influence what kind (or kinds) of person(s) one wants, but since nobody (that I have ever heard of) remembers this, it is a rough theory at best.

On the other side, things that happen to you throughout your life might change your sexual attraction particulars. Somebody abused you in this or that way, so you don't like plaid shirts or brown hair or whatever anymore. You get older, you're attracted to your age group. But these are minimal changes and are still not chosen. So any way you look at it, sexual attraction is not determined by choice.

As was mentioned, if you actually talked and listened to some gays, you would get one single story which goes like, "I have always found men/boys sexually arousing, as long as I remember." Likewise, talk to straight people, or bisexual people, or anybody, and you will get the same story. Do you remember when you chose your sexual attractions?

If what you deduce does not match up with what actually occurs, then your theory must be flawed, and you should induce some more to find out how.

I don't think it's a choice where you just one day decide what you want to be attracted to(and that's not how I understood Capitalism Forever). To me it rather seems that it's about making certain evaluations over time that later define your sexuality. It's like making the recognition, over and over, that "wow, girls/boys/whathaveya sure are nice!". As adults I think this process gets more fine tuned, which is why we only see minimal changes like you mentioned.

I don't know about others by I remember this quite clearly from when I was a child. I still remember the times when I first explicitly recognized that I prefer girls(though this was more non-sexual in nature than it became later, for obvious reasons).