The Individual Posted October 9, 2009 Report Share Posted October 9, 2009 (edited) I was thinking, since there is a theory of sex in Atlas Shrugged, what is the Objectivist's view of pornography and masturbation? Is masturbation be an ethical/unethical activity? Is watching pornography undermining sex? Edited October 9, 2009 by The Individual Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gert-Jan Posted October 9, 2009 Report Share Posted October 9, 2009 I like your question. Masterbating doesn't hurt anyone (if one cleans up one's mess afterwards). Pornography exist because it sells and one can make career in it. So, it is not evil, it is not unethical, but it can undermine sex. Sex is not an moral obligation, furthermore it is my opinion that one should not make a woman pregnant or get pregnant if one can not bring up a the child. I like to ad that even prostitution is not evil or bad in anyway (granted it isn't human slavery). It is better that men fuck a whore, than rape a random woman. Now, in conclusion. I do know it is better to have sex (for your own sake use protection), then to masterbate, because it is a greater pleasure (most of the time, if not look at where it goes wrong (afterward:P)). For my own sake I state that: "I am not paying money for sex, the only paying for the enjoyment is the enjoyment I give back in return). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aequalsa Posted October 9, 2009 Report Share Posted October 9, 2009 I was thinking, since there is a theory of sex in Atlas Shrugged, what is the Objectivist's view of pornography and masturbation? Is masturbation be an ethical/unethical activity? Is watching pornography undermining sex? I've never heard an "Objectivist position" on sex except that Leonard Peikoff, when asked, said that it was "good." Epistomologically a lot can be deduced about one's choice of sex partners. Regarding masterbation and porn, I don't know about a philosophical case, but a psychological one could probably be made. As with most things, it's a bit contextual, but in a lot of cases, pornography can be unhealthy when it interferes with your enjoyment of actual relationships(assuming you value those more ) I imagine it's possible to cause problems with masturbation too, but I have trouble imagining a context, short of something a little absurd-say if you had to masturbate so often you couldn't hold a job, or if it were to interfere with some other higher values that you hold- but that's admittedly far fetched. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Castle Posted October 9, 2009 Report Share Posted October 9, 2009 Peikoff has addressed masterbation. It actually comes up all the time in the podcasts, with the answer being pretty close to what is written above. Rand did write specifically regarding sex and it's also covered in Peikoff's work. I don't have my books on hand but iirc correctly a summary would be that sex is a powerful physical expression of your valuation of another person. Again, going from memory here, but I believe Rand's position was that voluntary pornography should not be prohibited based on individual rights, but that it reflected a very base and degraded sense of life. I seem to remember this being similar to her stance on promiscuity. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RationalBiker Posted October 10, 2009 Report Share Posted October 10, 2009 Is masturbation be an ethical/unethical activity? Is watching pornography undermining sex? As others have alluded to, both of these questions require a context. i.e. "Is masturbation immoral in this situation...", "Is pornography immoral in this situation..." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RationalBiker Posted October 10, 2009 Report Share Posted October 10, 2009 I like to ad that even prostitution is not evil or bad in anyway (granted it isn't human slavery). Not that I'm making an argument, but Rand (generally) disagreed with this and she stated such in her Q&A book. When I have time I'll pull the quote. It is better that men fuck a whore, than rape a random woman. This is a false dichotomy as it does not represent the only alternative to engaging in sex with a prostitute. It is also NOT the standard by which you judge the morality of prostitution. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheAllotrope Posted October 10, 2009 Report Share Posted October 10, 2009 Prostitution and pornography, as mentioned above, are not "evil" - but they do reflect a rather twisted sense of life and degrade the value of sex. I believe the Playboy interview addressed the question: The term indulgence implies that it is an action taken lightly and casually. I say that sex is one of the most important aspects of man's life and, therefore, must never be approached lightly or casually. A sexual relationship is proper only on the ground of the highest values one can find in a human being. Sex must not be anything other than a response to values. And that is why I consider promiscuity immoral. Not because sex is evil, but because sex is too good and too important...Sex is an expression of a man's self-esteem, of his own self-value. But the man who does not value himself tries to reverse this process. He tries to derive his self-esteem from his sexual conquests, which cannot be done. Pornography itself was not discussed but I have read something to the effect that while it ought not to be illegal (if consensual) it is at best in conflict with proper human relationships. Masturbation by itself I suppose could not be condemned as evil, since humans have real physical and psychological needs. If one has not found someone worthy of a sexual relationship, or cannot have such a relationship with someone (s)he has found (say, the person is married or just plain not interested), masturbation may be considered acceptable. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Individual Posted October 10, 2009 Author Report Share Posted October 10, 2009 (edited) "Not that I'm making an argument, but Rand (generally) disagreed with this and she stated such in her Q&A book. When I have time I'll pull the quote." - RationalBiker Allow me to. Ayn Rand in her Q&A book said " Prostitution is evil by almost any standard of morality. So long as it isn't forced on anyone, however - so long as a woman chooses to engage in that kind of activity (one shouldn't call it a profession) and some men take advantage of it - that is between them and not the business of society. it is their moral degradation; but it should not be a legal crime - society has no right to forbid it." So, prostitution is evil and morally degrading. Prostitution is anti-life. I suppose it is because in prostitution, you are not treating your body with the respect it deserves. One's body should used as a kind of instrument to achieve one's values and happiness. The Mind thinks and the Body Acts to achieve what the mind wants. If the Mind is a thing of reverence, the body deserves no less. For neither can exist without the other. Edited October 10, 2009 by The Individual Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gert-Jan Posted October 10, 2009 Report Share Posted October 10, 2009 Not that I'm making an argument, but Rand (generally) disagreed with this and she stated such in her Q&A book. When I have time I'll pull the quote. Well when you do I would like to discus it whith you. This is a false dichotomy as it does not represent the only alternative to engaging in sex with a prostitute. It is also NOT the standard by which you judge the morality of prostitution. Well you can say, as you did, that it was dichotomy. I am not saying that to engage sex with a prostitute is the only alternative. I say that involuntary sex is bad, for it needs an involuntary victim. I say that sex should be mutuely concented. This doesn't mean that one should ask, but there has to be an implicit understanding. Please do not tell me by what rule I moraly judge. I just did, so I can, and so I will do. If there are other standards that need to be conciderd name them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RationalBiker Posted October 10, 2009 Report Share Posted October 10, 2009 (edited) Please do not tell me by what rule I moraly judge. I just did, so I can, and so I will do. If there are other standards that need to be conciderd name them. I did not tell you to do anything. What I told you was that that was not the proper moral standard by which to judge prostitution. You are taking the "you" in that statement too literally. As far as I'm concerned you can use whatever standard you want to judge whatever you want, but on this forum we discuss Objectivism. The standard that you mention would not be the standard according to Objectivist Ethics. Keep in mind you are on an Objectivist forum that has the purpose of discussing Objectivism and as such it is to some degree assumed you are discussing Objectivist Ethics. If you are not, you should explicitly say so. So is your purpose here to discuss your own personal ethical system or the ethics of Objectivism? Edited October 10, 2009 by RationalBiker Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gert-Jan Posted October 10, 2009 Report Share Posted October 10, 2009 "Not that I'm making an argument, but Rand (generally) disagreed with this and she stated such in her Q&A book. When I have time I'll pull the quote." - RationalBiker Allow me to. Ayn Rand in her Q&A book said " Prostitution is evil by almost any standard of morality. So long as it isn't forced on anyone, however - so long as a woman chooses to engage in that kind of activity (one shouldn't call it a profession) and some men take advantage of it - that is between them and not the business of society. it is their moral degradation; but it should not be a legal crime - society has no right to forbid it." For so far I agree So, prostitution is evil and morally degrading. Prostitution is anti-life. I suppose it is because in prostitution, you are not treating your body with the respect it deserves. One's body should used as a kind of instrument to achieve one's values and happiness. The Mind thinks and the Body Acts to achieve what the mind wants. If the Mind is a thing of reverence, the body deserves no less. For neither can exist without the other. Here I do not. First of all one shouldn't be so judge-mental. Second ones property doesn't deserve more respect than it gets. If one likes to be screwed and gets paid for that I can not see any evil in that. We all self immolate to a certain extend. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Individual Posted October 10, 2009 Author Report Share Posted October 10, 2009 (edited) How was I judgmental Gert-Jan? I don't think I was judgmental when I said prostitution is evil and morally degrading or prostitution is anti-life. I was stating objective moral standards. If one chooses prostitution as a means of acquiring money or earning a living, no one, not even the government, has the right to intervene. But the act of prostituting one's body is a moral crime. Those who self-immolate certainly have no respect for their body. And what do you mean by "we all self immolate to a certain extend?" I don't think I've ever self-immolated myself. It would be insanity. Edited October 10, 2009 by The Individual Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RationalBiker Posted October 10, 2009 Report Share Posted October 10, 2009 If one likes to be screwed and gets paid for that I can not see any evil in that. We all self immolate to a certain extend. Gert, Have you come to this forum to discuss or learn about Objectivism? Please take the time to read the forum rules so that you can better understand the purpose of this forum and determine whether or not it represents the value you seek. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
softwareNerd Posted October 10, 2009 Report Share Posted October 10, 2009 Peikoff has addressed masterbation. It actually comes up all the time in the podcasts, with the answer being pretty close to what is written above.Yes, check out the index. I found it was a question asked by an 8th grader, in episode 51, and then again in episode 55. If I remember right, LP says Rand described masturbation by using the term "sexual independence". Of course many (all?) values -- even something like food -- can be negative too, even when they are mostly positive values in normal day-today examples. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jake_Ellison Posted October 10, 2009 Report Share Posted October 10, 2009 I was thinking, since there is a theory of sex in Atlas Shrugged, what is the Objectivist's view of pornography and masturbation? Is masturbation be an ethical/unethical activity? Is watching pornography undermining sex? In my experience, no, it doesn't undermine sex. In fact I'm fairly certain that both masturbation and pornography help with a young man or woman's ability to have good sex, since it gives them a way to experiment. And, in the absence of a partner, masturbation (coupled with pornography, in some cases) gives anyone the opportunity to be sexually active. I'm also fairly certain that remaining sexual even while one isn't in a relationship is a good idea. But all that doesn't mean all masturbation, and all pornography, is moral, and one should aim for doing as much as possible of both, to become even more virtuous. You have to know yourself, and what your sexual needs are. As for prostitution, I know you didn't ask, but since it came up, I agree that it's immoral. Sex is a good thing in the proper context, not when it involves treating another person as a sexual object, with no regard to who they are. (by "prostitution is immoral", I don't mean every instance of sex coupled with money changing hands, is immoral by default. I mean that prostitution, as it usually occurs, is immoral. --that's to avoid a long discussion, about how it can be OK to lend/give your girlfriend some money) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Individual Posted October 10, 2009 Author Report Share Posted October 10, 2009 (edited) Prostitution is clearly immoral. It is the practice of engaging in sex for hire. According to Ayn Rand Lexicon, "sex is a physical capacity, but its exercise is determined by man’s mind—by his choice of values, held consciously or subconsciously. To a rational man, sex is an expression of self-esteem—a celebration of himself and of existence. To the man who lacks self-esteem, sex is an attempt to fake it, to acquire its momentary illusion." The man who lacks self-esteem is one who participates in prostitution. "Sex is one of the most important aspects of man’s life and, therefore, must never be approached lightly or casually. A sexual relationship is proper only on the ground of the highest values one can find in a human being. Sex must not be anything other than a response to values." and "[sex should] involve a very serious relationship." One doesn't find one's highest values in prostitution with a unknown stranger or someone who doesn't share one's values. Masturbation on the other hand... I cannot say that just because one lacks a partner, masturbation would be a moral thing to do as it allows one to be sexually active. What is one thinking when one masturbates? The mind is at work, thinking of sexual images for arousal which translates into physical sexual pleasure. What one thinks during this period, does it determine whether the act is moral or immoral? If one uses pornography for masturbation, isn't it cheap and easy pleasure? How does one celebrate one's values in masturbation? I'm thinking masturbation might be an immoral act, a betrayal of one's values. But then, some could argue from a psychological and physiological perspective and say masturbation is highly beneficial for the body and presents no imminent ailments. Edited October 10, 2009 by The Individual Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Castle Posted October 10, 2009 Report Share Posted October 10, 2009 I think your conclusion is basically correct, but for one error. The john and prostitute do in fact find someone who shares their values together. An extremely low valuation of people as a disposable means to an end. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Individual Posted October 10, 2009 Author Report Share Posted October 10, 2009 Yes, Castle, like Jim Taggart and Lilian Rearden. Lillian had sex with Jim because she wanted to degrade herself, understanding the ex-role as Henry Rearden's wife and what it must mean for Henry. Jim Taggart is equally or perhaps more pathetic. The two did not share values, they shared the common hatred for the greatness of Man, a hatred of people like Dagny and Hank. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aequalsa Posted October 10, 2009 Report Share Posted October 10, 2009 I generally agree that prostitution is immoral, but think that it should be noted that circumstances can occur(infrequently) that might change that. A woman with a hungry child in and extremely impoverished area might very well do so morally; Fantine from Les Miserables, for example or even Kira from We the Living sort of engaged in it to help Leo. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Individual Posted October 10, 2009 Author Report Share Posted October 10, 2009 I generally agree that prostitution is immoral, but think that it should be noted that circumstances can occur(infrequently) that might change that. A woman with a hungry child in and extremely impoverished area might very well do so morally; Fantine from Les Miserables, for example or even Kira from We the Living sort of engaged in it to help Leo. Yes, it depends on the context. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheAllotrope Posted October 11, 2009 Report Share Posted October 11, 2009 But morality is only relevant when there is a choice. If someone is destitute and unable to find non-sacrificial assistance (charity) then it may be that the only option is prostitution (or possibly theft, which is clearly worse since it is an initiation of force). In such a case, prostitution is not even in the realm of morality, and the question is moot. Of course, there is also the person buying the sexual services; since that person is clearly not destitute, by his ability to purchase sex, he is clearly being immoral. Also I don't think Castle's thought applies at all to James and Lillian. Lillian wanted the sex simply to prove her depravity to the world. Presumably, a prostitute is thinking more on the lines of the buyer as a means to values than as a means to expression of an anti-value. Both the buyer and prostitute are depraved, but it is not depravity, as such, that they seek. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Individual Posted October 11, 2009 Author Report Share Posted October 11, 2009 "If someone is destitute and unable to find non-sacrificial assistance (charity) then it may be that the only option is prostitution (or possibly theft, which is clearly worse since it is an initiation of force)." - The Allotrope In a situation as you described above - destitute and unable to find non-sacrificial assistance - prostitution may be the only option. I think it also depends on the person's valuation of his/her life, principles and his/her body. Theft on the other hand isn't an option in the first place. One does not have the right to take by force another person's property. Theft is a moral and legal crime. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Castle Posted October 11, 2009 Report Share Posted October 11, 2009 I think the premise that one's "only option" can be narrowed down to prostitution is pretty silly. Screwing people is not a human's basic tool for survival, their mind is. The last option available to any human is to think things through and rearrange their environment to meet their needs. If a person was suddenly stranded on a desert island, he wouldn't suddenly think "My God, I've got to find someone to give me goods for sex!" Responding to Allo, My point wasn't that the buyer and seller of sex hold depravity as a mutual value. They do both hold the view that a human being is a means to an end, and have a low and distorted valuation of sex and others. Their copulation is an expression of those values, whether they know it in explicit terms or not. I'm at work, so I can't look it up at the moment, but If memory serves James and Jillian's affair was based on mutual hatred of the good and the specific shared belief that it would insult or hurt others. Sounds like an expression of mutual values to me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jake_Ellison Posted October 11, 2009 Report Share Posted October 11, 2009 But morality is only relevant when there is a choice. If someone is destitute and unable to find non-sacrificial assistance (charity) then it may be that the only option is prostitution (or possibly theft, which is clearly worse since it is an initiation of force). In such a case, prostitution is not even in the realm of morality, and the question is moot. There is no such thing as the only choice is prostitution. The people paying for sex obtained their values somehow, so you always have at least the one other choice, of doing the same. If that is through peaceful means, in a free society, then there's always the choice to work for a living. If the other people obtained their wealth through force, then one has the right to fight back, and that would not be initiation of force at all. Prostitution, in place of a career, is always the immoral choice. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aequalsa Posted October 11, 2009 Report Share Posted October 11, 2009 (edited) There is no such thing as the only choice is prostitution. The people paying for sex obtained their values somehow, so you always have at least the one other choice, of doing the same. If that is through peaceful means, in a free society, then there's always the choice to work for a living. If the other people obtained their wealth through force, then one has the right to fight back, and that would not be initiation of force at all. Prostitution, in place of a career, is always the immoral choice. I don't mean this in an antagonistic way, but that, and the other statements like it, come across as a little naive to me. Perhaps, an upper middle class girl living in the wealthiest nation to ever exist on earth, likely, has no way to justify engaging in prostitution, but you really can't apply that to all times and places as some sort of moral absolute. If you, personally have never been in a situation where you had no realistic choices available, then count yourself as fortunate and try not to lose track of the fact that you are. Not everyone has the same possibilities in life, and to throw immorality on their shoulders, absolutely, across all contexts is in extremely poor taste. I very often agree with what you write, Jake, and perhaps you don't mean this in the way it sounds, but to make an absolute judgment about someone else's circumstances while ignoring context, strikes me as a very rationalistic approach to Objectivism. Edited October 11, 2009 by aequalsa Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.