Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Objectivism, Pornography and Masturbation

Rate this topic


The Individual

Recommended Posts

The "john falling for the professional" happened to a good friend of mine. A stunning Russian named Verushka . I didn't have to be psychic to know that it wouldn't end well. What can one say to friend, but respect his judgment.?

In the end, after some heart-ache, his good sense of reality kicked in, and he survived.B)

Because it is a lot to do with reality, I think.

In hiring a pro, one is telling oneself that it doesn't mean anything, and all one requires is the physical relief, no involvement, no questions asked, no need to be attractive to her, and no judgment either way - except for her looks. A cash transaction, and value for value.

There is a problem, though, and that it is a reversal of romantic love, in which mutual values and intimacy lead to sex.

Here, sex often leads to intimacy - whether one wants it or not, it just does - in the 'client'.

From what my experience of casual sex, I have realised that it was never quite so casual, in intent, and effect.

But that's my experience, and I can only project that it goes for hiring sex as well.

I think men with prostitutes are buying, not sex, but intimacy.

If I'm right, then it reveals that everything to do with it, is faking reality, and is self-justification.

The impact on one's sense of worth is too obvious to mention here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The "john falling for the professional" happened to a good friend of mine. A stunning Russian named Verushka . I didn't have to be psychic to know that it wouldn't end well. What can one say to friend, but respect his judgment.?

In the end, after some heart-ache, his good sense of reality kicked in, and he survived.B)

It does seem to present quite a difficult starting point for romantic love, no question. But, of course, it DOES happen, successfully -- which is more where I was driving, i.e., the fact that true romantic love HAS AND DOES spring from such sordid beginnings, albeit rarely, just goes to show, IMHO, that morality is contextual.

Because it is a lot to do with reality, I think.

In hiring a pro, one is telling oneself that it doesn't mean anything, and all one requires is the physical relief, no involvement, no questions asked, no need to be attractive to her, and no judgment either way - except for her looks. A cash transaction, and value for value.

Not sure I buy that it's so simple and uni-dimensional. I think it happens for a variety of reasons, physical relief probably being the least of it given the use of one's hand and free internet porn for audio-visual stimulation.

There is a problem, though, and that it is a reversal of romantic love, in which mutual values and intimacy lead to sex.

Here, sex often leads to intimacy - whether one wants it or not, it just does - in the 'client'.

From what my experience of casual sex, I have realised that it was never quite so casual, in intent, and effect.

But that's my experience, and I can only project that it goes for hiring sex as well.

Agreed, the initial approach is "inside out" relative to social norms; however, if the result is, ultimately, based on mutual values, then who cares how two people meet? I think, the moral inversion is easy to get past for some, not so much for most.

I think men with prostitutes are buying, not sex, but intimacy.

Some are, maybe the majority. Then the question becomes: is trading intimacy for "hard" assets morally justifiable? And, I think, the answer will turn out to be yes in some cases.

If I'm right, then it reveals that everything to do with it, is faking reality, and is self-justification.

The impact on one's sense of worth is too obvious to mention here.

I wonder, have you tried it? Maybe it is worth an experiment, instead of speculating?

- ico

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wonder, have you tried it? Maybe it is worth an experiment, instead of speculating?

- ico

ico,

That sounds like a recommendation - you have a number for me?

But she must be prepared to travel, btw.

Seriously though: no, and no, to your queries.

An excess of casual sex proved to me eventually what I should have known from the start - not good for me, personally.

Thanks anyway.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

ico,

That sounds like a recommendation - you have a number for me?

But she must be prepared to travel, btw.

Seriously though: no, and no, to your queries.

An excess of casual sex proved to me eventually what I should have known from the start - not good for me, personally.

Thanks anyway.

I commend you for making rational choices in this regard, based on your own experience. And, I concur: casual sex is not so good for me, either. On the other hand, if that is the most one can hang, morally, on paying for it, i.e., that it's not good to have casual sex, well ... that ain't too terrible a sin, is it?

Just advocating outside the lines a bit to see where the stress points are ...

-ico

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It does seem to present quite a difficult starting point for romantic love, no question. But, of course, it DOES happen, successfully -- which is more where I was driving, - ico

See, that's what I'm driving at. The fact that it has - of course it has - eventuated in a successful relationship, occasionally, is often, I believe, motivation and rationalization for some men to continue doing it.

I have to concede that this is not exclusively true, but the warning signs are when a man keeps seeing the same professional - I mean, what is he looking for, but fake intimacy, and disappointment 99% of the time.

You could call this the "Pretty Woman" Syndrome. Nice in movies, but unreal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It does seem to present quite a difficult starting point for romantic love, no question. But, of course, it DOES happen, successfully -- which is more where I was driving, i.e., the fact that true romantic love HAS AND DOES spring from such sordid beginnings, albeit rarely, just goes to show, IMHO, that morality is contextual.

That morality is contextual has never been the point of contention. Two parties engaging in consensual sex with each other may lie on the opposite sides of morality even when they are not strangers and sex is not paid for, and when it is (Kira and Andre in We the Living).

Softwarenerd already made this point above but I think you missed it - the incidental outcome (like ending up in a relationship with a prostitute) does not automatically change the moral status of decisions which lead to that point. Any actual love arising between a John and a prostitute is incidental. It would not be rational to seek prostitutes as means of finding romantic love.

So, can casual sex ever be moral? Yes, it can. We can come up with all kinds of scenarios in which it would be moral. Such scenarios would be unusual but they exist. But, is it moral to treat sex casually on principle like you would a massage? Dante did a great job explaining why that is not a good idea.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, can casual sex ever be moral? Yes, it can. We can come up with all kinds of scenarios in which it would be moral. Such scenarios would be unusual but they exist. But, is it moral to treat sex casually on principle like you would a massage? Dante did a great job explaining why that is not a good idea.

Agree.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

"Love is blind, they say; sex is impervious to reason and mocks the power of all philosophers. But, in fact, a man's sexual choice is the result and the sum of his fundamental convictions. Tell me what a man finds sexually attractive and I will tell you his entire philosophy of life. Show me the woman he sleeps with and I will tell you his valuation of himself... The man who is proudly certain of his own value, will want the highest type of woman he can find, the woman he admires, the strongest, the hardest to conquer—because only the possession of a heroine will give him the sense of an achievement, not the possession of a brainless slut." - Francisco d'Anconia

I thought this quote would help discussion. Sex is a reflection of an individual's inner values.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Easy, almost instant access to genital satisfaction may affect man's ability of enjoying sex as an achivement.

Ayn Rand visualizes sex as an achivement. You earn sex, by being vituous enough, valuable enough for another person.

I agree with this, and I can appreciate how a man who regularly hires prostitutes for instant satisfaction of sexual urges may lose sight of the wonder of an earned sex, or can give up entirely such a quest.

I suppose, though, that this is a discovery to be made by each individual over the course of his life. You can hardly expect a 18-years-old male to refrain from all sexual activity until he finds his heroine. The teenager is still in the process of discovering what a heroine does, what she looks like, and more importantly, what is the effect of the values she incarnates on his emotions, including his sexual arousal. In the meantime, this teenageer will feel aroused by a wide variety of persons over a wide range of values.

We have to remember that sexual urges exist. We cannot deny them. We should not repress them. We must just understand them and make the best use of them. How to "Make the best use" of your sexual appetites is something to be learned.

Now, deliberate, planned indulgence of adult rational people in specific circumstances would not be immoral per se.

For example, adults who are in situations in which no access to heroines are feasible over long periodos of time.

In the same sense that masturbation (an instant, easy, non-earned way to access sexual pleasure) does not preclude a lucid rational man to pursue real sex with a heroine in the future, deliberate sex with a non-heroine as an isolated action does not prevent a man from continuing his quest for a higher value. Adapting yourself to what is available to you is also part of a rational life. Of course, it is up to you to realize whether you are betraying your quest or not, taking as standard the facts of reality.

There was a time where Howard Roark realized he needed an income to survive, to remain in the field of architecture, even when he could not undertake his dreamed projects. He accepted a modest job, a modest income, and tasks that were not the ones he wanted the most. But he understood he was a temporal detour from his path, which indeed could help him in some ways to come back stronger to the main path. He never gave up his values.

I can imagine Howard Roark engaging ocasionally in sexual activity with women he did not consider his ideal reflection of chosen values. I don't envision him being a virgin by the time he seized Dominique at her bedroom. However, whatever the sexual encounters he might have had, he kept a clear understanding of the type of woman he wanted to sleep with, permanently.

Edited by Hotu Matua
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Most of what you say is fine (although the line with "sexual appetites" seems to at least implicitly suggest that sexual desire is something you need to "feed"; it's just an emotion that may or may not be based on facts).

However, the issue comes in when you then say hiring a prostitute would be alright. The issue is more about what do you even value in who the prostitute is. You said it yourself that sex is an achievement or more specifically an achievement related to self-esteem. An important achievement at that, but I don't think it's implied anywhere that it is only proper with a person who fulfills some platonic, separated-from-reality standard. It would make sense to have some "figuring out" going on. Now, what about the prostitute is even valuable? What do you get out of it? How would you reconcile that with what you said about sex being earned? It's not like you can get sex the same way you may get food served to you. If sex were merely a physical thing, nothing more, then sex being served by a prostitute is basically the same as a waiter serving you a hamburger. But a relation with another person is at least implied with sex; you have to at least get aroused by the other person. With food, you don't even have to get aroused to eat. An even more important question than before may be what are you getting aroused by when a prostitute is involved? What is it that you are valuing? You may be valuing just physical features and nothing more. The sex is earned only through money, rather than earned through being valuable for another person. You are only valuable to the prostitute insofar as you are providing money.

Edited by Eiuol
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You may be valuing just physical features and nothing more.

Just physical features. Correct. But provided you are aware of that, why would this be immoral in principle?

Again, the crux of the matter in this thread is why specifically romantic love (and not any other kind of affection,preference or agreement) is required in a sexual interaction to make it moral?

Romantic love is not required in other activities like dancing, for example, to make it moral. You can pick your partner beacuse of her dancing skills and appearance. You don't need to be in love with her/him.

To me, Ayn Rand's demand for romantic love comes from the fact that sex is perceived as an act of conquest/surrender.Man conquests. Woman surrenders.

Since this entails certain invasion of the space/body of the other, certain kind of potential or symbolic "violence" from/towards the other person, the only thing that could justify it romantic love: the highest type of relation between two people.

Ayn Rand could not imagine herself being "taken", "invaded", "seized" by a man who was not virtuous enough, heroic enough. Since she never surrendered to the State, or to the church, or to whim, she could not accept "giving her body up" to anything less than a heroe.

Interestingly, she never thought in sex in terms of "exchange", "interaction" or "trade" as I normally do. I could speculate why in a future post. But sex as "exchange" or "trade" could be consistent with her overall view about the joy of living among men. Men are traders. Men exchange values.

In sex (and in other demostrations of affection, like friendship) partners exchange caresses, touches, hugs, kisses. All this brings physical and psychological pleasure.

Have you seen those persons offering "HUGS FOR FREE" on some streets? Many people go to those persons and get hugged. They relax. They get pleasure. They are not expecting true friendship from that guy. They are not getting affected in their ability to pursue true friendship in the future. They go for a hug and they get it. Voluntarily. It is all about benevolence.

Now image that the guy decides to charge one dollar for each hug. He learns to deliver good, warm hugs. He becomes the best hugger. Imagine that a person under emotional stress considers that hug so good in his circumstance that he/she is willing to pay the dollar for one of his hugs. Would that act of trade be considered immoral because it entails "fake friendship" and "not a real hug"? Please, NO. As long as no one is irrational enough to confuse motives and reasons.

This is the way I conceive sex. Sex is an exchange of values within a wide, wide range in which millions of combinations of values in millions of levels or degrees are possible. Benevolence is one of them. Casual sex, mutual masturbation, adultery or prostitution cannot be judged in isolation as immoral.

Edited by Hotu Matua
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Have you seen those persons offering "HUGS FOR FREE" on some streets? Many people go to those persons and get hugged. They relax. They get pleasure. They are not expecting true friendship from that guy. They are not getting affected in their ability to pursue true friendship in the future. They go for a hug and they get it. Voluntarily. It is all about benevolence.
(Emphasis added.) Exactly...people go up and hug the guy to express their own sense of benevolence. It is all about benevolence, it is not just about the physical act of putting your arms around a human being without benevolence (or some other reason people hug... say, compassion).
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Have you seen those persons offering "HUGS FOR FREE" on some streets? Many people go to those persons and get hugged. They relax. They get pleasure. They are not expecting true friendship from that guy. They are not getting affected in their ability to pursue true friendship in the future. They go for a hug and they get it. Voluntarily. It is all about benevolence.

Odd, I've seen those people but never seen anyone actually hug them.

The only people I've ever seen holding such signs were usually dirty, smelly and otherwise repulsive.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Odd, I've seen those people but never seen anyone actually hug them.

The only people I've ever seen holding such signs were usually dirty, smelly and otherwise repulsive.

Hahaha, that's quite an argument. The "they are usually dirty, smelly, and otherwise repulsive" argument. Well, yes of course, if they are such I will have to agree.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Have you seen those persons offering "HUGS FOR FREE" on some streets? Many people go to those persons and get hugged. They relax. They get pleasure. They are not expecting true friendship from that guy. They are not getting affected in their ability to pursue true friendship in the future. They go for a hug and they get it. Voluntarily. It is all about benevolence.

Now image that the guy decides to charge one dollar for each hug. He learns to deliver good, warm hugs. He becomes the best hugger. Imagine that a person under emotional stress considers that hug so good in his circumstance that he/she is willing to pay the dollar for one of his hugs. Would that act of trade be considered immoral because it entails "fake friendship" and "not a real hug"? Please, NO. As long as no one is irrational enough to confuse motives and reasons.

This is the way I conceive sex. Sex is an exchange of values within a wide, wide range in which millions of combinations of values in millions of levels or degrees are possible. Benevolence is one of them. Casual sex, mutual masturbation, adultery or prostitution cannot be judged in isolation as immoral.

I like your reasoning in this post.

I'm not sure, though, how much benevolence is implied, or caused by, paid-for sex.

To emphasize, I don't believe such sex should be judged as immoral, but I would feel uncomfortable getting a hug from a stranger in the street, rather than someone I knew, cared about, etc.

To be more realistic in your analogy, the hug could as well be a sexual act, right? Paid for, or not.

Which just takes this debate in circles.

Maybe, this is one of those cases where we can agree that the concept (prostitution) is not immoral - and every individual must make his own choice as to the extent he uses it, declines it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To be more realistic in your analogy, the hug could as well be a sexual act, right? Paid for, or not.

Which just takes this debate in circles.

Maybe, this is one of those cases where we can agree that the concept (prostitution) is not immoral - and every individual must make his own choice as to the extent he uses it, declines it.

Yeah, to avoid taking this debate in circles I would challenge you guys to compare these two different approaches to sexuality.

Approach 1. Conquering/surrendering

Approach 2. Giving/Receiving

To me, this is the crux of the matter. The approach we take will determine the role of romantic love in sexuality, and hence the morality of sexuality under an Objetivist perspective.

For Ayn Rand, the man has to conquer the mind of the woman in order to be granted access to her body. The woman has to surrender to the man who is virtuous enough to have acccess to her body. The concept of conquest and surrender implies certain battle, certain violence involved in the sex act. As Nathaniel Branden puts it, the woman is penetrated, seized, taken by the physically stronger man. What is implied is that man COULD take advantage of his strength and harm the woman. In fact, during the first sexual act, the woman may experience pain while being penetrated. That is why women would normally reject being penetrated, and any permission given to a man to such an act would in fact mean a "rendition". Woman may percive the situation as an "invasion", a mildy but still clearly act of "violence".

In The Fountainhead, the sexual encounter between Howard and Dominique clearly illustrates Ayn Rand's conquering/surrendering approach. That border between a rape scene and a highly romantic scene is blurred. Dominique tries to fight. Howard is the "agressor". Finally Dominique gives up, and she finds pleasure in being "defeated", taken, possesed.

In Atlas Shrugged, Dagny wants Rearden to do whatever he wants to do with her body. She yearns to be used by Rearden.

The concept of "exchange" is virtually absent in this description of sexuality. Women want to be taken. Men want to take. While I appreciate and personally find this approach charming, stimulating, and consistent to many aspects of the psychology of sex, I don't think it encompassess all aspects of sexual interaction.

The concept of "exchange" to me is a better approach. It implies that both men and women are giving and taking.

To illustrate this concept, I would beg you to bear with me and visualize two concrete situations of the sex act, that can serve as examples of the giving/receiving approach:

The woman riding on a man, and oral sex (both fellatio and cunnilingus).



  • When a woman rides a man, she takes most of the action. She controls rythm, movements, her own pleasure and, what is more interesting, COULD harm his man if she wished. In such position, the woman can cause a fracture to man's penis (and this happens from time to time, as urologists may confirm).
  • In fellatio, the woman has a nearly perfect control of her man's pleasure and COULD also harm him quite easily. In cunnilingus, physical strength of a man plays no role at all. Any crippled man could provide a lot of pleasure to his woman

.

It is possible that Ayn Rand had a personal preference for sexual interactions that involved a strong man using a mild degree of force to submit a woman, and a woman deciding to submit herself (after a symbolic fight)to a strong man. This would be in line with her romantic literary and artistic appetites.

Nathaniel Branden's account of his sexual life with Ayn Rand clearly support this idea. In fact, there is a line in his text (I'm talking about "My Years with Ayn Rand") that marginally suggest that their sexual acts did not include "unusual" sexual behaviour not aligned with this predator-victim approach (i.e. oral sex and woman riding on man position)

In my opinion, Ayn Rand took her personal preference too far. She thought that all sexual experiences had to be that way to be moral. Women should always surrender. Men should always strive to conquer.

That is why she found homosexuality "disgusting". She could not fancy a man being penetrated, "surrendering", being seized. She could not think in a woman actively LEADING other woman to orgasm.

My "giving/receiving" approach is more in line with all other interactions between human beings. It does not trivialize sex. It justs integrates it into the moral context of all human actions.

Under my approach, people can have sex out of friendship, adventure, discovery, playfulness, benevolence, and trade. Morality is judged out of the long-term effect on the lives of the people involved, just as any other moral judgement. Homosexual love is recognized as one of the infinite variants of love. Romantic love in sex is still recognized as the best possible ingredient or such an activity, but not as the standard under which we could pass moral judgement.

Edited by Hotu Matua
Link to comment
Share on other sites

...The woman riding on a man, and oral sex (both fellatio and cunnilingus).
I know of nothing that Rand wrote or said that can be taken to imply she would think fellatio and cunnilingus were immoral. Is that what you're implying?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't know what she thought, softwarenerd, but I wouldn't be surprised if she considered those behaviors as "neurotic" or alien to romantic love.

I don't know which were the "unsual" sexual behaviors Nathaniel Branden had in mind when he wrote: "as I didn't have unusual sexual preferences, our sexual life was excellent" (I am not quotting him literally, because I lost my iPad last friday, with his e-book in it).

My point to bring up woman-riding-on-man imagery and oral sex, however, is not to state whether Rand liked them or not.

My point is that such behaviours are examples that do not support the fundamental approach of "conquering-surrending", "agressor-victim" that she gave to sexuality.

My point is that such approach, although true, explains only part of human sexual experience and therefore romantic love should not be consider necessary to the morality of the sexual act.

I think my point is valid beacuse, in an interview, when questioned about the reasons for her views on sexuality, she answered that she derived it from "the psychology of sexual act, which I am not going to discuss here".

So, examining the psychology of sexual act is fundamental to understand why she thought that romantic conquest/surrender was of essence to the morality of sex.

Edited by Hotu Matua
Link to comment
Share on other sites

In my opinion, Ayn Rand took her personal preference too far. She thought that all sexual experiences had to be that way to be moral. Women should always surrender. Men should always strive to conquer. That is why she found homosexuality "disgusting". She could not fancy a man being penetrated, "surrendering", being seized. She could not think in a woman actively LEADING other woman to orgasm.

This is separate from what Rand spoke of regarding sex. What you're talking about is masculinity and femininity as described by Rand, which isn't the basis of her ideas on sex. It's a very different topic, though it is related. If you want to talk about that, it'd be better in a separate thread.

My "giving/receiving" approach is more in line with all other interactions between human beings. It does not trivialize sex. It justs integrates it into the moral context of all human actions.

Under my approach, people can have sex out of friendship, adventure, discovery, playfulness, benevolence, and trade.

No, I don't think that is your approach. At least, your ideas on the morality of prostitution are contradictory to this. (To emphasize, I don't think anyone said prostitution is absolutely immoral in all cases, just that in most cases it is immoral.)

Edited by Eiuol
Link to comment
Share on other sites

My point is that such behaviours are examples that do not support the fundamental approach of "conquering-surrending", "agressor-victim" that she gave to sexuality.

This is a wrong assumption on your part. Psychological surrender does not imply sexual passivity. Rand has never implied any such thing nor any Objectivist intellectual.

When analyzing actions of her fictional characters one should always keep in mind that Rand used art to essentialize her message. That explains many of her literary choices.

The issue of psychological dominance vs. psychological equality in sex has been already discussed here many times. Most people who agree with Rand (I am one of them) will answer that - as long as proper psychological attitude is maintained - all kinds of sexual behavior can be/is enjoyed.

In terms of the psychological identifications Rand made - they are nothing new. This is not exactly revolutionary. Go to a book section in any supermarket - pick up a random romance novel*** - find a random sex scene - observe how the man is acting. Try few other books. You will not find a male who is not psychologically dominant.

*** Romance fiction sales in 2009 - $1.36 billion. Romance fiction has the largest share of the consumer market at ~ 13.2 percent, beating other market categories such as mystery, science fiction/fantasy, and religion/inspirational. Women make up 90.5 percent of the romance readership, with the heart of the U.S. romance novel readership being women aged 31–49 who are currently in a romantic relationship.

(I think it is not a far-fetched assumption on my part that women would much rather experience it than read about it.)

Edited by ~Sophia~
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...