Is the Objectivist view of sex flawed?

[bluecherry]

Several things I'd like to briefly address. Sorry if I repeat anything since I mostly skimmed the posts of everybody but Dormin since the thread starts with him making inquiries.

Early on I saw it said that it was arbitrary that Rand placed this additional non-physical consideration on what is a physical act. I contend it is not arbitrary though, that there is a reason for doing this and doing it with sex in particular. Sex holds the greatest possible physical pleasure that one could get from or give to others. To combine this with what holds the greatest possible mental pleasure one could get or give to others thus makes sex capable of giving one the most possible pleasure one could get/give as a the whole creature that we people are (as in that we have mind and body, not just one or the other just to be specific with what I mean by "whole" here. )

If one treats sex and the selection of sex partners with little difference from how one would treat typical recreational activities like Foosball or checkers then having sex with somebody can't hold any more significance than playing checkers with somebody. It's like if you would give the same compliment to just about any old art you came across for example - the words, when coming from you at least, lose their capacity for holding much weight. Every work of art you gave that same compliment is thus placed on the same level of assessed quality. The same goes for who you will have sex with or any other activity really. With most activities it is a-okay that it isn't any big deal that you are willing to do them with just about anybody. If this were to happen with sex though, you would now have lost the capability for experiencing/giving that highest of pleasure for yourself/somebody as a whole person. This would happen because you have disconnected the mental and the physical considerations when it comes to sex and there is no alternative, equally high source of physical pleasure that you could connect the mental pleasure element to in order for it to give as good of an integrated mental and physical experience of pleasure. Treating sex as pretty much just physical is getting some extra physical pleasure in the short run, but in the long run it decreases how much pleasure you are capable of experiencing as a whole person. Do you really think that little extra physical pleasure of sex with some random person instead of masturbation is worth that loss?

Curiosity here, to the people who have said that masturbation just doesn't cut it for the amount of physical pleasure it gives, would you still find any point in having sex without romance if there were sex toys that existed that felt and perhaps looked almost indistinguishable from the real deal?

[DonAthos]

Well if you disagree that we should act according to our nature, then it becomes a moral argument. I just assumed no one would disagree with that part.

The source of disagreement is all that you're seemingly putting into this idea of "our nature."

Our teeth may have evolved to chew certain kinds of matter -- in a sense, that's "our nature" -- but it is not on that basis that we decide what to eat.

Reality -all of it- is the basis of ethical claims. Evolution is real. Sex is the result of evolution. If you want to create the Ethics of Sex without understanding evolution first, that's just silly.

I feel compelled to let you know that phrases such as "that's just silly" are casually insulting. It inspires me to respond in kind, providing not just a considered reply to your arguments, but also a sharp characterization of how I evaluate them. That kind of exchange would degrade our ability to have a meaningful dialogue (and indeed, it is already impinging on my ability to be civil in this very reply). So let's not do that.

But yes, we all like reality. That does not mean that every fact is equally relevant to every decision. Have you ever watched South Park? Are you familiar with the Chewbacca Defense? No matter.

I agree that evolution is real. So are oysters. I do not agree that either evolution or oysters are the basis of ethical claims. The basis of ethical claims is an appeal to value with life being the standard. That my body evolved in X way -- say to outrun sabre-tooth tigers and so forth -- does not tell me how I should use my body today. That my ancestors valued certain traits in potential mates does not tell me what traits I ought to value. If you think that I'm interested in the "furtherance of the species," I am not. If you would like to make a claim that we should act in certain ways with regards to sex, I am open to that claim: show me that what you advocate necessarily makes life better than otherwise.

[DonAthos]

If one treats sex and the selection of sex partners with little difference from how one would treat typical recreational activities like Foosball or checkers then having sex with somebody can't hold any more significance than playing checkers with somebody.

Okay. Let's get into this.

It's like if you would give the same compliment to just about any old art you came across for example - the words, when coming from you at least, lose their capacity for holding much weight. Every work of art you gave that same compliment is thus placed on the same level of assessed quality. The same goes for who you will have sex with or any other activity really. With most activities it is a-okay that it isn't any big deal that you are willing to do them with just about anybody. If this were to happen with sex though, you would now have lost the capability for experiencing/giving that highest of pleasure for yourself/somebody as a whole person.

Here's a possible disagreement.

Is it the case that if a person has sex which is not the apex of pleasure, mental and physical (i.e. in response to one's "highest values"), that this person loses the capability for experiencing that pleasure at other times/with other partners?

I'm not sure that this is true, and I suspect that it isn't.

Is this sort of thing true with respect to other things? Does seeing a bad movie make one incapable (or less capable) of enjoying a good movie? You'd mentioned "Foosball and checkers," but let me ask about football and chess. Does a child who plays pick-up games of football destroy his capacity to later appreciate/enjoy the SuperBowl, should he ever achieve such a feat? Would someone who plays chess at the park be thereby rendered insensitive to a match at the World Championships?

Perhaps sex is a special case? In examining my own sexual history, I certainly agree that my experience of sex (in terms of physical pleasure and other things as well) is crucially dependent on my choice in partner. I've had great sex, and good sex, and bad sex, and I like the great kind most of all, but I do not dislike the good kind. I don't know that my experience of bad sex (which, despite the adage about there being "no such thing as bad pizza or bad sex" does exist) or even good sex has limited my appreciation for great sex, anymore than the bad pizza I've had has destroyed my ability to enjoy the good or the great. Though I suppose, if I were missing out on something, I wouldn't quite know it?

I think I'll need to see this idea of casual sex destroying a person's capacity to enjoy more meaningful, or more deeply pleasurable sex, fleshed out a bit.

This would happen because you have disconnected the mental and the physical considerations when it comes to sex [...]

I'm not quite sure I understand this. Let's say that I find a woman attractive, and I respond to that attraction physically, as happens. This woman may not represent "my highest values" (though I believe that my response is generally to my values), but... aren't my "mental and physical considerations"... fully connected here?

If I saw mouth-watering food, and felt my stomach rumble, and my hunger grow as I considered it, I'd say that my mind and body were working in concert. Where's the disconnect?

Treating sex as pretty much just physical is getting some extra physical pleasure in the short run, but in the long run it decreases how much pleasure you are capable of experiencing as a whole person.

Certainly, if this is the case, we should not want this. But I'm not convinced that this is the case. If sex is the "most pleasurable" thing, I respect that as a quantitative difference from those other things which provide some pleasure, but I don't know that it's a qualitative difference. Where other capacities for pleasure exist, I do not believe that having that pleasure necessarily has any long-term negative impacts on the person who experiences it, in itself. It doesn't seem to agree with my personal experiences of sex, though I admit that I don't know both what it's like to "only have sex with one's highest value" and also what it's like otherwise.

Do you really think that little extra physical pleasure of sex with some random person instead of masturbation is worth that loss?

Given your case... why should masturbation not present the same danger of disconnecting "the mental and the physical considerations when it comes to sex"? Isn't masturbation even "worse" in this regard?

[Eiuol]

How do you reconcile this with masturbation? Must I have some special relationship with my hand or myself to masturbate? I think you are having a hard time bringing your conception of sex down to a concrete form (ie. it is a floating abtraction). Yes my brain reacts differently, but so what? My brain reacts differently depending on almost every different activity I can perform with another person. What is it specifically that makes sex different?

Well, you ought to have a special relation with yourself or viewing yourself in a positive light, no? I'm not sure if what you're saying is an objection. Sex involves more than one person. Masturbation involves only oneself. Both are "sexual" broadly speaking, and do involve valuation of the participants. So, there is no issue or bizarre implication with my claim that sexual activities could only involve values. My bit about hormone release relates to the idea that sex is a whole different kind of experience than masturbation, not just a difference of degree. In other words, neither is "better" or "inferior". They're very different, and should be judged accordingly.

That probably brings up the question of "what IS sex, anyway?" Nicky brought up evolution. Given the discussion is on morality, I do not think that matters; it's a naturalistic fallacy. What matters here is just explaining what sex is. What that means can easily be taken for granted. Do we only mean intercourse? Does oral sex still fit under sex? What about more ambiguous examples of kissing and/or touching? Figuring out how to define sex here would help a lot. Before getting into any scientific or evolutionary arguments, at least define how we're categorizing a variety of intimate activities.

Edited April 26, 2012 by Eiuol

[Dormin111]

I have been thinking of sex as "any activity which stimulates one or more person's sexual organs in a positive way." This includes masturbation, handjobs, oral, vaginal, anal, kissing, etc.

I admit I am getting a bit twisted up in the arguments, so to reiterate, my main point is: having sex can be an awesome, life altering activity, but it can also be used as a short term gain for pleasure akin to "two person mastrubation." I believe Rand denied the latter and that she was wrong. I do not see why the latter must necesarily interfere with the former as has been suggested. The count-argument I have heard is that sex should not be lumped into the same category as any other physical activity between consenting adults, but I have yet to hear an entirely convincing reason as to why this should be so.

Also I very much agree with all of what DonAthos said in his last post.

Sorry double post with minor alterations.

Edited April 26, 2012 by Dormin111

[Nicky]

The source of disagreement is all that you're seemingly putting into this idea of "our nature."

Our teeth may have evolved to chew certain kinds of matter -- in a sense, that's "our nature" -- but it is not on that basis that we decide what to eat.

Of course we do. Do you eat wood? We only eat what we can chew, because of the nature of our teeth.

I feel compelled to let you know that phrases such as "that's just silly" are casually insulting.

Insulting to whom? I didn't call you silly, I called a statement silly. It wasn't even a statement you made, it was one I made. It's silly to try to explain sex without relying on biology, especially evolution. I stand by that.

That my body evolved in X way -- say to outrun sabre-tooth tigers and so forth -- does not tell me how I should use my body today.

Final response on this issue, because we're not getting anywhere:

You are arguing a straw man. I am not telling you that you shouldn't have casual sex because of its evolutionary purpose. I am telling how sex works, and I am telling you that it works that way because of evolution.

1. Sex is a physiological response to our values.

2. Similarly, your body is the way it is because of saber-tooth tigers (you have your muscles the way you have them because of evolution).

The ethical implications of that are that:

1. you shouldn't have sex in a way that goes against a rational hierarchy of values

2. similarly, when you go jogging, you shouldn't be running backwards. You should be running in the direction your face is pointed.

Why, you ask? Well, indirectly, the direction you should be running in has to do precisely with saber tooth tigers an big ass bears chasing people around the savanna. And the way you should be having sex, also indirectly and for the same reasons, has to do with the evolutionary rationale for sexuality.

Edited April 27, 2012 by Nicky

[Nicky]

I have been thinking of sex as "any activity which stimulates one or more person's sexual organs in a positive way." This includes masturbation, handjobs, oral, vaginal, anal, kissing, etc.

I admit I am getting a bit twisted up in the arguments, so to reiterate, my main point is: having sex can be an awesome, life altering activity, but it can also be used as a short term gain for pleasure akin to "two person mastrubation." I believe Rand denied the latter and that she was wrong. I do not see why the latter must necesarily interfere with the former as has been suggested. The count-argument I have heard is that sex should not be lumped into the same category as any other physical activity between consenting adults, but I have yet to hear an entirely convincing reason as to why this should be so.

Why would the other side need to prove why you shouldn't do something, before you give some compelling reasons on why it should be done?

What is this mutual masturbation? How is it different from sex that involves feelings and values? Where does it come from? What is achieved by it?

[DonAthos]

Final response on this issue...

That's for the best. I've tried to respond reasonably to this post a few times, and it all comes out as venom. How unfortunate.

[Dormin111]

Why would the other side need to prove why you shouldn't do something, before you give some compelling reasons on why it should be done?

It is enjoyable. It feels really good.

What is this mutual masturbation? How is it different from sex that involves feelings and values? Where does it come from? What is achieved by it?

By "mutual masturbation," I mean rather than two individuals only choosing between passionate romantic sex and solo masturbation, they can instead have sex with each other purely for physical pleasure.

This sex does involve values, and to a lesser degree feelings (as they pertain to a relationship), but this sex does not include the "highest values."

It comes from two individuals seeking pleasure.

Pleasure is achieved by it.

[DonAthos]

All right, I think it's time to "brass tacks" this. Here is the Rand quote with which we're working:

"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 . . . ."

"A sexual relationship is proper only on the ground of the highest values one can find in a human being."

Okay, so unless we'd like to make a claim that a prostitute necessarily represents "the highest values one can find in a human being," here is the scenario: a man seeks a prostitute for the purpose of a night of physical pleasure -- sexual gratification. He finds one that he finds attractive, though he does not know her well enough to know whether she represents "the highest values he can find in a human being." Let us stipulate that, if they got to know one another over a long enough period of time, they would like each other well enough, but not be inclined to a lifelong romance/partnership; i.e. they share values, but not "the highest values."

Therefore this sexual relationship is "improper"?

How so? I will only accept this as "improper" if it can be demonstrated that this man's behavior is self-destructive. So is it? Can that be shown? (bluecherry has made a go of it, but I disagree with her reasoning; but perhaps she's on the right track?) If it cannot be shown that this behavior is self-destructive, then I see no basis for any claim that this is an improper thing to do.

[bluecherry]

Does oral sex still fit under sex?

I did not have sex with that woman!

"Is it the case that if a person has sex which is not the apex of pleasure, mental and physical (i.e. in response to one's "highest values"), that this person loses the capability for experiencing that pleasure at other times/with other partners?"

I think it is more an issue of willingness, what one is willing to do/approving of at a given time more than something unalterable. If one is having sex with somebody they think is really awesome right now but they would have taken whoever said yes first and it is just dumb luck that it so happened to be this awesome person on this particular night then sex with this great person doesn't mean anything special because the real reason they are having sex is coincidence mostly, not a matter of the character of the people involved. It's like saying the statue of David is magnificent when one would have said the same thing if they were looking at a pile of dead bugs. However, if somebody changes to only being willing to give such a compliment to really masterful works of art and won't do so for junk anymore then the meaning can be restored (though to anybody who knew your habit and standards before, they may still be skeptical for a while that you really have changed anything.) That's what I think about who one is willing to have sex with.

As for when one has sex, I'd say just because it isn't the most super duper top of the line special occasion sex every time doesn't really matter because sex is indeed capable of some range of awesomeness. It is probably going to be at its best during those really great occasions with things to celebrate and so on, but it can still be great at other times too when there's nothing particularly special going on. You can be pleasantly surprised some times. I think it is who one is doing it with that will determine the range of how much pleasure sex can possibly have.

For example, say we had a scale to rank this. Sex with a particular person at a particular time could get up to five points for how much physical pleasure is there and up to five points for how much mental pleasure there is. If you had Barbra over here who is good looking and really skilled at sex but obnoxious and as foul a person as they come, at best the sex could hit a five on the scale for getting all possible points for the physical pleasure, but none for mental. On the other side is Jane who is an amazing person, but completely, hopelessly incompetent sexually and she looks like something you found in a compost pile - up to five points for mental, but none for physical. You can't know ahead of time exactly how good or bad any particular time you have sex will be, but who you are doing so with is something you can know ahead of time which can give you an estimate of a likely range of possibilities. Barbra and Jane will never get over five points, but you know enough about them to estimate that they probably won't be worse than three points since they have been pretty consistently good at one element of sex each. However, Sandy is competent sexually, doesn't look like a swamp monster, and has a great personality. Sex with Sandy could easily be better than with Barbra or Jane because it offers substantial value in more than one element. Sandy consistently would be better than either Barbra or Jane could be at their best when it comes to being a sex partner.

"Is this sort of thing true with respect to other things? Does seeing a bad movie make one incapable (or less capable) of enjoying a good movie?"

Seeing one does not, no. You can't guarantee too surely how good or bad a movie will be ahead of time without getting lots of spoilers though so it isn't as if seeing a bad movie means you are somehow guilty or anything. Unless you decide to watch it again maybe. But really, who here would willingly watch Knowing more than once? Bad movies tend to come as an unpleasant surprise one wouldn't go ahead with unless they had some morbid curiosity were they to visit themselves via time-machine and warn themself that the movie they are about to go see sucks and is a waste of time and money. Those bad surprises though may just highlight the good movies as being really good in contrast to the crap ones that you accidentally got subjected to sometimes. Really though, this is kind of only tangentially related because sex has the unique position as the single highest possible physically pleasurable act people can share. Since movies and other stuff don't have this it wouldn't be as big a deal if one's movie-enjoying capacity got diminished anyway. You'd just focus on other forms of art and entertainment.

The seeing bad movies thing is a little wonky of a comparison though. It isn't seeing a bad movie or having crummy sex that diminishes anything, it is intentionally doing so, settling for this instead of a better movie (or better sex partner) or some other use of your time and -- gah!, the more I think about this movie comparison the more I realize I could go on and on about it without really furthering the conversation much because I'm just explaining why I think the movie comparison doesn't actually help illuminate this issue. I'll stop here about the movie thing consequently, but if you really think it IS that important for me to keep going on this comparison, say so and I will come back to it.

I was meaning to somewhere in there related to the movie and football and such thing get to an element of assessment involved like I mentioned before, but I got into one of those points where I have so much I could say that I start getting my writing jumbled up. Alright, hang on, let me try to find some place to start again with this assessment thing . . .

Okay. Sex has the greatest potential for physical pleasure that people can give to and receive from one another. Romantic love is the greatest feeling of pleasure mentally that one can get from another ( "get from" as in that the feeling is evoked in you by them, not that they are heaping their love of you onto you) and also the highest compliment one can pay to another. Sex for humans by its very nature involves intimacy between people, but not necessarily romantic feelings. Romance has to be coupled with sex by choice. Why should one choose to do so? (I'm going to proceed with the context of the rest of Objectivism already assumed here) As I've mentioned, doing so makes the act combine the highest pleasures one can get and give in both components of a person and so the combination is able to produce greater pleasure than either the mental or physical could on its own in a unique experience addressing yourself as a whole entity. If you don't choose to keep these things linked than you are limited to only how much pleasure you can get from just the physical action of sex. You passed up the only possible way to get this kind and amount of combined pleasurable experience, so now you're just SOL.

It boils down to quality versus quantity. The math for what adds up to a greater amount of "positive experience points" gets a little complicated once you factor in things like the possibility of masturbation and that one can't just switch back and forth between casual "quantity" mode and romantic "quality" mode at the drop of a hat, it doesn't work like that. This is an estimate I'm making here from all kinds of places over the years, but from what I've heard it seems like people who have casual sex aren't having all that much more than people who aren't anyway for various, so it seems really unlikely anybody could possibly get enough in quantity to rack up points fast enough to out pace those going for quality. I'm doubtful one could possibly do such a thing though anyway even if they tried to vastly crank up the pace since, as I've said before, these people are losing out on a unique experience. It's almost like having only half of a movie at a time, either the audio or the visual and no narrator or captions - listen or watch as much as you may it is just not the same, not nearly as good, and hard to imagine the whole thing from only ever having one at a time. Furthermore, there is something one can use as a substitute, "next best thing" to fill in for just the physical pleasure from sex - masturbation of course. However, could you even come up with a lesser physically pleasurable activity that one could do together with somebody else they were romantically involved with to create a lesser substitute for what purpose sex would have served? I can't come up with anything that doesn't fall horrendously short, so far short as to not even be in the same ball park. Unless you've got something up your sleeve I think the case is pretty solid that one can't make up for the loss that comes with passing up keeping sex and romance linked.

[Grames]

From Aristotle's Nicomachean Ethics

Now each man judges well what he knows, and of these things he is a good judge: on each particular matter then he is a good judge who has been instructed in it, and in a general way the man of general mental cultivation.

Hence the young man is not a fit student of Moral Philosophy, for he has no experience in the actions of life, while all that is said presupposes and is concerned with these: and in the next place, since he is apt to follow the impulses of his passions, he will hear as though he heard not, and to no profit, the end in view being practice and not mere knowledge.

And I draw no distinction between young in years, and youthful in temper and disposition: the defect to which I allude being no direct result of the time, but of living at the beck and call of passion, and following each object as it rises. For to them that are such the knowledge comes to be unprofitable, as to those of imperfect self-control: but, to those who form their desires and act in accordance with reason, to have knowledge on these points must be very profitable.

Let thus much suffice by way of preface on these three points, the student, the spirit in which our observations should be received, and the object which we propose.

Ayn Rand has not made explicit remarks equivalent to Aristotle's preface but she should have. Ayn Rand's opinions on sex make the most sense when applied to adults in their 30's and 40's (Reardens), persons who can possibly be said to be well-integrated. I can not speak about what it is to be a teenaged girl, but no teenaged boy's sexuality can possibly meet the standard given by Rand and it only slowly bends closer to that description with age as the flood of testosterone ebbs a bit.

Another relevant Aristotle quote on youth: "Young people are in a condition like permanent intoxication, because youth is sweet and they are growing." Although everyone including the young can be expected to have full control over their behavior they will not have the same control over their desires. Integrating body and mind into a harmony such as Aristotle and Rand describe is a long term project, a kind of gardening project of the mind comprised of making connections and severing others while letting time perfect the growth.

[Dante]

Grames, I think you might be on to something. I'd tend to draw a distinction between people who have a sexually loose period in their youth, but eventually settle down, and people who are determined never to settle down or to find one person that they can invest deeply in, romantically and sexually. I think the real hindrance to one's life and happiness is not a few years of fooling around in one's youth, but rather a failure to ever grow out of this phase and find someone to build a life with. Obviously you should still be discriminating and careful even in this 'youthful' period, but expecting one's first sexual partner to be a lifelong love can have its own negative consequences. This looser attitude towards sex doesn't really become a problem until it becomes permanent.

[DonAthos]

"Is it the case that if a person has sex which is not the apex of pleasure, mental and physical (i.e. in response to one's "highest values"), that this person loses the capability for experiencing that pleasure at other times/with other partners?"

I think it is more an issue of willingness, what one is willing to do/approving of at a given time more than something unalterable. If one is having sex with somebody they think is really awesome right now but they would have taken whoever said yes first and it is just dumb luck that it so happened to be this awesome person on this particular night then sex with this great person doesn't mean anything special because the real reason they are having sex is coincidence mostly, not a matter of the character of the people involved.

I hear what you're saying, but I think that there's something like an excluded middle here. It's as though you're presenting me with the following options:

1) Have sex with a person (or people) who reflect my "highest values," or;

2) Have sex absolutely indiscriminately, with "whoever said yes first."

What about sex with someone who reflects values, but not necessarily my "highest"?

It's like saying the statue of David is magnificent when one would have said the same thing if they were looking at a pile of dead bugs. However, if somebody changes to only being willing to give such a compliment to really masterful works of art and won't do so for junk anymore then the meaning can be restored (though to anybody who knew your habit and standards before, they may still be skeptical for a while that you really have changed anything.) That's what I think about who one is willing to have sex with.

Yet there's quite a range, even between David and dead bugs... isn't there? Let's suppose, for the sake of our discussion, that David represents the very pinnacle of art. Would it therefore become inappropriate to take pleasure in any "lesser work," because it's not David -- because it's not the absolute height of the art form?

I'm not advocating calling a pile of dead bugs magnificent (at least, I'm pretty sure I'm not), and with Nicky's provided example of Supermodel Stalin also considered, I'm beginning to wonder if there's not a commonality here to your positions. "Casual sex" such as I'm discussing does not mean abandoning values, or embracing filth, or anything of that nature. Instead, it is a discussion of embracing those values we find in those we find attractive, though they do not reflect our "highest" values.

As for when one has sex, I'd say just because it isn't the most super duper top of the line special occasion sex every time doesn't really matter because sex is indeed capable of some range of awesomeness. It is probably going to be at its best during those really great occasions with things to celebrate and so on, but it can still be great at other times too when there's nothing particularly special going on. You can be pleasantly surprised some times. I think it is who one is doing it with that will determine the range of how much pleasure sex can possibly have.

I completely agree with all of this.

"Is this sort of thing true with respect to other things? Does seeing a bad movie make one incapable (or less capable) of enjoying a good movie?"

Seeing one does not, no. You can't guarantee too surely how good or bad a movie will be ahead of time without getting lots of spoilers though so it isn't as if seeing a bad movie means you are somehow guilty or anything. Unless you decide to watch it again maybe. But really, who here would willingly watch Knowing more than once? Bad movies tend to come as an unpleasant surprise one wouldn't go ahead with unless they had some morbid curiosity were they to visit themselves via time-machine and warn themself that the movie they are about to go see sucks and is a waste of time and money. Those bad surprises though may just highlight the good movies as being really good in contrast to the crap ones that you accidentally got subjected to sometimes. Really though, this is kind of only tangentially related because sex has the unique position as the single highest possible physically pleasurable act people can share.

I disagree with this. I don't think that sex has a "unique position" (that matters to our discussion), as I'd tried to anticipate here:

If sex is the "most pleasurable" thing, I respect that as a quantitative difference from those other things which provide some pleasure, but I don't know that it's a qualitative difference.

If the criticism of "casual sex" is that it destroys one's capacity for enjoying the pinnacle of sex, I would expect that to hold true for many other things as well: casual movie going (not only seeing "bad movies," but even good films) should destroy our capacity for the best films; eating Campbell's soup should make us unable to appreciate the vichyssoise at a fine French restaurant; and so forth.

If casual sex is "improper," then I would think it's also improper to experience any art, or food, or anything, really, that does not reflect our "highest values," lest we run the risk of shutting ourselves off from those more-excellent experiences.

And yet, I don't think it's true at all, this line of thinking. I don't think it's true that good movies drive out great, or mediocre food makes us incapable of appreciating fine dining, or that a casual affair (still based on values, note) makes the deepest kind of love unavailable. Not to put too fine a point on this, but that wouldn't even agree with my own experiences.

Since movies and other stuff don't have this it wouldn't be as big a deal if one's movie-enjoying capacity got diminished anyway. You'd just focus on other forms of art and entertainment.

Wha--?

I don't know if you wouldn't mind if your movie-enjoying capacity were diminished, but I'd surely mind! And I expect that "other forms of art and entertainment" would suffer in precisely the same manner. This is of great concern to me, because I love story and writing and etc. Do you mean to say that, every time I read a mediocre story for my weekly writing workshop, I reduce my ability to enjoy great fiction that much more?

The seeing bad movies thing is a little wonky of a comparison though. It isn't seeing a bad movie or having crummy sex that diminishes anything, it is intentionally doing so, settling for this instead of a better movie (or better sex partner) or some other use of your time and -- gah!

I don't think that the comparison is wonky; I think it's pointing up the problems with this approach to sex. (Or this approach to anything, really.)

So, okay, let's say that there's a problem with choosing to see a bad movie over a good movie (relative to your legitimate goals; Roger Ebert probably has to make this choice with regularity, and I wouldn't hold that as improper of him); or choosing a McDonald's hamburger, all things being equal, over filet mignon. Does that mean that it's never proper to eat a McDonald's hamburger?

Perhaps we could say that, if the One True Love of your life is available to you, then it wouldn't make sense to choose to sleep with (for instance) a partner of lesser value over your OTL. Granted. But suppose that this choice is not available to you?

For me, when I lost my virginity, it was not a choice of sleeping with my then-girlfriend, or "someone better" (I knew my wife even then, but I did not know her then as I know her now; in fact, we were both "different people" at the time, and have subsequently agreed that to attempt a relationship back then would have ended disastrously). It was sleeping with my then-girlfriend (to whom I was very attracted, and even loved in some fashion, but who did not represent my "highest values" -- I would not wish to marry this woman, and I knew that at the time) or not sleeping with her, and maybe not sleeping with anyone else.

Okay. Sex has the greatest potential for physical pleasure that people can give to and receive from one another. Romantic love is the greatest feeling of pleasure mentally that one can get from another ( "get from" as in that the feeling is evoked in you by them, not that they are heaping their love of you onto you) and also the highest compliment one can pay to another. Sex for humans by its very nature involves intimacy between people, but not necessarily romantic feelings. Romance has to be coupled with sex by choice. Why should one choose to do so?

But suppose I'm not arguing against coupling sex with romance? I'm asking instead whether it's necessarily improper to have sex without coupling it with romance.

I suspect that you'll eventually wish to disqualify every possible analogy , but here's another one for your consideration. At Thanksgiving, I enjoy to share discussion with family and friends prior to our meal about "what we're thankful for" -- which is cheesy, perhaps, but I like it. And I've noted, and do believe, that it lends a certain depth to our subsequent meal. Eating rituals exist in other cultures, too, like tea ceremonies, and various forms of communion, "breaking of bread," etc. Doubtless, these observances contribute to these meals, giving them a special "spiritual" character.

In light of this, would we contend that any eating divorced from such observances is "improper"?

Behind all of this, there seems to be a kind of "all-or-nothing" character -- a letting of "perfection" become the enemy of good or even great. If you want to tell me that sex, at its very height -- with the ideal romantic partner, on Valentine's day in a secluded cabana on a Hawaiian beach, as the sun sets over the Pacific, and etc. -- cannot be rivaled, I'll not argue that point. But the lesson that I do not believe follows is: therefore, everything lesser than that is "improper," or should be avoided.

(I'm going to proceed with the context of the rest of Objectivism already assumed here) As I've mentioned, doing so makes the act combine the highest pleasures one can get and give in both components of a person and so the combination is able to produce greater pleasure than either the mental or physical could on its own in a unique experience addressing yourself as a whole entity. If you don't choose to keep these things linked than you are limited to only how much pleasure you can get from just the physical action of sex. You passed up the only possible way to get this kind and amount of combined pleasurable experience, so now you're just SOL.

Let's agree that what is ideal is to maximize one's experience, in terms of pleasure, in terms of life fulfillment and flourishing, values with life as the standard, etc. But that's not to say that having sex with Dagny Taggart on the John Galt Line is the one and only sexual experience a man should ever have, is it? That he should wait, abstinent, until he's able to produce that uniquely magical scenario? (And should he never meet Dagny, then it's better to die a virgin.)

What if it were possible to enjoy any number of encounters/affairs prior to meeting Dagny, all of which with women of virtue, and be no later to one's assignation on the train?

It boils down to quality versus quantity. The math for what adds up to a greater amount of "positive experience points" gets a little complicated once you factor in things like the possibility of masturbation and that one can't just switch back and forth between casual "quantity" mode and romantic "quality" mode at the drop of a hat, it doesn't work like that.

On this last, switching between "quantity" versus "quality" (and I'm not sure it's that simple), shouldn't it be as simple as keeping straight your feelings and relationships among different people? When I hug my mother, it's not the same as hugging my wife, and neither are the same as hugging my best friend, or my brother. I'm able to keep the context in mind, and it's very rare that I accidentally grab Mom's behind.

I'll agree that some people at various times might have difficulties keeping "casual" sex casual, or perhaps recognizing the opportunity for a deeper romantic bond, when the right partner presents his/herself. But isn't the response to this to recognize the potential for danger, and counsel honest introspection and communication? Not to banish all casual sex to impropriety or immorality.

This is an estimate I'm making here from all kinds of places over the years, but from what I've heard it seems like people who have casual sex aren't having all that much more than people who aren't anyway for various, so it seems really unlikely anybody could possibly get enough in quantity to rack up points fast enough to out pace those going for quality. I'm doubtful one could possibly do such a thing though anyway even if they tried to vastly crank up the pace since, as I've said before, these people are losing out on a unique experience. It's almost like having only half of a movie at a time, either the audio or the visual and no narrator or captions - listen or watch as much as you may it is just not the same, not nearly as good, and hard to imagine the whole thing from only ever having one at a time. Furthermore, there is something one can use as a substitute, "next best thing" to fill in for just the physical pleasure from sex - masturbation of course. However, could you even come up with a lesser physically pleasurable activity that one could do together with somebody else they were romantically involved with to create a lesser substitute for what purpose sex would have served? I can't come up with anything that doesn't fall horrendously short, so far short as to not even be in the same ball park. Unless you've got something up your sleeve I think the case is pretty solid that one can't make up for the loss that comes with passing up keeping sex and romance linked.

Again, I feel like I'm staring into this gigantic Either-Or chasm that leaves out a range of perfectly liveable land in the middle. Either a person has casual sex as a life choice, or he has this pinnacle of sex as a life choice, and those who choose the latter wind up better off than those who choose the former. (And I think that if we really got into it, we'd eventually be forced to conclude that "masturbation" is even worse -- it's more casual than casual.)

But what about life as it's actually lived? My wife and I are about to celebrate eight years together (three married), and we are wonderfully in love. I wouldn't trade our relationship for anything. Yet before our relationship, I had a number of other relationships with other women -- some more causal and some more serious. It's not that "I could have had then what I had now, and just chose otherwise." That's not the case. What I have now was unavailable to me at the time. Instead, I had relationships with the women that I knew, and spent time with, and responded to their values and their virtues as I saw fit. None of them reflected my "highest values" in the way that my wife does -- I did not want to marry them, for instance -- but what of that? It didn't mean that those earlier relationships were unpleasant (on the whole, though there were certainly times... ). I don't regret having had any of those relationships. Nor do I believe that any of those relationships made me less capable of appreciating my wife, or enjoying our life together (sex or otherwise). So what specifically did I do that was "improper"? What did I miss out on? How did I do myself damage? Does this idea of casual sex being improper have any reality?

[aequalsa]

This looser attitude towards sex doesn't really become a problem until it becomes permanent.

I would tend to agree with this, but I haven't seen these things to be unconnected enough to allow it. The decisions early on, form the habits, and the habits form the character.

This applies to all things outside of sex as well, and is not without exception, but there seems to exist a strong impulse in everyone I've known well, to write themselves as the protagonist in their story. This usually involves some amount of rationalizing, evading, and changing of values. So to apply that to this issue, when we choose to take someone to bed, we then try to find reasons to explain to ourselves why it was a good idea. If we continue this with many people of various character, our standards, which are just rules to specify our desires, become wider and looser. I haven't seen it play out often(ever actually)that people can just will themselves into higher standards of desire. With enough will power they can certainly change their actions, but what they want, if it ever comes, comes way later.

[DonAthos]

This applies to all things outside of sex as well, and is not without exception, but there seems to exist a strong impulse in everyone I've known well, to write themselves as the protagonist in their story.

Doesn't this make some degree of sense? Who ought a person cast as the protagonist in "their story"? Jay Gatsby?

This usually involves some amount of rationalizing, evading, and changing of values.

Those do seem to be things that people do. I may have even seen that a time or two on this board. I don't know that this charge damns everyone, or every decision that a person makes. (Perhaps sometimes when we choose to take someone to bed, it's actually a reasonable thing to do, and does not require rationalization, etc.)

So to apply that to this issue, when we choose to take someone to bed, we then try to find reasons to explain to ourselves why it was a good idea.

It can difficult, perhaps, for people who grow up in a society overtly dominated by Judeo-Christian ethics -- those who are told from childhood some version of morality which entails sex being evil, or the pursuit of one's own pleasure and happiness more generally. I can see that answering one's experience of natural attraction in these cases -- attraction to values, and the sexual response that triggers -- may lead to feelings of guilt, shame, and concomitant rationalizations.

For those who reject such a creed, the pleasures available through sex make their own compelling argument as to why it can a "good idea to take someone to bed." Every person, indiscriminately? No. But it is the enjoyment of the experience of sex, in itself, which provides the argument "for," and I don't think there needs to be anything more to it than that. I think that seeking pleasure is a fine thing for a person to do. Is there any good reason to despise pleasure?

If we continue this with many people of various character, our standards, which are just rules to specify our desires, become wider and looser. I haven't seen it play out often(ever actually)that people can just will themselves into higher standards of desire. With enough will power they can certainly change their actions, but what they want, if it ever comes, comes way later.

I'm somewhat reminded of Harold Bloom's lamentations over Harry Potter:

"Harry Potter" will not lead our children on to Kipling's "Just So Stories" or his "Jungle Book." It will not lead them to Thurber's "Thirteen Clocks" or Kenneth Grahame's "Wind in the Willows" or Lewis Carroll's "Alice."

And if this is the case (though it seems rather unproven, let alone that reading Potter will keep a child from Kipling or etc.), then it must be that there's no value in reading Harry Potter for its own sake. After all, why should anyone read -- or do anything -- "for fun"?

[Grames]

"Casual sex" such as I'm discussing does not mean abandoning values, or embracing filth, or anything of that nature. Instead, it is a discussion of embracing those values we find in those we find attractive, though they do not reflect our "highest" values.

In Atlas Shrugged the progression of the love lives of Dagny Taggart and Henry Rearden follows exactly that description. Yet "casual" is hardly the appropriate description of the choices that Dagny and Rearden make.

Behind all of this, there seems to be a kind of "all-or-nothing" character -- a letting of "perfection" become the enemy of good or even great. If you want to tell me that sex, at its very height -- with the ideal romantic partner, on Valentine's day in a secluded cabana on a Hawaiian beach, as the sun sets over the Pacific, and etc. -- cannot be rivaled, I'll not argue that point. But the lesson that I do not believe follows is: therefore, everything lesser than that is "improper," or should be avoided.

Once you have that life as an ongoing state of affairs then willingly giving it up for less is a sacrifice and should be avoided. If you unwillingly lose it (money runs out, partner dies) then accepting a lesser life is not a sacrifice.

Again, I feel like I'm staring into this gigantic Either-Or chasm that leaves out a range of perfectly liveable land in the middle. ...

... Does this idea of casual sex being improper have any reality?

What casual sex refers to is not discriminating on value at all (being a prostitute), or discriminating for destructive reasons (the James Taggart and Lillian Rearden scenario.)

Life has a progression to it which applies to all values in general as well as sex in particular. It is not possible to arrive at a destination without traversing the space between the starting point of the journey and its end. Likewise for values, it is not possible to arrive at the point of having highest values without having an array of intermediate values, with "values" here meaning "objects of action" not mere thoughts.

Another way to understand casual sex is that it is the rejection of progress in one's emotional and spiritual life, a failure to travel by choosing to run in a circle.

I recommend "Ayn Rand's Conception of Valuing" by Greg Salmieri as a close study of what Ayn Rand is actually referring to with the concept of value, since sex is a particular value and is subsumed within the concept. Some quotes from my notes on that course:

Q: Andrew: Can't do something if you don't know how, but also can't do something if you don't choose to do it. Is one of these more fundamental than the other?

A: What is relationship between the choice and the knowledge? Answer will emerge over the course of the lectures. There are degrees of this. Choosing a value motivates learning to get it, and then new values are chosen, larger scale values. Choice and knowledge ratchet each other up and life gets bigger in scale and stakes as one gets older.

When do people choose to live? What does that mean?

Imagined mentality of a tiger while getting hungry, hunting and eating, and getting horny, pursuing and mating.

In a way it is true that tigers mate to reproduce, but tigers don't plan ahead about reproduction or leaving legacies. Tigers don't even know they can die. Tigers act on range of the moment stimuli to achieve the values that are rigged to enter its life through evolution in its environment.

Humans have to do their own rigging. {Choosing to live is choosing to value, which is choosing a value a particular value}

Children start off not much better than the tiger.

Children integrate short range values into longer range values.

Range of a moment; range of a minute; range of an hour; dealing with distractions; scheduling/dividing time over multiple goals

Theory: big values come from small values integrated together

Choosing life is selecting things and putting them together, endorsing and automating the things chosen as a standard of value. Choosing life at any moment is acting with fidelity to the projected & automatized ideal of your life.

Q: Keith: Regarding ISO {Intrinsic/Subjective/Objective} trichotomy, it seems to be an error that we choose things ex nihilo then go research the means to the end and then value those means.

A: Agree. The basis of any chosen value is already formed values. Infants work off pleasure/pain

[aequalsa]

Doesn't this make some degree of sense? Who ought a person cast as the protagonist in "their story"? Jay Gatsby?

Hmm..I think I may have chosen my word poorly. Not just protagonist, but really "the good guy."

It's a well known sales principle that I have in mind where if you, for example, do something nice for someone, you'll usually set about finding reasons to justify it. Same with sex. When people begin sleeping with someone they usually immediately start looking for positive characteristics to justify their choice. Sometime later after enough bad experiences and/or enough time for the endorphin rush to slow down, the negative characteristics become more apparent leaving the person wondering, "what did I see in him...?" or some equivalent sense.

[aequalsa]

It can difficult, perhaps, for people who grow up in a society overtly dominated by Judeo-Christian ethics -- those who are told from childhood some version of morality which entails sex being evil, or the pursuit of one's own pleasure and happiness more generally. I can see that answering one's experience of natural attraction in these cases -- attraction to values, and the sexual response that triggers -- may lead to feelings of guilt, shame, and concomitant rationalizations.

For those who reject such a creed, the pleasures available through sex make their own compelling argument as to why it can a "good idea to take someone to bed." Every person, indiscriminately? No. But it is the enjoyment of the experience of sex, in itself, which provides the argument "for," and I don't think there needs to be anything more to it than that. I think that seeking pleasure is a fine thing for a person to do. Is there any good reason to despise pleasure?

I'm not thinking of f'ed up christian guilt. That's a whole other can of worms. I'm saying that when people are indiscriminate sexually, rather than acknowledge their low standards or poor character judgement, they try to eliminate the cognitive dissonance by raising the value of the person they more or less randomly chose through evasion or what have you.

And yes, a very good reason to despise pleasure is when it interferes with more meaningful happiness in the eudaimonia sense. Since the cumulative effects of behavior on your character seems unconvincing, you might try to focus on a more concrete example like heroin and ask if there is any reason that heroin use ought not be persued. Even imagine it in a world where it was made safe with no risk of overdose and decide if there is any reason not to use it often or at all.

[DonAthos]

And yes, a very good reason to despise pleasure is when it interferes with more meaningful happiness in the eudaimonia sense. Since the cumulative effects of behavior on your character seems unconvincing, you might try to focus on a more concrete example like heroin and ask if there is any reason that heroin use ought not be persued. Even imagine it in a world where it was made safe with no risk of overdose and decide if there is any reason not to use it often or at all.

I plan to come back to what else you've had to say, and also Grames' post, but I wanted to respond to this right away.

There is no debate on what you're saying right here -- that we ought despise pleasure when it interferes with more meaningful happiness. But this is the very issue. This is the very thing that needs to be established: that "casual sex" necessarily interferes with more meaningful happiness in the eudaimonia sense.

This is not to say that "casual sex" cannot interfere in this way -- surely it can. So can relaxing on the beach, if you do it too long (sunburn) or too often generally, so that it sucks away all of your time and so forth. But we don't therefore conclude that it's never proper to relax on the beach, do we?

If I meet a woman and find her attractive -- we go out for an evening and have a pleasant time, and then we find ourselves sexually drawn to one another, and have sex -- though this might well be a "casual encounter" (i.e. with no deep knowledge of one another; no "romantic love" to speak of; no concrete plans of pursuing a long term relationship), is this necessarily an improper thing to do? Does this interfere with my pursuit of the good life? Or is it an example of my pursuit of the good life? What specific harm would I do to myself in this scenario?

Edited April 28, 2012 by DonAthos

[DonAthos]

In Atlas Shrugged the progression of the love lives of Dagny Taggart and Henry Rearden follows exactly that description. Yet "casual" is hardly the appropriate description of the choices that Dagny and Rearden make.

My use of "casual" reflects this quote, with which we've been working:

"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 . . . ."

Through my replies to this thread, I've personally highlighted (as I find it especially significant) the phrase: "A sexual relationship is proper only on the ground of the highest values one can find in a human being." I take it that this stands in contrast to the aforementioned sex "approached lightly or casually"; thus, I'm viewing Rand's critique of "casual sex" as taking such to mean "sex apart from the highest values one can find in a human being."

It is problematic that Rand continues to say that "ex must not be anything other than a response to values," because while I agree with that, I don't think that these two options (valueless or "highest values") cover the actual range of possibilities. I believe that one can have "sex apart from the highest values one can find in a human being" (i.e. "casual"), yet still as "a response to values." I believe that there can be sex on the ground of values found in a human being, though not the highest values. I don't find that improper, or at least not necessarily so; I think responding sexually to such values can often be quite proper.

If you would contend that Rand implicitly validates what I'm saying through her fiction, then so be it. If you don't think "casual" is an appropriate label for what I'm describing, I'm not tied to that terminology. But I do disagree that a "sexual relationship is proper only on the ground of the highest values one can find in a human being," and that idea is the target of my critique.

Though perhaps I'm misunderstanding Rand entirely? What do we suppose she means by "the highest values one can find in a human being"? It certainly seems to suggest something more than this scenario that I've provided:

If I meet a woman and find her attractive -- we go out for an evening and have a pleasant time, and then we find ourselves sexually drawn to one another, and have sex -- though this might well be a "casual encounter" (i.e. with no deep knowledge of one another; no "romantic love" to speak of; no concrete plans of pursuing a long term relationship), is this necessarily an improper thing to do?

Let alone this scenario:

Okay, so unless we'd like to make a claim that a prostitute necessarily represents "the highest values one can find in a human being," here is the scenario: a man seeks a prostitute for the purpose of a night of physical pleasure -- sexual gratification. He finds one that he finds attractive, though he does not know her well enough to know whether she represents "the highest values he can find in a human being." Let us stipulate that, if they got to know one another over a long enough period of time, they would like each other well enough, but not be inclined to a lifelong romance/partnership; i.e. they share values, but not "the highest values."

Therefore this sexual relationship is "improper"?

So do I have this completely wrong, then? Do these scenarios reflect Rand's use of "the highest values one can find in a human being"? Or are they examples of "casual sex"? Are they proper? Improper? Or are they something else entirely?

Once you have that life as an ongoing state of affairs then willingly giving it up for less is a sacrifice and should be avoided. If you unwillingly lose it (money runs out, partner dies) then accepting a lesser life is not a sacrifice.

Nobody wants sacrifice. (Or at least I don't.)

One should not trade a hundred dollar bill for a five, and one should not trade his ideal romantic partner, in the ideal situation, for something lesser than that. Of course.

But when one's options are a five dollar bill or nothing, then taking a five dollar bill is not a sacrifice. It is a gain. I think we're agreed on all of this. But with regards to sex, I would say that having sex with a prostitute, all else being equal, in that it brings physical pleasure and etc., is a bit like receiving a five dollar bill. I would not advocate it in lieu of speeding off to Hawaii with your soulmate (i.e. taking it instead of a hundred dollar bill), but neither would I say that one should not have sex with a prostitute because she does not possess "the highest values one can find in a human being," any more than I would say that one should turn down a five dollar bill because it is not a hundred.

What casual sex refers to is not discriminating on value at all (being a prostitute), or discriminating for destructive reasons (the James Taggart and Lillian Rearden scenario.)

Okay. Discriminating for destructive reasons is bad, and non-discrimination is equally bad, and if that's all we're talking about, there's no issue whatever.

But I don't think that this is all that Rand meant by holding sex improper apart from "the ground of the highest values one can find in a human being." I think she meant more than simple non-discrimination. And while some here have made the (apparent) claim that "sex apart from the ground of the highest values one can find in a human being" is inherently self-destructive, I find no evidence for that.

But yeah, perhaps you and I agree on the substance of these matters, though not on what Rand intended to say, or on the terminology used to express it. I'm open to that possibility.

Come to it, however, on the issue of prostitution, I wonder: is that really "sex without discrimination"? I know that human_murda was claiming in another thread that a prostitute should have no right to refuse clientele... but in reality, don't they? And aren't they at the least discriminating on the basis of capacity and willingness to pay for services rendered -- isn't that a value, and the same value upon which most of us agree to engage in trade? If you and I would like to tussle on this matter, perhaps the grounds could be this: is engaging in prostitution necessarily immoral?

Life has a progression to it which applies to all values in general as well as sex in particular. It is not possible to arrive at a destination without traversing the space between the starting point of the journey and its end. Likewise for values, it is not possible to arrive at the point of having highest values without having an array of intermediate values, with "values" here meaning "objects of action" not mere thoughts.

Another way to understand casual sex is that it is the rejection of progress in one's emotional and spiritual life, a failure to travel by choosing to run in a circle.

I recommend "Ayn Rand's Conception of Valuing" by Greg Salmieri as a close study of what Ayn Rand is actually referring to with the concept of value, since sex is a particular value and is subsumed within the concept. Some quotes from my notes on that course:

I appreciate the notes and recommendation (though presently there seems to be nothing at the other end of that link), and while I can't make any immediate promise to investigate that study fully, I'll continue to give these matters more consideration, and especially the ideas of "value" and one's "highest values" upon which so much of this discussion turns.

Hmm..I think I may have chosen my word poorly. Not just protagonist, but really "the good guy."

Fair enough. Though...

I'm not even terribly sure that it's inappropriate for people to cast themselves as "the good guy" in their lives. Now, let's be plain: not everyone is a "good guy," nor do they always act in their own interests. So some would see themselves as "heroic" and be very mistaken in their estimation. And yet, I'd take that over someone who has resigned himself to be mediocre or even villainous.

What's important for a "good guy," is that he yet recognizes his own capacity to err, and not assume that, because he does something, that therefore it is the right thing to do (as I believe was your point). But yeah, let's not discourage people from casting themselves as heroes -- let's hold 'em to it! (Though this may be a tangent...? )

It's a well known sales principle that I have in mind where if you, for example, do something nice for someone, you'll usually set about finding reasons to justify it. Same with sex. When people begin sleeping with someone they usually immediately start looking for positive characteristics to justify their choice.

I don't disagree that this is possible. I'm not saying that people don't do this. But there's also the case of someone making an intelligent purchase, or doing something nice for someone fully in accordance with their values, or sleeping with someone in response to the positive characteristics that they do, in fact, possess.

Sometime later after enough bad experiences and/or enough time for the endorphin rush to slow down, the negative characteristics become more apparent leaving the person wondering, "what did I see in him...?" or some equivalent sense.

Yes, perhaps, though I know about this more of a second-hand nature than of my own experiences. I know well what I saw in my former lovers, and I don't repent of any of my attraction to them, nor the actions I took in response. Not all of those relationships worked out in the long run, and not even all of those sexual experiences were pleasant, but I don't think I acted in an improper fashion or self-destructively.

It's like, suppose I'm at a nice-looking restaurant and I order tomato soup, and it comes out... and there's a fly in it. Well, I'm not happy with my order, and I might not come back to this restaurant again. But did I act improperly or self-destructively when I initially selected this restaurant (if, for all I could tell, it was a good restaurant -- "nice-looking")? In ordering the soup (if there was no fly in the picture on the menu)? Was I wrong to be hungry for it in the first place?

I'm not thinking of f'ed up christian guilt. That's a whole other can of worms. I'm saying that when people are indiscriminate sexually, rather than acknowledge their low standards or poor character judgement, they try to eliminate the cognitive dissonance by raising the value of the person they more or less randomly chose through evasion or what have you.

I understand, and I don't think evasion is a good strategy in any situation. Nor do I advocate indiscriminate sexuality, nor do I think that "low standards or poor character judgement" are a good idea. And maybe that's the whole of what Rand was counselling against, and the whole of "casual sex" (as Grames has suggested)?

But I think there's more to it than that, an unacknowledged range of sexual choices from where you leave off ("indiscriminate"; "low standards"; "poor character judgement"; "evasion") up to sex "on the ground of the highest values one can find in a human being." I think that there are a number of possible such choices on lesser grounds (which is not to say indiscriminate, or "no grounds at all") that are still value-based, still proper, still moral.

[aequalsa]

But I think there's more to it than that, an unacknowledged range of sexual choices from where you leave off ("indiscriminate"; "low standards"; "poor character judgement"; "evasion") up to sex "on the ground of the highest values one can find in a human being." I think that there are a number of possible such choices on lesser grounds (which is not to say indiscriminate, or "no grounds at all") that are still value-based, still proper, still moral.

I don't have time to respond to everything you wrote, but I wanted to say that I agree that there is a range between those two and only use the extremes to show that on one end there is a clear positive and a clear negative on the other. The quote you mention, : "A sexual relationship is proper only on the ground of the highest values one can find in a human being." I think leaves open a fair amount of flexibility if you pay special attention to the "one can find." I don't take that to mean the best possible person one could find in any circumstance in all possibly universes. I see it as choosing the best possible option for an individual in their particular lives. If the individual is a marine on a carrier in the south Pacific for 14 years then maybe a Filipino prostitute is the highest value he can reasonably find. The Stalinesque woman mentioned above might be tolerable, alone on a desert island. ( I kinda picture her as a tall blonde dominatrix with high leather boots )

So that said, the real damage would come from choosing to pursue one of your previous, less ideal relationships over your wife. On the other hand, if your wife wasn't an option "settling" for your second best choice might not really be settling at all. It could very well be the best thing available to you at that time. And absolutely I believe that people often settle for less good choices than what is reasonably available to them for various reasons...low self-esteem, not being laid in awhile, poor capacity for delayed gratification, or whatever.

[Eiuol]

I did not have sex with that woman!

Looks like Bill Clinton is a better rationalist philosopher than I thought. I think dividing things up matters, otherwise it will get into Clintonian semantics at some point.

I'm not really seeing though how you're answering the idea of when valuation in another person is sufficient. What principle would one use to decide? Your post implies that the person should be really awesome, and it shouldn't be merely that they just happen to agree to have sex. I'm not quite getting why really awesome isn't reason enough. To judge someone requires standards in the first place, so it's not quite true that it's a matter of them incidentally agreeing. In any case, it's sill vague what standard you are presenting, other than "be selective". Your post I think is good for Dormin's objections, but DonAthos and I mostly want to get at is: what amount of selectivity should there be at a minimum?

Obnoxious Barbra and compost-pile Jane are fine, stark examples (well, you might be a little too Jane here, unless she never showers!), but it's worth being more nuanced. Let's say Sandy is the previously mentioned awesome person. She may have romantic potential, but you're not quite sure yet for various reasons. It may very well be true that there is no potential as well, but she still meets a variety of important standards, and she is not in any romantic relationship with anyone (minimizing complicating factors here). So, you decide to ask her if she'd have sex with you, knowing full well there might not be a romantic relationship later, and not using sex to manipulate her into a relationship. You would like the sexual experience, and in some sense, you're looking for anyone to agree, provided they meet the important standards of brains and physical appeal. Sandy says yes, fun times ensue. Would this example be a case of when sex is the wrong option? I'm inclined to say it's a morally good option, especially based on the ideas of that Aristotle quote. For the sake of understanding sex, your own preferences, and your own romantic standards, you in fact *should* have sex with Sandy. I'm not sure how your line of reasoning would deal with this.

I like the "positive experience points" bit, it's a useful analogy for many things, actually. Plus it involves that fourth axiom that you know well, that everything is reducible to Pokemon. This sounds silly, but the RPG analogy works well. I imagine the lower quality levels of sex to be like the beginning areas of the game, where all the monsters are easy and provide very few experience points. You can stay there a while, but it's really quite boring and uninteresting. You'd have more fun if you skipped ahead to the more difficult areas. The whole game becomes boring and uninteresting if you keep it up in the same area until level 100, making the whole game really bland overall. Attack -> Victory, over and over. Nothing else. You'll get ability points for techniques each battle, though. But using Super Powerful Undodgeable Sexytime Blast on a pigeon isn't needed, even if it's really cool to see that hit point bar reach zero in a millisecond. You go through the motions without a thought, all are just as good. So, going to the area with powerful monsters is a better option. You have to be careful about which monsters to fight, only because not all are just as good or useful. Those stupid pigeons keep appearing, and you don't want them! You don't care about those pigeons even if they give experience, so you hit run instead. The dragons are better, even though dragons and pigeons give similar amounts of ability points. By pursuing the better encounters, the game is much more enjoyable. And with the dragon encounters, you rack up a lot more experience points faster than with the pigeon encounters. Cranking up the rate in which you pursue pigeons could produce the same amount of positive experience points per hour, but to do that, you will have to forgo dragons entirely and never step foot outside the less interesting/meaningful area. If the analogy applies to sex, it would mean that spending time on sexual encounters (and pursuing them) is simply not worth the time, and hinders pursuing the best kinds of sexual encounters. Meaningless encounters (say if the person is dumb as bricks with an irritating personality) really diminish the value of sex if pursued habitually.

Lest my own analogy is used to respond to my own questions, my questions pertain to particular choices, not habit. Sandy is not one of those dragons, but she's certainly not an annoying pigeon.

I wanted to address some of DonAthos' posts, but one novel-length post is enough to deal with. x.x

[Dante]

I would tend to agree with this, but I haven't seen these things to be unconnected enough to allow it. The decisions early on, form the habits, and the habits form the character.

I agree with your ideas about habit formation, and certainly people use this reasoning as a rationalization for a self-destructive lifestyle. However, there is a place for getting some real-world experience of "what is out there," what a real sexual relationship is like to be in, what is actually important to you in such a relationship, etc before you go straight for the deepest human connection you can imagine, with someone who shares all your highest values. Any line of reasoning can be abused, of course, but that doesn't mean it isn't valid.

[Grames]

scenarios,,

If I meet a woman and find her attractive -- we go out for an evening and have a pleasant time, and then we find ourselves sexually drawn to one another, and have sex -- though this might well be a "casual encounter" (i.e. with no deep knowledge of one another; no "romantic love" to speak of; no concrete plans of pursuing a long term relationship), is this necessarily an improper thing to do?

Okay, so unless we'd like to make a claim that a prostitute necessarily represents "the highest values one can find in a human being," here is the scenario: a man seeks a prostitute for the purpose of a night of physical pleasure -- sexual gratification. He finds one that he finds attractive, though he does not know her well enough to know whether she represents "the highest values he can find in a human being." Let us stipulate that, if they got to know one another over a long enough period of time, they would like each other well enough, but not be inclined to a lifelong romance/partnership; i.e. they share values, but not "the highest values."

Therefore this sexual relationship is "improper"?

If you are already in possession of a relationship with a high-value partner, for example a good marriage, then yes those are improper relationships. If not, then they are not necessarily improper but still might be for other reasons (such as forming habits, touched on by other posters).

Okay. Discriminating for destructive reasons is bad, and non-discrimination is equally bad, and if that's all we're talking about, there's no issue whatever.

But I don't think that this is all that Rand meant by holding sex improper apart from "the ground of the highest values one can find in a human being." I think she meant more than simple non-discrimination.

I agree. I don't think she would find moral sex in exchange for a five dollar bill even if a five dollar bill was the highest value one could find in a human being. There is some kind of minimum threshold involved.

Come to it, however, on the issue of prostitution, I wonder: is that really "sex without discrimination"? I know that human_murda was claiming in another thread that a prostitute should have no right to refuse clientele... but in reality, don't they? And aren't they at the least discriminating on the basis of capacity and willingness to pay for services rendered -- isn't that a value, and the same value upon which most of us agree to engage in trade? If you and I would like to tussle on this matter, perhaps the grounds could be this: is engaging in prostitution necessarily immoral?

Of course prostitutes discriminate, but over superficial traits. There is no justice in what they do, just calculating and arms-length trading.

To choose to be a prostitute when alternatives exist is necessarily immoral. I can't imagine anyone interviewing prostitutes to determine which ones are immoral and which are not before picking one, so they should just be avoided as a class.

(though presently there seems to be nothing at the other end of that link)

That probably has something to do with their switching to downloadable products. My guess is the link or at least the product will be back at some point. The handout is still available, as are my notes (the Salmieri link in my signature).