Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Is the Objectivist view of sex flawed?

Rate this topic


Dormin111

Recommended Posts

I don't have time to respond to everything you wrote...

Yeah, sorry 'bout that. But verbosity is a virtue... right?

...right...?

...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.

I agree that there's "flexibility" in the phrase, which leaves some room for mistakes in interpretation. And I'm open to the idea that my interpretation is mistaken.

So, to clear up this "flexibility," I wonder: when we're looking to apply this wisdom to our lives, what is supposed to be the process? Let's say that I've spent an evening with a female friend, and I find her attractive -- she is good-looking, I like her, I find her sexually stimulating. And she comes on to me.

I "react" on a physical/emotional level, and I have a desire to reciprocate and have sex (whence "attractive"), but should I take action? Would it be "proper" of me? To make this "simple," we're both unattached, free of disease, and have nothing to fear of pregnancy. The only moral question before us is whether to indulge ourselves in this mutual act of pleasure, on the basis of our mutual attraction.

However. Suppose that she is not the best possible person in any circumstance in all possible universes? If I read you right, that should not be a problem. What if she's not even the best woman that I know? Well, that might not be an issue either -- suppose that the "best woman I know" is someone otherwise unavailable to me (perhaps she lives in Japan; perhaps she's married to my friend; or etc.)...? What if it's unclear to me whether she's the best woman that I know? Suppose that she has some virtues... but lacks in other areas, whereas other women have other virtues, but also lack in key areas? Suppose that she's *not* the best woman I know, and other, better women are technically "available," but due to personal histories and etc., they're not so available to me without some large endeavor/expenditure which might constitute a total sacrifice to pursue? (And certainly not available to me in the proximate time.)

So again, as I'm sitting there and she's attempting a seduction, how do I decide whether this is a proper or an improper thing to do? And, again, if I were to say to myself, "well, I'm not quite sure whether she has the 'highest values one/I can find in a human being'... but I like her, she likes me, and this is apt to be pleasant," and go for it, what self-destruction am I courting if she does not have those "highest values," whatever that actually means? -- what is the precise nature of this self-destruction? Because I contend that if there is no self-destruction rearing its head that we can point to, then there is nothing "improper" about pursuing sex in this scenario, either.

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 ;) )

Okay, so I like the visual of the dominatrix, but (and I don't mean to be confounding, really I don't), I don't know that I agree that Supermodel Stalin would be tolerable as a partner, even on a desert island. You see, I think that Nicky was right about that: being Stalin is such a turn-off, that I don't think that even being "the best available option" would ever make sleeping with her tolerable (providing one understands her nature as Stalin).

I question whether sex is necessarily permitted with the "best available option," regardless of what that option entails, and indeed, I don't think so. I think that the question of the morality of sex with someone -- anyone -- can only be resolved with recourse to whether that particular act will be beneficial to you, to your life, or self-destructive. Spending time with Stalin, being intimate with Stalin, that can only be self-destructive in my mind. And who would want to provide Stalin pleasure, even incidentally? Or receive their pleasure at Stalin's hands? It's pretty gross. And even on a desert island, I'd have to imagine that what I'd have to endure to achieve whatever physical pleasure we're talking about would be a net loss, and probably not even pleasurable; "improper." (And my God, in the name of your life, would you let a dominatrix Stalin tie you up? Can Stalin be trusted to respect "safe words"? :))

But what of the cases of all those women that are attractive, and reflect values, but are not necessarily reflective of "highest values"? In terms of experience, pleasure, etc., I read sex with such women as simply a positive thing, and not to be prejudged "improper."

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.

We should strive to have the best possible lives, and not sacrifice greater values for lesser ones, or sacrifice ideal relationships for those less ideal. We should not "settle," but always seek the best for ourselves. Agreed on all counts. But whether the "best thing available to you" (which sounds right to me, but might entail not sleeping with Supermodel Stalin) necessarily means that only those sexual relationships "on the ground of the highest values one can find in a human being" are proper...? I remain unsure (and dubious).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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).

If we introduce other elements that result in destruction, then yes, we have an improper situation. Casual sex in a burning building is immoral... but I think that says more about hanging out in a burning building than it does about casual sex. And forming habits which interfere in one's pursuit of the good life are bad, and so is any kind of betrayal of one's high-value partner(s).

But if we're agreed that the scenarios I've described are not necessarily improper, as stated and of themselves, then I think we're agreed.

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.

Here's what I know: five dollars more than what you had is a net gain. But if there's a "minimum threshold" of value one must expect to receive in order to justify sex, as you suggest, I wouldn't know how to begin to calculate it. Perhaps the experience of sexual attraction/one's body priming itself for intercourse is one such method of calculation?

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

This is probably dense of me, and I apologize, but I really don't understand what you mean here.

To choose to be a prostitute when alternatives exist is necessarily immoral.

Ah! This is exciting -- such a clearly stated point of view, and it hints that it might get at some of the underlying issues for this whole topic.

So I guess I'll push. Why is it necessarily immoral to be a prostitute (when alternatives exist)?

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.

Hmm... I'm no expert on this, but I think that there is often a kind of screening process by which johns discriminate from among a pool of prostitutes, whether that's just a review of the street, or in a madame's den, or etc. (Actually, I'm pretty sure that there are online resources now, too.) That's not necessarily going to do much to get at one's deepest character, but then neither necessarily does meeting a woman through any conventional means. In looking for that prostitute that they find most attractive, and insofar as we are attracted to what we value, I guess that's a way for a moral man to seek out morality in his would-be partner.

Of course, if you believe that prostitutes are immoral by default (assuming that "alternatives exist," but outside of being forced into sexual slavery, I'm not sure what else we might be talking about), then I guess we'd be justified in just consigning the whole lot of them to immorality without any "interview." So that really seems to me to be the most salient question at the moment. Why is it immoral to choose to be a prostitute?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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?

. . .

. . . 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. . . .

1) I stuck to far ends of the spectrum just to make it really obvious that there is more than one possible type here. I wanted to make that clear here first before things possibly got into arguments over things like, "But where does green end and blue start? Is it here? Or here? Or here? Can you say at all? So is there really any blue at all? Is it all green?" Somebody else mentioned the part about "that one can find" being important and that taking less gets into sacrificing and this I pretty much agree with. I would say though that if what you can find doesn't reach at least some minimum then it just isn't worth it at all still anyway. Now, exactly where that bar belongs for separating enough from too little even when it is the best one can find, that I think has room for some argument and/or variation between people, but there are definite points of enough and not enough somewhere even if the exact edges are a bit hazy. It's a bit like the question of what the proper dividing line is between child and adult - there are kids and there are adults without a doubt, just coming up with exactly where the dividing line is isn't so simple and obvious. I've mentioned before though elsewhere that if you know almost nothing about somebody or if you have a little that looks promising but don't know enough yet to say with confidence about if somebody may make the cut for "good enough" by the above mentioned standards then going ahead anyway is a pretty lame attempt to cheat the system. There's no emergency that would force one to have sex without getting to know a potential partner first so doing so just seems like an attempt to keep an excuse available for later, "Oh? So he/she is actually thoroughly rotten? Well, I didn't know that at the time so it can't say anything about me."

2) lololol

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is enjoyable. It feels really good.

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.

That is a hedonist's justification. This is true in this case, as it is in general: If we choose hedonism, we choose it at the expense of our values. I'll explain how it is true in this case, I'll leave justifying the more general statement for another time:

The inter-connectedness of values and sexual desires isn't a choice. It is a fact of nature. If we treat sex as if it stands in a vacuum, and have sex with no concern for our highest values, that is a costly mistake. Those values will be corrupted by that choice.

By getting into the habit of having "mutual masturbation", we sacrifice something of greater value: the enjoyment of real sex. This insight has to come with experience, I guess, but the fact is we can't enjoy both at the same time. A man for instance can't be wildly attracted to both superficial, promiscuous partners he has no regard for, and the woman he loves (assuming that the woman he loves is not superficial and promiscuous, of course). That is not how human sexuality works. It has to be one or the other.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That is a hedonist's justification.

This is not true. Hedonists are not the only ones who seek pleasure, and to do something for the sake of experiencing the pleasure that it provides is not hedonism.

Hedonists hold pleasure as their standard of value whereas Objectivists hold life as their standard of value. So it would be fundamentally hedonist to advocate seeking pleasure in a manner that is destructive to one's long term life, for the sake of that pleasure. But advocating pleasure as such, whether it has been shown to be destructive or not, is not hedonism. Objectivism is not (thank goodness) pleasure averse.

If you can establish that a certain instance or category of sex is destructive to one's long term life, then you have shown it to be improper per Objectivism. But not apart from that.

This is true in this case, as it is in general: If we choose hedonism, we choose it at the expense of our values.

This is putting the cart before the horse. Rather, if we choose pleasure at the expense of our values (that is, our "Objectivist values," which are derived from life), then we are hedonist. But again, there is nothing wrong with pursuing pleasure, as such. Do you dislike pleasure?

And if you say, "well, I dislike pleasure when it destroys one's higher values" -- we all do. But that's the precise thing that must be demonstrated to make your case, and it can't be either assumed or asserted, which is what you're doing when you pronounce Dormin's argument "hedonism" -- you're begging the question.

The inter-connectedness of values and sexual desires isn't a choice. It is a fact of nature. If we treat sex as if it stands in a vacuum, and have sex with no concern for our highest values, that is a costly mistake.

Ah, but do you see what you've done right here?

Sentences 1 & 2: "The inter-connectedness of values and sexual desires isn't a choice. It is a fact of nature."

I don't know that anyone is arguing against the "inter-connectedness of values and sexual desires." But let's see where you go with it...

Sentence 3: "If we treat sex as if it stands in a vacuum, and have sex with no concern for our highest values, that is a costly mistake."

Hey! Where'd you get that word "highest" from?? :)

See? That's the very issue. Sex predicated on "value"? Check. But whence "highest value"? And what precisely is meant by it?

By getting into the habit of having "mutual masturbation", we sacrifice something of greater value: the enjoyment of real sex. This insight has to come with experience, I guess, but the fact is we can't enjoy both at the same time. A man for instance can't be wildly attracted to both superficial, promiscuous partners he has no regard for, and the woman he loves (assuming that the woman he loves is not superficial and promiscuous, of course). That is not how human sexuality works. It has to be one or the other.

There's talk here of "habits," but I don't know that you've established how or why we're talking about a "habit." (Suppose each instance of "mutual masturbation" is, instead, justified on its own merits?) And also of "real sex"; is that different from "sexual intercourse"?

If a man can't be "wildly attracted to both superficial, promiscuous partners he has no regard for, and the woman he loves," can he be attracted to multiple partners he has some level of justifiable regard for?

Edited by DonAthos
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you can establish that a certain instance or category of sex is destructive to one's long term life, then you have shown it to be improper per Objectivism. But not apart from that.

This seems to be your main argument, that absent harm, there is no reason to not engage in an activity, especially a pleasurable one?

Like sex. Sex feels good because it washes our bodies in neurotransmitters. That's the good. The great in fact. So great that it's one of the best sorts of tools we have to reward ourselves. This euphoria isn't just a feeling in a vacuum though. The feeling gets associated with many things going on right then, not the least of which is the partner you chose. So letting trashy whores make you feel really good will form a positive association with trashy whores. Letting uptight angry women that remind you of your mother make you feel good will form positive associations with uptight angry women. Letting guys who always cheat on you and treat you like a punching bag make you feel good will form a positive association with guys who cheat on you and use you as a punching bag.

I would guess that less than 10% or less of the decisions we make on any given day are conscious choices. We habituate everything and grow fond of the things we habituate to. Because of that, as a general rule I jealously guard the things that I let affect me. I think it's easy to fall for the idea that we have this sort of ultimate freewill wherein we will make choices completely independent of our previous experiences. We can make choices in that way, but we(myself included) usually don't, so the only way I have ever succeeded in consistently controlling my wants is by stepping outside of that paradigm. If I want to eat fewer potato chips, I don't buy them because then I only have to say no once. If I don't want to be influenced in the direction of someone's character, I limit my interactions with them and avoid friendship altogether. If I don't want to cause myself to be attracted to a certain type of woman, I don't have sex with her.

So there is no definite harm in being indiscriminate, but choosing with less discrimination means, necessarily, that you're trusting the fate of your life and the content of your character largely to chance. Sometimes it will work well, sometimes it won't and usually it will be somewhere in between. To me it's the difference between speculation and investment in the game of life. I rarely gamble and only then when I'm ready to give up what I'm betting.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This seems to be your main argument, that absent harm, there is no reason to not engage in an activity, especially a pleasurable one?

I think that this is reflective of the actual calculation, yes. I would say that "pleasure" is by-and-large an argument "for" something, whereas harm (meaning: self-destruction; working against one's higher values, one's life) is an argument against it (rather, it is the argument against it).

Laying out on the beach is a pleasurable activity. It is not pleasurable (or good) if one does it for too long -- he'll get a sunburn. Too much time spent laying out on the beach will destroy one's productivity. That's not good either. And eventually, one might get skin cancer. All of these are to be avoided, in consideration of life as the standard of value.

However, none of this is to say that "laying out on the beach is necessarily bad" or "improper" or "should be avoided." Laying out on the beach, for the purpose of enjoying one's self, is perfectly proper, so long as it takes place within the context of life as the standard of value, meaning: one avoids sunburns, continues to be productive, and wards off skin cancer. But we would not say of someone headed to the beach with his towel, looking to enjoy himself, that he is necessarily a "hedonist" or "immoral" or any such thing. Rather, I would encourage people to enjoy themselves as much as possible (given all of the preceding context). Isn't that why we care so much? It's not to extend life for its own sake, but because life is enjoyable. Feeling the sunshine on your skin is nice, is good.

Like sex. Sex feels good because it washes our bodies in neurotransmitters. That's the good. The great in fact. So great that it's one of the best sorts of tools we have to reward ourselves.

Just to note, I agree that this is some of the good of the experience of sex, but not necessarily all of the good.

This euphoria isn't just a feeling in a vacuum though. The feeling gets associated with many things going on right then, not the least of which is the partner you chose.

Here I want to slow down. When you say that "[t]he feeling gets associated," it gets associated by whom? If the contention is that a person who experiences this good feeling of sex is unable to properly evaluate/assess his partner thereafter, I cannot agree.

So letting trashy whores make you feel really good will form a positive association with trashy whores.

Well... not to say too much in the defense of "trashy whores" (couldn't we be talking about the "hooker with a heart of gold" instead? ;) ), but insofar as you form that "positive association," which here means regarding this trashy whore (or several) as being capable of providing the physical experience you've enjoyed, isn't that simply a recognition of reality? Isn't that "positive association" something like an application of justice?

But again, if you're saying that the experience of sex makes one incapable of recognizing a trashy whore for what she is, or making proper judgements thereupon, I disagree.

Letting uptight angry women that remind you of your mother make you feel good will form positive associations with uptight angry women. Letting guys who always cheat on you and treat you like a punching bag make you feel good will form a positive association with guys who cheat on you and use you as a punching bag.

I think that the key here is for a person to recognize that, though this guy that uses me as a punching bag is good in the sack, my relationship with him overall is detrimental to my life. At that point, it would be prudent and moral to end the relationship. Sex in that context is bad.

But all of these scenarios rely upon some extraneous "poison" element added to make the sex seem "improper." Remember, this entire conversation is based on the context of "casual sex" -- not "sex with awful people." And as for what I mean by "casual sex" -- sex apart from one's "highest values" -- I've given a number of examples throughout. So, suppose instead of guys who cheat and beat on you, here's another one: consider the attractive business woman that you meet in the airport lounge one night, and you click. Following a light, informal-but-flirty conversation where you discover several things in common (though not necessarily everything, and the conversation does not probe very deeply), you have a night of mutually enjoyable sex... though you never intend on seeing her again, given that you will be on opposite sides of the planet pursuing separate lives and interests. That's casual sex. If it happens to you enough, people will call you "promiscuous." It's not necessarily about your "highest values." But I'd contend that it's proper, moral, good.

If we want to make sex in this scenario bad, sure we could: we could give me a wife, whose trust I'm destroying in the process. We could give the business woman AIDS. We could stipulate that the building in which we're having sex is on fire, and the sex is distracting us from the smoke and screams. We could make her a hidden monster, either of the metaphorical Kantian variety, or, hell, she could be an actual extraterrestrial, come to scope out earth for eventual conquest.

But if we want to say that casual sex is bad, of itself, then this scenario of casual sex -- with no hidden extras -- ought to be enough to demonstrate the damage. So that's my challenge: If I "form a positive association" with such apparently attractive women and seemingly positive encounters, how precisely do I imperil myself? By what actual means does this particular scenario of causal sex hurt my life? ETA: If there are no demonstrable means by which this scenario necessarily hurts my life, then isn't the point made? Casual sex -- sex apart from one's "highest values" -- is not necessarily improper, and the critique of Rand's expressed opinion is warranted and accurate.

I would guess that less than 10% or less of the decisions we make on any given day are conscious choices. We habituate everything and grow fond of the things we habituate to. Because of that, as a general rule I jealously guard the things that I let affect me. I think it's easy to fall for the idea that we have this sort of ultimate freewill wherein we will make choices completely independent of our previous experiences. We can make choices in that way, but we(myself included) usually don't, so the only way I have ever succeeded in consistently controlling my wants is by stepping outside of that paradigm.

I think that one way we can address the kind of unconscious, habitual behavior you're referring to, is through conversations like these, where we try to understand the specific nature of certain activities. So, even though I enjoy occasional trips to the beach, I'm not really concerned that I'll wind up addicted to it, unthinkingly going out every day until I'm leathery and on life support. I've already given it the necessary thought to understand that doing it once in a while is acceptable, doing it all the time is not, for specific reasons (and I can self-correct, if I've been on "autopilot" for too long, and anything strikes me as out of place; like my wife starts to mention that I've been spending an awful lot of time at the beach lately).

If I want to eat fewer potato chips, I don't buy them because then I only have to say no once.

I understand this kind of approach as a response to certain contexts... like an alcoholic in recovery, I think, is justified in staying away from liquor altogether. But in my life, I trust myself to have potato chips on occasion without turning into Jabba the Hutt. Different personalities, I think, need different strategies to employ this kind of self-control.

If I don't want to be influenced in the direction of someone's character, I limit my interactions with them and avoid friendship altogether. If I don't want to cause myself to be attracted to a certain type of woman, I don't have sex with her.

If there was a morally repugnant woman, I wouldn't want to spend any time with her at all, not for the pleasure of sex, not for a hand of poker, not for "anything" (though even there, there are some interesting contexts that life can throw at you). But this idea of fearing attraction? I wouldn't have sex with a morally repugnant woman because the notion of repugnance, in itself, conveys the opposite of "attraction."

We can unpack this much, much more, because I think that there's a lot of information buried in these ideas... but I'll start here: I think that "attraction" by-and-large precedes "sex." So I don't know that we should avoid sex, so as to not cause ourselves to be attracted to certain people, but rather we should have sex on the basis of our (rational) attractions.

So there is no definite harm in being indiscriminate, but choosing with less discrimination means, necessarily, that you're trusting the fate of your life and the content of your character largely to chance.

But this isn't at all the matter! :)

Every! single! time! It's always either "highest values" or "indiscriminate"! LOL :) But we're not talking about whether it's moral to have sex indiscriminately, anymore than I would counsel sunbathing indiscriminately. Rather, I'm saying do sunbathe for pleasure, but do not sunbathe in such a manner to cause yourself harm; do not give yourself cancer -- that is very discriminatory.

As regards sex, do have sex for pleasure, and in response to virtue, but do not have sex in such a manner to cause yourself harm (like with an abusive boyfriend). The issue with Rand began, and remains, in conflict with this idea of sex being "proper only on the ground of the highest values one can find in a human being." To argue that "highest values" are not requisite is not to argue for indiscriminatory sex. It's not to argue for sex "as a gamble." It is, instead, to argue that sex on the ground of values, though not "the highest one can find," can still be itself a value; can be done without self-harm/destruction and in accordance with life as the standard of value; can be proper.

Edited by DonAthos
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's not to extend life for its own sake, but because life is enjoyable. Feeling the sunshine on your skin is nice, is good.

I may disagree with this depending on what you mean by enjoyable. I assume the broadest of meaning but would clarify that I don't view a lack of enjoyment in the physical sense or even serious discomfort as an inhibition to the achievement of happiness in a more long term sense and that more often than not, discomfort is a part of the package for serious achievement and the more meaningful kinds of satisfaction.

Just to note, I agree that this is some of the good of the experience of sex, but not necessarily all of the good.

Sure, but the amount of the other good that exists has to be related to your perception of your partners quality, right?

Here I want to slow down. When you say that "[t]he feeling gets associated," it gets associated by whom? If the contention is that a person who experiences this good feeling of sex is unable to properly evaluate/assess his partner thereafter, I cannot agree.

This is probably the fundamental difference separating our respective opinions. (And to be fair, I should note that it is where I seem to part company with many Objectivists...so you are in good company, not me) I believe in free will but it's a pretty delimited version compared to what I have seen in the Objectivist community. So..."gets associated" by the person having the experience. And to be sure, they could consider it and look for causation and affect on their psyche, but it's not usually enough and only consistently applied for issues that are more directly harmful. Even in those circumstances I don't see rational consideration of psychological issues as adequate in any sense for the resolution of those issues. As an example, I have a friend who grew up with an emotionally abrasive, demanding father and an enabling kind mother who subsequently gets walked over. This example caused her to learn that being emotionally abrasive and demanding in relationships is a far better strategy to get what she wants. Even with the conscious realization of the incorrectness of her approach through therapy, she still cannot will herself into correct behavior. The experiences are far too internalized to allow for an about face. I see it the same with any enduring habit. Smoking, meaningless sex, nail biting, or whatever. Ultimately in your control? Sure. With enough effort and appropriate strategies one can change quite a bit. But stop the effects of the habit from forming through will alone or by conscious consideration? Not in my experience. I think that your experiences affect and change you whether you want them to or not and to change them in another way requires a good deal of work.

Well... not to say too much in the defense of "trashy whores" (couldn't we be talking about the "hooker with a heart of gold" instead? ;) ),

Sure, if you have actually met any. ;)

but insofar as you form that "positive association," which here means regarding this trashy whore (or several) as being capable of providing the physical experience you've enjoyed, isn't that simply a recognition of reality? Isn't that "positive association" something like an application of justice?

I suppose, if it was limited to that. I just don't believe that it can be without a mind/body dichotomy.

But again, if you're saying that the experience of sex makes one incapable of recognizing a trashy whore for what she is, or making proper judgements thereupon, I disagree.

I've just seen it that way. Otherwise rational guys with a Quixotic tendency. "I slept with her so she's definitely not a whore, she's a princess. "

But all of these scenarios rely upon some extraneous "poison" element added to make the sex seem "improper."

...

But if we want to say that casual sex is bad, of itself, then this scenario of casual sex -- with no hidden extras -- ought to be enough to demonstrate the damage. So that's my challenge: If I "form a positive association" with such apparently attractive women and seemingly positive encounters, how precisely do I imperil myself? By what actual means does this particular scenario of causal sex hurt my life?

This is mostly covered in what I wrote above, but at the risk of verbosity, it depends on where you are at. For some, casual sex might be a step up. I know a gal who after several relationships with dishonest men see's short term sex buddies as far preferable. For her, it probably is. Not the best of all possible worlds, and probably not even the best she could do with a better philosophy, but probably the best she can hope for with where she's at.

So take two identical twins, Christy and Misty. At 15 Chisty, the more social of the two gets invited to a party. She get's a little too drunk and wakes up to find she lost her virginity to Blake. She never would have chosen him but you know how those things are. Feeling the blow to her self esteem, she finally agrees to start going out with Nathan, a dopey pothead that's been hitting on her for the better part of the year. After a couple months of mediocre sex and lounging about in his parents basement, they break up and she moves on to a string of other so so relationships ending in an accidental pregnancy with Eddie who has a good deal of trouble holding down a job for more than a few months. Misty meanwhile has an enduring friendship with Wesley, her slightly geeky but fairly brilliant lab partner. By their senior year they move into a relationship and consciously choose to be each others first. It lasts through their second year of college but ultimately fails from the long distance between them and minor differences. She eventually moves on with a secure sense of what she's looking for, finding Peter, who has a lot in common with Wesley but is a good deal more masculine and mature and close. They get married and live happily ever after.

So who has the better concept of sex? Who has better sex? After Christy's previous experiences, how much would you bet on her changing her expectations and desires? Is she more or less likely to find her "Peter?" For me, the answers are obvious. Like the "prostitute with a heart of gold," the girl who changes her ways and finds true love is more a part of Hollywood than real life. In real life, a heart of gold doesn't land you in the sex trade world and when it does, you don't keep your heart of gold. They are both in between versions but spread out enough to draw a reasonable conclusion about which side one ought to aim for.

.

but I'll start here: I think that "attraction" by-and-large precedes "sex." So I don't know that we should avoid sex, so as to not cause ourselves to be attracted to certain people, but rather we should have sex on the basis of our (rational) attractions.

I see it as reciprocal.

But this isn't at all the matter! :)

Every! single! time! It's always either "highest values" or "indiscriminate"!

I tried to be more centrist in my example above. Casual sex implies not discriminating much, to me. I suppose you could descriminate a bit. On looks, or sense of humor, or that sort of thing. But directionally speaking, the extent to which you discriminate is the extent to which you're not leaving your choice to chance.

As regards sex, do have sex for pleasure, and in response to virtue, but do not have sex in such a manner to cause yourself harm

Right, but again, deciding that is based on discrimination. Not approaching it casually. You don't get to pick ahead of time whether to have an abusive boyfriend when your approach to choosing a guy is similar to a crap shoot.

... can be done without self-harm/destruction and in accordance with life as the standard of value; can be proper.

Bare minimum, I would say there is an opportunity cost which is hard to measure and in worst cases, the abusive boyfriend who seemed nice at first before he sold you into the sex trade business.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is not true. Hedonists are not the only ones who seek pleasure, and to do something for the sake of experiencing the pleasure that it provides is not hedonism.

Hedonists hold pleasure as their standard of value whereas Objectivists hold life as their standard of value. So it would be fundamentally hedonist to advocate seeking pleasure in a manner that is destructive to one's long term life, for the sake of that pleasure. But advocating pleasure as such, whether it has been shown to be destructive or not, is not hedonism. Objectivism is not (thank goodness) pleasure averse.

If you can establish that a certain instance or category of sex is destructive to one's long term life, then you have shown it to be improper per Objectivism. But not apart from that.

Again: why would I need to establish that it is destructive, before you establish (using an Objectivist standard, not a hedonistic one) that it is useful?

This is putting the cart before the horse. Rather, if we choose pleasure at the expense of our values (that is, our "Objectivist values," which are derived from life), then we are hedonist. But again, there is nothing wrong with pursuing pleasure, as such. Do you dislike pleasure?

Pleasure is the result of making rational decisions, not the source of those decisions. I dislike decisions motivated by pleasure instead of an objective standard of values, yes.

Ah, but do you see what you've done right here?

Sentences 1 & 2: "The inter-connectedness of values and sexual desires isn't a choice. It is a fact of nature."

I don't know that anyone is arguing against the "inter-connectedness of values and sexual desires." But let's see where you go with it...

Sentence 3: "If we treat sex as if it stands in a vacuum, and have sex with no concern for our highest values, that is a costly mistake."

Hey! Where'd you get that word "highest" from?? :)

Our values are hierarchical. When we refer to our values, we refer to our highest values above all other values. Not considering our highest values is the logical equivalent of not considering our values.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I may disagree with this depending on what you mean by enjoyable. I assume the broadest of meaning but would clarify that I don't view a lack of enjoyment in the physical sense or even serious discomfort as an inhibition to the achievement of happiness in a more long term sense and that more often than not, discomfort is a part of the package for serious achievement and the more meaningful kinds of satisfaction.

I agree with you on all counts. And yes, serious physical discomfort is often needed for happiness, or even life on its most literal level (like a life-saving surgery and the following rehabilitation). And yet, if life were nothing but pain and suffering, we should hardly fight for it. Ultimately we care for life because of our experience of the pleasures and happiness that our choices can bring us, not for the sake of flipping pages on a calendar. So I account those pleasures and happiness (so long as they are consonant with life, as such) as being "the good."

But we may still have to hammer this out, and quite frankly, I'm not yet satisfied with my own abilities to describe what I mean here. Above all, I think that neither of us would advise "serious discomfort" except as means to some greater enjoyment of life (pleasure, happiness, a longer, more fulfilling life), and likewise I don't think we should discourage taking pleasure in life, except when it prevents one from achieving those selfsame greater values.

Sure, but the amount of the other good that exists has to be related to your perception of your partners quality, right?

In large part, yes (though I don't know if even that covers it; I suspect there's lots of good where sex is concerned). I've never denied it -- a great partner (meaning more than "great looking" or "great in bed" but great) makes sex great or even greater. My argument isn't against sex with an ideal partner (or the best you can find, provided she's something better than Supermodel Stalin); it is against the idea that sex apart from this ideal partner is necessarily immoral.

If we were discussing steak, I would tell you flat out that the best I've ever had was at Emeril Lagasse's Delmonicos's in Las Vegas. Other steaks don't compare to it. And all else being equal, I would never have a steak at Chili's over another steak from Delmonico's.

But does this mean that I should never have another steak at Chili's? Or that it would be immoral if I did?

And to anticipate the ever-present "indiscriminate steak eater" objection, no, this doesn't mean that I advocate eating rancid, uncooked steaks that you find in the dumpster; there is middle ground (a lot of it), between "indiscriminate" or otherwise lacking in value, and "highest value." The middle ground exists -- it's called Chili's -- and it's not Delmonico's, but it's not all that bad, either.

This is probably the fundamental difference separating our respective opinions. (And to be fair, I should note that it is where I seem to part company with many Objectivists...so you are in good company, not me)

I appreciate the sentiment... but honestly? The only company I seek is truth. If you're right about something, anything, I'd rather be in your company on that issue, no matter who sits on the opposite side.

I believe in free will but it's a pretty delimited version compared to what I have seen in the Objectivist community. So..."gets associated" by the person having the experience. And to be sure, they could consider it and look for causation and affect on their psyche, but it's not usually enough and only consistently applied for issues that are more directly harmful.

Introspection is an undervalued, underperformed art. No argument there.

Even in those circumstances I don't see rational consideration of psychological issues as adequate in any sense for the resolution of those issues. As an example, I have a friend who grew up with an emotionally abrasive, demanding father and an enabling kind mother who subsequently gets walked over. This example caused her to learn that being emotionally abrasive and demanding in relationships is a far better strategy to get what she wants. Even with the conscious realization of the incorrectness of her approach through therapy, she still cannot will herself into correct behavior. The experiences are far too internalized to allow for an about face. I see it the same with any enduring habit. Smoking, meaningless sex, nail biting, or whatever. Ultimately in your control? Sure. With enough effort and appropriate strategies one can change quite a bit. But stop the effects of the habit from forming through will alone or by conscious consideration? Not in my experience. I think that your experiences affect and change you whether you want them to or not and to change them in another way requires a good deal of work.

I'm not precisely sure what this means for the totality of our discussion, but honestly? I don't think you're wrong at all. It is one thing to make a conscious decision to be a different, a better person in some way. It's another to implement that, and that implementation often takes time, and hard work, and there can be many obstacles in a person's path.

For myself, I've had to deal with issues of depression and anger for most of my life. I can tell you about my childhood, and my own suspicions of where I picked up some of those attitudes, but what matters most to me is how I work to better myself, now and with what I have. (And I see "free will" as being a range of choices, that range informed by the context/circumstances of your actual life and history -- not some absolute mastery to be whatever you want to be, or do whatever you want to do, at the very instant you've willed it.)

And yet, I'm not sure how much that childhood experiences, or behavioral/emotional habits instilled in a youth's mind, correlates to having sex with a woman as an adult (or late teen, in any event), and then being unable to evaluate her reasonably due to having experienced that pleasure.

Since we're agreed (I believe) that many people suck at being introspective, or rational and ethical more generally, then many people will have this difficulty, it is true. But again, that's not due to any problems with casual sex -- instead that's a problem which some people have in thinking objectively, or in reason.

Sure, if you have actually met any. ;)

LOL. I wish. (Maybe?)

No, I don't have any experience with prostitutes of any variety (that I know of) -- most of my experience with hookers comes from art. But if John Galt, Hank Rearden, et al., in Atlas Shrugged stand as proof that such men can exist, then what of Julia Roberts in Pretty Woman, or Jamie Lee Curtis in Trading Places (she was a hooker -- right?), or Inara in Firefly, or... Kira Argounova in We the Living?

I suppose, if it was limited to that. I just don't believe that it can be without a mind/body dichotomy.

Can you expand on this? I love mind/body splits! (By which I mean that I despise them, and like rooting them out.)

I've just seen it that way. Otherwise rational guys with a Quixotic tendency. "I slept with her so she's definitely not a whore, she's a princess. "

Oh man, that's another great whore -- Aldonza (in Man of La Mancha, at least)! Of course, I would contend that Quixote saw what was true of her beyond her superficial appearance -- Dulcinea del Toboso, the princess within -- and that his vision of life-as-it-ought-to-be helped to draw those qualities out of her, and helped to make her aware of them, too. But I'm disposed to defend Quixote. (The "Don" in my handle is taken thence, reflecting a nearly lifelong love with the character.)

As regards what you've actually said, I agree that some people do do that. I just don't think that it's unavoidable, or that all people do that. And thus I don't think we can condemn casual sex on that basis.

This is mostly covered in what I wrote above, but at the risk of verbosity, it depends on where you are at. For some, casual sex might be a step up. I know a gal who after several relationships with dishonest men see's short term sex buddies as far preferable. For her, it probably is. Not the best of all possible worlds, and probably not even the best she could do with a better philosophy, but probably the best she can hope for with where she's at.

So take two identical twins, Christy and Misty. At 15 Chisty, the more social of the two gets invited to a party. She get's a little too drunk and wakes up to find she lost her virginity to Blake. She never would have chosen him but you know how those things are. Feeling the blow to her self esteem, she finally agrees to start going out with Nathan, a dopey pothead that's been hitting on her for the better part of the year. After a couple months of mediocre sex and lounging about in his parents basement, they break up and she moves on to a string of other so so relationships ending in an accidental pregnancy with Eddie who has a good deal of trouble holding down a job for more than a few months. Misty meanwhile has an enduring friendship with Wesley, her slightly geeky but fairly brilliant lab partner. By their senior year they move into a relationship and consciously choose to be each others first. It lasts through their second year of college but ultimately fails from the long distance between them and minor differences. She eventually moves on with a secure sense of what she's looking for, finding Peter, who has a lot in common with Wesley but is a good deal more masculine and mature and close. They get married and live happily ever after.

So who has the better concept of sex? Who has better sex? After Christy's previous experiences, how much would you bet on her changing her expectations and desires? Is she more or less likely to find her "Peter?" For me, the answers are obvious.

Oh, for me, too. No question. Though I'm not sure how much this strictly has to do with "sex," or how casually one approaches it, and how much it has to do with one's life choices overall. Let me explain what I mean by way of a contrasting story:

Suppose that Christy decided that, due to her experience of having been raped by Blake, she is not going to have sex again apart from meeting her ideal mate -- like the heroes she's read about in The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged. She hangs out with Nathan, a dopey pothead, but she's not interested in him romantically... or anyone else at the school, and she barely tolerates his friendship, which is largely a byproduct of a childhood association. Nobody measures up to her standards. By the time she's in college, she has a hard time dealing with anyone she meets, let alone on a "romantic" level, and prefers to be solitary in her room. She finds college guys woefully immature and insensitive, and begins to doubt whether she'll ever find someone worthy of her, and the true virginity of her willfully-given consent. She resents the laughter she hears through the dorm walls at night, and the other... noises. She contents herself by imagining that they're acting immorally, like hedonists -- they must be, they're always smiling -- and are destroying their future capacity for pleasure (somehow, to be determined later), while she... she will have an even greater pleasure... someday. Though others on her floor invite her to parties, Christy never goes. She knows well what might happen at such parties, and she's not about to make that mistake again. She graduates from college never having gone out on a date.

Meanwhile, Misty likes Wesley, her slightly geeky but fairly brilliant lab partner. While she enjoys her budding relationship with Wesley, she also dates Jonathan and Steve on occassion. Jonathan and Steve are nice guys, and good looking, and Misty has fun with them, studying and "fooling around," but she doesn't yet feel ready to have sex with anyone or commit to a "serious" relationship. Finally she and Wesley decide to see one another exclusively. And rather than wait, they have sex with one another straight off, which they find to be pleasant, but somewhat awkward (largely due to their inexperience).

When the strains of distance dating eventually separate Misty from Wesley, Misty decides that she should spend some time "enjoying being single." She dates lots of men, because there are a bevy of intelligent, good-looking single men on campus. Many of them she ultimately finds unappealing in a life-partner way for one reason or another, but several are still very interesting and attractive, and pleasant to spend time with, and she winds up sleeping with some number of them -- not very many, mind, but more than a few. She finds she has a passion for good sex, it makes her feel so alive and vital. During this time, she learns much more about herself and her interests in these kinds of relationships, both sexual and otherwise (partly aided by the contrast she finds among her chosen lovers). Some people see her as a "party girl," and her sister actually calls her "promiscuous" at one point, and asserts (rather without explanation) that she is acting "improperly." But Misty is enjoying herself, and getting good grades, and she's received no complaints from the men she's dated. So she doesn't see the need to stop.

One day Misty goes to a party (to which Christy was also invited, but refused to attend "on principle") and meets Peter. She has a lot in common with Peter -- they've both been actively dating, and have loved "the college lifestyle" -- and actually she finds that he's much like Wesley, but a good deal more masculine and mature and close. When they have sex, they're both pleased to discover that they have a good understanding of how to please, and be pleased, and they're not jealous of each other's experiences, because they realize that those experiences have contributed to their capacity to have a such rich and fulfilling relationship with one another. Misty, after all, has made some mistakes along the way, with Wesley and with others, and she's glad that she's learned from those mistakes so that she doesn't accidentally drive Peter away, who potentially represents a great value for the rest of her life. She finds that Peter is so wonderful, she's ready to commit again to a long term relationship, and so they get married and live happily ever after.

So this is another possible story. And of the four, I would not wish to be Christy in either, but I would like to be Misty (or her male equivalent, at any rate). I do not think that what makes the difference between Christy and Misty is their approach to "casual sex" -- do you? (Or at least, I don't think that Misty's approach to sex in my rewrite is doing her any harm. And maybe it's even good?)

By the way, I recognize that Christy's second story may very well have another chapter which in some way redeems her (though I don't know whether it would be sufficient to make up for all those nights, laying there alone in her dorm room). It all depends in how we write the tale. Since I'm playing author, I'll give her a "happy ending" -- it seems the least I can do:

Sometime there after, say in Christy's midlife, she runs into her old "friend" Nathan once more, though now, he goes by his full name -- "Nathaniel." He's given up pot, and actually has refashioned himself into the kind of man that Christy has always wanted. The kind of man in preparation for whom she's refused even the slightest bit of physical intimacy or pleasure for decades. She is convinced that her wait has paid off: she has finally found her highest ideals made manifest, and that nothing can ever, ever go wrong. Not with a man like Nathaniel.

And nothing ever does.

Like the "prostitute with a heart of gold," the girl who changes her ways and finds true love is more a part of Hollywood than real life. In real life, a heart of gold doesn't land you in the sex trade world and when it does, you don't keep your heart of gold. They are both in between versions but spread out enough to draw a reasonable conclusion about which side one ought to aim for.

I think that the illegality of prostitution, and the dominant culture which casts sex as evil, in general, predisposes the prostitutes one might find on the current day street to be mainly as you suggest. I do not know that in a more rational culture, one that values trade, respects rights, believes in self-ownership, and that pleasure is life-affirming and good, that this would necessarily be so.

Casual sex implies not discriminating much, to me. I suppose you could descriminate a bit. On looks, or sense of humor, or that sort of thing.

Yes, those sorts of things. And also intelligence (perceived), and productivity, and etc., etc., etc. And by the way, let's not discount "looks" or "sense of humor," as even those qualities may tell you a fair bit about a person.

You may find a reasonably intelligent person, reasonably productive, who is good looking enough, and with a good enough sense of humor, that you find them attractive -- sexually attractive -- and worth spending time with (though perhaps not marrying; though perhaps not dating for an extended period of time, or exclusively). You may discriminate in that you would not sleep with just "anyone," yet you might decide to sleep with this person, though they do not possess your "highest values." This is casual sex.

But directionally speaking, the extent to which you discriminate is the extent to which you're not leaving your choice to chance.

Let's say that the more you investigate a particular stock before investing in it, the less you're "leaving to chance." No amount of investigation protects your investment 100%, and at some point you must assess the risks and decide whether it's worth it to participate.

If I see a good-looking woman at the bar, and on that basis decide to approach her, I am already "discriminating." If I chat her up, and begin to get a feel for who she is, I am discriminating further. When we discuss the music we like, etc., the process continues. All the while, I make conscious or subconscious note of items like how she uses her eyes, how she smiles, etc. All of this is information, and it is reflected in how attracted I find myself to her (though I can also reach conscious conclusions). She invites me to her place for continued conversation, and the subtext is clear. At some point, whether that night or sometime later, knowing her to some extent, more or less, but never 100%, I must decide whether it's worth the risks of sex (such as they are) to engage her in intercourse. None of this is done without discrimination, yet all such decisions necessarily entail risk.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Again: why would I need to establish that it is destructive, before you establish (using an Objectivist standard, not a hedonistic one) that it is useful?

Why would you need to establish that it is destructive? Because you are claiming that it is destructive. Remember: this entire conversation is taking place in the context of Rand's claims re: sex. She lays claim to sex being improper apart from "the ground of the highest values one can find in a human being." At present, that stands as an unsubstantiated assertion.

But it doesn't have to remain that way (and if it's true, I'd rather it didn't). The way to substantiate it is to demonstrate precisely how casual sex is destructive. If you can't make that case, I don't blame you for it (thus far I think that the case is unavailable -- beyond the bounds of reason and reality), but in the absence of such a demonstration, Rand's claims will remain unproven, unshown.

Now, apart from that, can I make the positive case? -- can I demonstrate the "utility" of pleasure? Is that really necessary, do you believe? Apart from such a demonstration, you would think it fair game to just consign all interest in the experience of pleasure to "hedonism" and immorality? I invite you to reflect on this for a moment or two. Please note: it is not the case that "all things are bad until they are shown good." While in response a person may say that it is also not the case that "all things are good until they are shown bad," I'd contend that a benevolent universe might well give "good" the benefit of the doubt.

With all that said, let me take a stab at it anyways. How about that pleasure reminds us -- in visceral fashion -- that life is something to continue to work for, to fight for? It reminds us that life is good, on the most basic level possible. Perhaps it functions in a fashion similar to the experience of art. Regarding this, Rand wrote in "The Goal of My Writing":

The importance of that experience is not in what he learns from it, but in that he experiences it. The fuel is not a theoretical principle, not a didactic “message,” but the life-giving fact of experiencing a moment of metaphysical joy—a moment of love for existence.

Perhaps physical pleasure similarly gives us "a moment of love for existence," and where sex is specifically concerned, also for our own terrific capacities in both providing and receiving it. Meh, I'm no professional philosopher, so I'm sure I'm not couching this correctly... but yeah, I'll stand by the notion that "pleasure," apart from being destructive of our higher values, is good.

Pleasure is the result of making rational decisions, not the source of those decisions.

I don't believe this is correct. Rather, I believe that pleasure and pain are biological realities. That certain physical activities cause pleasure or pain is factual information, and it is upon such information that we make decisions. The standard of value for our decisions is life, but we still must have an understanding of what things are, and their actual effects, in order to apply that standard in reality.

That touching a hot stove causes intense pain is reason enough not to touch the hot stove. Pain in this case is not "the result of making irrational decisions" -- it is the result of touching a hot stove. Touching a hot stove would be an irrational thing to do, because to touch it would result in pain, scarring, etc., and thus be self-destructive. It is through that pain that we recognize the self-destructive (i.e. anti-life) nature of the act.

And of course we could invent a scenario in which a person must touch a hot stove to do something ultimately life affirming -- like rescuing our child from the stove, or such, but in the bare case of the hot stove is there, and we seek not to touch it, we are acting so because pain is something, all else being equal, we seek to avoid. Pleasure works similarly, but in opposite fashion: all else being equal, we seek to experience it. In a way, pleasure and pain are proxies for life and death, and I think someone committed to life will love pleasure and despise pain (though temporarily deny the former and tolerate the latter, should higher values reasonably require it), and someone committed to death will tend the other way.

Our values are hierarchical. When we refer to our values, we refer to our highest values above all other values. Not considering our highest values is the logical equivalent of not considering our values.

I'm having a hard time making sense of this, in light of the specific material we're discussing. Would you mind helping me to get at the meaning? Here, again, is the quote incorporating the phrase "highest values":

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

What specifically do you think that Rand meant by "the highest values one can find in a human being"? I don't think it's just a matter (or the "logical equivalent") of "considering our values" as such. For instance, I don't think that Rand would have similarly asserted (and with the same intent) that where bowling is concerned, "joining a bowling league is proper only on the ground of the highest values one can find in a human being." Though perhaps I'm mistaken? Maybe Rand feels this way about every activity, as certainly we should always seek to "consider our values," and specifying "a sexual relationship" was mere redundancy?

But I don't think so. I think that "values" and "highest values" are different things, in the context of this conversation, and values being hierarchical notwithstanding. I think we must respect this difference in our discussion.

Anyways, I've provided a number of scenarios throughout this thread, to exemplify what I mean by "casual sex" (which is what Rand is speaking against through this quote), so perhaps it would help me to understand what you think we're actually talking about, if you could phrase your understanding of her quote in terms of those examples I've provided? Which are "casual"? Which are not? Which are improper, and why? Or you could provide more of your own, just as you did with Supermodel Stalin. Incidentally, you and I are both against sex with Supermodel Stalin, so that's not what I mean by "casual sex" -- or at least that variety of sex I would find moral. We'll need some more variety in scenarios other than awful, repulsive options in order to suss these matters out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've mentioned before though elsewhere that if you know almost nothing about somebody or if you have a little that looks promising but don't know enough yet to say with confidence about if somebody may make the cut for "good enough" by the above mentioned standards then going ahead anyway is a pretty lame attempt to cheat the system.

I agree with this statement, but perhaps my bigger wonder is what "looks promising" is supposed to mean. Promising for a long-term relationship? For being a highly valued person? Sure, there are definite points, but to me, as presented, so few situations are actually in those definite points. Well, Sandy as an example is still vague. Comparatively, yeah, Sandy is a more notable value. However, I see nothing that really suggests anything other than that at a minimum, she's a friend. That's a big part of the discussion here in the first place. If you're saying that's perfectly fine if she's a friend, and that if Sandy was in a relationship with you it'd be an even better option better option, we're in agreement. If you're suggesting a higher standard than that supposing a pretty normal context, I definitely disagree.

The rest isn't directed at anyone specifically.

I think DonAthos' revised Misty/Christy story is a better way to represent what I'm thinking. Misty seems to have standards that matter but not at the level of "relationship", as well as an approach that it is important for understanding sexual and/or romantic situations. My thinking is that whether or not Misty's approach is good depends upon her interest in understanding sex and her sex drive. People are able to learn in a variety of ways, so for Misty, maybe she'd further her own life more by taking sex more casually and outside of relationships. Another person less interested in sex may be better off only pursuing sex in relationships, because there isn't as much to be gained. For activities and practical skills, first-hand experience is the best way to understand - whether it be sex, video games, or writing. Sex is a bit different though because it requires other people, so the other person has to meet standards of... that's where I'm hazy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Looks promising" for being the kind of person one could romantically love. These kinds of people are not a dime a dozen, you won't find them just any given day and it may take a while to find somebody who fits this, yes. However, there are plenty of things where having uncommon opportunities to get them within certain ways does not justify resorting to other. You'd need more than just slow going to make it okay to change standards.

To the Misty and Christy thing, I don't see anything convincing there. One can practice with a romantic partner once they get one, there's no need to be some kind of sex master before getting into a relationship. Not having sex at parties also doesn't need to result in being a recluse full of bitterness and resentment. If you really think something is a bad idea and harmful then you don't get jealous of people who do/have it. Is anybody here jealous of thieves?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To the Misty and Christy thing, I don't see anything convincing there.

"Convincing" of what?

Did you happen to read my preface, or consider it as context while framing your reply? Here it is again:

Though I'm not sure how much this [referring to aequalsa's original tale, meant to show how "causal sex" is destructive] strictly has to do with "sex," or how casually one approaches it, and how much it has to do with one's life choices overall. Let me explain what I mean by way of a contrasting story:

And afterwards, I said:

So this is another possible story. And of the four, I would not wish to be Christy in either, but I would like to be Misty (or her male equivalent, at any rate). I do not think that what makes the difference between Christy and Misty is their approach to "casual sex" -- do you? (Or at least, I don't think that Misty's approach to sex in my rewrite is doing her any harm. And maybe it's even good?)

So listen, my story isn't meant to establish that one needs to be a "sex master before getting into a relationship" or that deciding against having some particular sex will "result in being a recluse full of bitterness and resentment." And I'm upfront about the fact that there's more going on (including in aequalsa's presentation) than simply a different approach to "casual sex." But I do intend to show what I believe is possible: that casual sex can contribute to a person's life; that it can be good. That having casual sex is at the least not necessarily destructive. And if that is the case, then my case is made, and casual sex is not necessarily improper.

But if you think I'm wrong, and the story is not convincing to my actual goal, then can you demonstrate what specific mistakes Misty made? Show me how Misty hurt herself, how she sacrificed greater values for lesser values. Unless you think that my story is "unrealistic" -- that these events can not have taken place, in reality, for some good reason. But that would require demonstration as well.

One can practice with a romantic partner once they get one, there's no need to be some kind of sex master before getting into a relationship.

Nope, there's no "need" to be a sex master before getting into a relationship.

But is there a good reason not to be a sex master? Is that, of itself, wrong? Or is mastery of one's body, and one's ability to do the things one likes, one enjoys, those things that contribute to our overall experience of life -- is such a mastery to be valued at all?

(And yes, and yes, and yes, "that mastery is wrong, and not desirable at all, if in acquiring it you sacrifice your greater values." This is true -- and always remains true -- of everything. Sacrifice is bad. But then you must show how becoming a sex master, as through my example or something like it, necessarily entails such sacrifice.)

Not having sex at parties also doesn't need to result in being a recluse full of bitterness and resentment. If you really think something is a bad idea and harmful then you don't get jealous of people who do/have it. Is anybody here jealous of thieves?

Obviously "not having sex at parties," context-free, doesn't need to result in anything. But Christy, in my example, is an irrational lady. She thinks that sex is only proper in a certain, particular context -- and she's wrong. Her decisions entail self-sacrifice, of pleasures and relationships which would add to her life, and my story intends to demonstrate that.

Her jealousy is the result of being aware on some level of her own errors, but she does her best to push that evidence and reasoning from her mind (I imagine her physically pressing her pillow to her ears, to blot out the sounds of other people enjoying themselves; she does not want to be reminded of their joy).

If Christy equates Misty's lifestyle to thievery, that's fine -- but Christy is wrong, and that has deleterious consequences for her (being wrong always does). But if you think my story is flawed, and that Misty's lifestyle is akin to thievery, that's fine too, so long as you can prove it. So yeah, what did Misty do wrong exactly?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I had just read the little tales themselves since Eiuol referenced them and I was trying to reply to him. Looks like I did miss something relevant. My bad, sorry :P Anyway, all the Christy/Misty stories are fictional, so none of them really help progress the discussion.

"Nope, there's no "need" to be a sex master before getting into a relationship. But is there a good reason not to be a sex master? Is that, of itself, wrong? Or is mastery of one's body, and one's ability to do the things one likes, one enjoys, those things that contribute to our overall experience of life -- is such a mastery to be valued at all?"

Maybe this was unintentional, but as written you switched from "before getting into a relationship" to at all, ever. I didn't object to sex mastery - heck, more power to ya' if you are one. :P What I objected to was the use of mastering sexual techniques as an argument in favor of lowering sexual standards since it can be done in a relationship and no romantic partner worth the time of day would have a problem with it if you are learning with them. I'm sure "practice" would just be enjoyed as an excuse to have even more sex. :P Mastering sex could be done just fine either way so it doesn't serve as an argument for or against casual sex.

Christy, again, is fictional though so she can't really prove anything by her reactions. If you mean to claim that reactions like Christy's are the inevitable result of determining sex should be reserved for serious romantic relationships and acting on that, that one cannot go without such negative results in such a case, then that is very easily disproved. Hi. I'm real. I'm not in favor of casual sex and don't do it and I am not a bitter hermit. Unless somebody brings up the casual sex topic, it's not on my mind. I have friends. I go to parties sometimes. I'm not mad or sneering at people having casual sex, I'm just generally not thinking about them. Don't care. Their problem, not mine. I would be irritated though if people were having some noisy party making it hard for me to sleep in my dorm. I had those kinds of noisy neighbors in my most recent semester of college and it got on my nerves. It wasn't related to sex though, just making it hard for me to sleep because they were loud. I'm not trying to make some direct comparison between casual sex and thievery though, I just meant that any time somebody really believes something is detrimental to themself then they don't get jealous of people doing/having it. As for what's wrong with what Misty is doing, I have earlier been discussing troubles with these kinds of things. Misty just isn't in quite as extreme as the whole "supermodel Stalin" thing people have being using as an example on occasion. Still sounds like she's well on the wrong side of the "enough versus not enough" value dividing line.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I had just read the little tales themselves since Eiuol referenced them and I was trying to reply to him. Looks like I did miss something relevant. My bad, sorry :P Anyway, all the Christy/Misty stories are fictional, so none of them really help progress the discussion.

None of them really help progress the discussion?

Do you hold this sort of opinion for, say, The Fountainhead or Atlas Shrugged? The tales within don't really speak to actual, real life matters or philosophy, because after all -- they're fictional, so they don't "really help progress the discussion"?

"Nope, there's no "need" to be a sex master before getting into a relationship. But is there a good reason not to be a sex master? Is that, of itself, wrong? Or is mastery of one's body, and one's ability to do the things one likes, one enjoys, those things that contribute to our overall experience of life -- is such a mastery to be valued at all?"

Maybe this was unintentional, but as written you switched from "before getting into a relationship" to at all, ever. I didn't object to sex mastery - heck, more power to ya' if you are one. :P What I objected to was the use of mastering sexual techniques as an argument in favor of lowering sexual standards...

Well it helps to explain these miscommunications all around that this was the source of your objection, because no one was making an argument that one should "lower sexual standards" for the sake of "mastering sexual techniques."

Christy, again, is fictional though so she can't really prove anything by her reactions. If you mean to claim that reactions like Christy's are the inevitable result of determining sex should be reserved for serious romantic relationships and acting on that...

Well... actually I think I've explicitly specified, a few times now, exactly what I meant to claim. And reactions like Christy's aren't the inevitable result of anything (any more than support for socialist programs guarantees you'll die in a train accident), but irrationality and immorality will always have some negative consequence. Christy's poor experiences, in this story, are one such possible outcome exemplified.

...that one cannot go without such negative results in such a case, then that is very easily disproved. Hi. I'm real. I'm not in favor of casual sex and don't do it and I am not a bitter hermit.

Yay -- we've hit upon a solution! :) Rand's case is just as "easily disproved":

Hi, I'm real too, and I think casual sex is okay in certain situations. I've had casual sex, I've enjoyed it, and I currently have a wonderful wife and partnership.

Does that resolve the matter?

As for what's wrong with what Misty is doing, I have earlier been discussing troubles with these kinds of things. Misty just isn't in quite as extreme as the whole "supermodel Stalin" thing people have being using as an example on occasion. Still sounds like she's well on the wrong side of the "enough versus not enough" value dividing line.

Okay, so we've granted that Misty, in dating good looking, intelligent men, and enjoying sex with them, and marrying a wonderful man to whom she's deeply attracted and "living happily ever after" with him, is not "quite as extreme" in her immorality as having sex with Joseph Stalin in stilettos.

I'll put that on the "positive" side of casual sex. Excellent.

But you would still put her "well on the wrong side of the 'enough versus not enough' value dividing line"? This is excellent, too, because this appears to speak to the heart of the matter. So please, if you wouldn't mind? Tell me very specifically what damage Misty has done to herself. If she's on the wrong side (let alone "well on the wrong side"), she must be hurting herself, hurting her life. That's what immorality does. That's why we're against it, and why it's important, and why we care enough to discuss these things.

I know you say that you've been "discussing troubles with [those] kinds of things," but I've responded to that discussion and your specific arguments, and don't think you've yet made the case. Unless I missed something vital? But we can make it very simple to understand from this point forward: all you have to do is point out how Misty suffers from her decisions. But I do want to understand how she suffers specifically -- I want to know the extent of the damage done to her life, and how that happens. If you wouldn't mind?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sure, his examples are fiction, but I can't see how any of this can be discussed without at least invented, plausible examples. Perhaps there is an actual story out there to talk about, but I can't think of one. I think Don is fair in saying that if his examples are unrealistic, point out what makes the whole thing unproductive to discuss. Christy is clearly prudish and thinking in a rationalistic way, but that may be irrelevant to discussion. I doubt anyone is going to claim that one should go as far to say "never sex before marriage!".

The Misty example does add some concreteness to a quite abstract discussion. It's an attempt to give a context realistic enough that we can discuss what casual sex is supposed to mean in this discussion. If we call Misty's behavior "casual sex" I don't think even matters. I interpreted her (fictional) intention to be that of desiring to understand sex - abstractly and concretely - in order to make her own life better overall. She didn't have sex just for the hell of it, the consequences be damned. Maybe one can claim that Misty is in fact doing herself harm in the long run, even if she's quite alright now, and she believes herself to be. But what kind of harm is she doing to herself in the long-run? Surely we can project what harm could be caused, even if this is fiction. Projecting ahead is how any action can be judged as a bad idea and therefore immoral.

Still sounds like she's well on the wrong side of the "enough versus not enough" value dividing line.

Why does it sound like she's on the wrong side of "enough versus not enough" dividing line? True, she had sex with people that she was not in a romantic relationship with. At least, I think that's what your reasoning is. But that sounds an awful like taking important ideas for granted. As I was trying to reason from your own examples, Sandy does easily pass the "enough" line without being a romantic partner. So, I'm not seeing what your objection actually is. I attempted to get at reasons why Misty's relatively casual approach (hardly at the level of random hookups, to be sure) could be perfectly alright and moral.

People do vary in their general interest in sex and sex drive. Not that sex matters less for people with low sex drives or low interest levels are making an error, but the pursuit of understanding isn't nearly as strong. By understand, I don't mean anything like mastering sexual technique. I mean grasping what sex means, fully and experientially. Finding a romantic relationship is certainly one of the most difficult things to do, so it's important to think about how sex should be treated outside of a relationship. If one's interest is on the lower end, there is less desire to figure it all out, and just sex in romantic relationships is perfectly fine. If one's interest is on the higher end, there is plenty of desire to figure it all out. I don't mean that one is enslaved to their passions where sexual urge is just a primal desire to be satisfied whatever the cost. That's why I brought up other examples of practical wisdom (I shouldn't have said skill). Practical wisdom is acquired by *doing*, so practical wisdom about sex can only be acquired by having sex. For some, practical wisdom of sex is extremely important for whatever reason (just as some people care about being a good musician more than being a good writer), so standards should be altered accordingly. That "whatever" reason may simply be "given my context in life right now absent a romantic partner, yet knowing several really awesome people, and given a high sex drive and interest in understanding sex better, it'd be worth having sex with those awesome people". Hardly absent of standard, but certainly casual in some sense.

I'll bust out some Aristotle quotes if my points on practical wisdom are unclear.

Edited by Eiuol
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Suppose that Christy decided that, due to her experience

I'll respond to more later, but I think that your rework of my example has explained(to my satisfaction, at least) the fundamental difference between myself and people who view romantic "experience" as a generally positive trait.

In short, I've found little value in experience going forward in relationships. Sexually, what is really pleasing to one woman is not to the next and the systems of interaction and behavior that make one relationship flow cohesively along is ineffectual in the next or maybe even damaging.

I've certainly changed and grown and learned during the time that I have been in those relationships but that causation in that change I would not say has been primarily the romantic relationships, but rather all my experiences over that time. I would guess that for you(because basically you've said so) your experiences in relationships have had a strong impact on how you are in relationships. My hunch is that which side of this fence you fall on depends a lot on how early you had an idea of what you wanted from a relationship. This difference would be akin to the difference between people who realize from the age of 6 that they wanted to be a doctor(or whatever) and people who flitter around a bit until they're 27 before they decide on their career.

Does that sound like your experience of it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Does that sound like your experience of it?

I'll work my way through and let you judge. :)

I'll respond to more later, but I think that your rework of my example has explained(to my satisfaction, at least) the fundamental difference between myself and people who view romantic "experience" as a generally positive trait.

In short, I've found little value in experience going forward in relationships.

I know that primarily we're talking about sexual/romantic relationships, but can I say that there seems to be a more general case available here, and it's to that general case I'd like to speak.

People are individual, and in many ways unique. Yet there are also commonalities among people, and what we learn from our dealings with them can often be used in new situations. I think that a salesman who "found little value in experience" in his dealings with previous clients would make for a poor salesman; likewise a manager; likewise one who works under managers. Being a good salesman, or a good manager, or a good employee, or a good friend, or a good lover -- all of these are skill sets. And while we can do much to prepare, you and I, sitting here and talking about what's required... there's more to be learned than I think it would occur to us to cover. And some of what must be learned, I suspect can only be learned in the doing.

Sexually, what is really pleasing to one woman is not to the next and the systems of interaction and behavior that make one relationship flow cohesively along is ineffectual in the next or maybe even damaging.

This is somewhat true, and somewhat not, I've found. Again -- individual and unique... yet commonalities. Since sex remains the context, I'll report that I'm a better lover today than the first time I made love. And not just "for a given woman, with whom I've had practice," but better generally; I would trust myself more in a first-time encounter, for instance. And also, if I had to start a romantic relationship from scratch, I believe that what I've learned throughout the years would assist me in that endeavor as well.

The specific person with whom you're dealing, as in every other context I've supplied or otherwise (client, employee, manager, etc.), must be approached individually. There is a learning curve for every specific application. But a strong base of general knowledge helps, too.

There are many analogies that I think could help illuminate this, but consider computer science: every computer language is unique, and its particular terms and grammar must be learned. However, someone with a breadth of computer language knowledge and programming experience will have a framework of understanding that will allow him to understand and integrate the new elements of whatever language more efficiently and more effectively than someone who had never learned any computer language or programmed at all.

I've certainly changed and grown and learned during the time that I have been in those relationships but that causation in that change I would not say has been primarily the romantic relationships, but rather all my experiences over that time.

I don't mean to single romantic relationships out as being educational in a categorical way that other experiences are not; they all contribute to "growth." But the situations that arise in romantic relationships can be rather particular to that category -- I deal with things with my wife, for instance, that would never come up between me and my mother, or me and my best friend. And also the very intimacy of romantic relationships -- which forms so much of the basis for the casual sex critique -- can sometimes make these kinds of experiences rather... vital. It is one thing to see a person every once in a while, for dinner or a movie. It's quite another to share a bed, to wake up and go to sleep together, and bear with another person through the ups and downs of daily life.

I would guess that for you(because basically you've said so) your experiences in relationships have had a strong impact on how you are in relationships.

I try to learn from all that I do. I try to keep moving, like a shark. (But a positive shark, of happiness and rainbows.)

My hunch is that which side of this fence you fall on depends a lot on how early you had an idea of what you wanted from a relationship. This difference would be akin to the difference between people who realize from the age of 6 that they wanted to be a doctor(or whatever) and people who flitter around a bit until they're 27 before they decide on their career.

I'm very glad that I've not been locked into the plans of six-year-old me. And that's not to take away from those who feel confident in such early-formed plans, or execute them and reap the attendant benefits (and benefits there certainly are), but I really didn't know a whole lot at the time, either about the world or about myself. I feel rather better informed right now than I did ten years ago, five years ago, or even last week. Currently, I'm expecting my first child, and I can only imagine that there's going to be a wealth of learning for me in the next few years. Even where relationships and my wife are concerned, I expect to learn a host of new things, and especially as we deal with new scenarios and situations. I can't take any of it for granted, and I must be constantly looking for ways of incorporating the new information, to make me better suited to achieve my goals.

Does that sound like your experience of it?

I hope some of my feedback answers that question to your satisfaction.

I'd like to make another couple of comments on this material. As I read your reply and prepared to compose my response, this was the quote at the bottom of the page:

It's a helluva start, being able to recognize what makes you happy. --Lucille Ball

Much of what I've learned through romantic relationships and sexual experience has been about my own workings, requirements, and interests, rather than "how to please my partner" (though that, too). Perhaps (though I'm unsure) a six year old, or a sixteen year old, could -- through some vast feat of introspection -- come to understand precisely what he's looking for in a life-long romantic partner without any practical experience? Perhaps. But that was certainly not my experience of it, and I don't believe that I will counsel my child to operate in that fashion.

Furthermore, and just to say it, though you, and Eiuol, and bluecherry have all picked up on this idea of "casual sex/relationships as education," that's not really my argument's thrust (heh. sex pun :) ). I believe that such education happens, and is rewarding, and maybe is even important enough to justify these experiences in certain cases... but my argument, I believe, is simpler than that. I think that the experiences of casual sex I've been defending, as through my re-working of Misty, are to be valued for her enjoyment of them. I think that it is of such stuff that a good life is made. If it could be shown that Misty's actions are ultimately self-destructive, then we would agree that her behavior is improper. But if they are not demonstrably self-destructive -- and if she enjoys them -- then whether she learns or not from those experiences, they are worth having; they are good.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Atlas Shrugged does have things it proves reliably in there in spite of being fiction in instances where it spells out logical necessities. I used an example of myself just to prove that the exact reactions of Christy - the bitter, jealous obsession and reclusiveness she has - are not only not spelled out how *those exact types* of dysfunctional reactions are logically inevitable but in fact demonstrably not so in reality. I did *not* mean to use myself right there as a counter to any and all imaginable negatives, just the ones that Christy was said to have. I cited specific things about myself that ran counter to the way Christy acted.

" . . . but irrationality and immorality will always have some negative consequence."

Agreed. We each think the other has irrationality and immorality going on though. We can't both be right. Neither of us would say we've got problems due to our positions though evidently. So, whoever is wrong just hasn't realized their loss or hasn't realized that some negative in their life is connected to their stance on sex. So making blanket claims that we don't have negative consequences doesn't prove things. We need something else to make our cases.

"Okay, so we've granted that Misty, in dating . . . "

Hang on. I've not yet seen anything to imply Misty was dating these people first and so having some actual romantic interest in them and pursuing that before having sex with them except in the case of Wesley. Whether she is getting romantically involved first or not is relevant to my assessment of her story.

Eiuol now: "As I was trying to reason from your own examples, Sandy does easily pass the 'enough' line without being a romantic partner."

Actually, I was trying to quickly paint Sandy before as a hypothetical romantic interest, not just a friend. :P As for the people interested in the experiential knowledge of sex, again, are you terminally ill? Are your genitals rotting off? No? Then it is a pretty safe bet that time is on your side and it is on your side enough that it isn't a disaster to hang on and just stick to masturbation until finding a romantic partner.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We can't both be right. Neither of us would say we've got problems due to our positions though evidently. So, whoever is wrong just hasn't realized their loss or hasn't realized that some negative in their life is connected to their stance on sex.

...

Actually, I was trying to quickly paint Sandy before as a hypothetical romantic interest, not just a friend.

Both of these statements made me think about the importance of acquiring first-hand knowledge and experience about concepts in general. I can absorb and read as much about being properly egoistic as I want, but without going out and validating myself that egoism is in fact a good ethical principle, my understanding is a floating abstraction. So, I go out and live according to standards I've reasoned are good. This is what I mean by practical wisdom. Practical wisdom doesn't just mean becoming good at being egoistic, but also understanding what egoism as an ethical standard *means* in a conceptual way by reducing the concept down to reality. Given how the whole process can take years, different levels of understanding are possible, and one can even be wrong, but not discover a loss or negative consequence until much later.

Switching the context to sex, one has to go out and live according to their standards of sex, and be honest enough to consider possibilities of being mistaken. I'm not saying any one in particular is wrong here - as stated, we can't all be right. Sitting in our own little clouds of thought won't provide answers, that's for sure. It is necessary for all of us to test out our beliefs, and look at what happens when we live according to them. Noting missed opportunities, relationships that ended, ongoing relationships, sex outside of relationships, the feeling of sex at all, what leads to sexual attraction, etc, are all important to validating one's ideas on sex. Missing out on one of these may mean missing on some positive or negative evidence. Mistakes are bound to be made though, so at times, it's worth trying out different ideas, even with sex. Mistakes are also very crucial to validating some ideas, and rejecting others. So, the approach about the Misty/Christy examples may be wrong. Taking an omniscient viewpoint is not going to take into account a character's lack of knowledge.

The approach should be "supposing both of these people want what's best for their life, what way should they pursue sex and relationships?" What should a person in Christy's situation do, lacking any romantic potential or perhaps interest in anyone right now? What should a person in Misty's situation do, where for her, she has some pretty good opportunity to understand sex in a more grounded way? Now, we can project what will happen to the psychology of the two, but in a discussion thread, it is probably better to think about what one should do in a similar situation. Discussion so far has supposed some prior understanding of related concepts, including what a romantic interest is. I can't really reliably project any consequences of sex outside a relationship without at least first knowing just what a romantic relationship is. So, I could go the Misty route, or the Christy route, or a 3rd route entirely different than the two.

Basically, I'm saying that there may very well be reasons to accept a "relationship only" stance to sex, but how does one validate their stance? You can say "by being in a relationship, of course", though to some extent, that requires being fortuitous enough to run into someone meeting what seems to be great standards for yourself (works for a lot of people, but I'm sure it doesn't quite work well for everyone). There may be plenty of other ways to build up understanding that are important for individual growth. Casual sex may ultimately be wrong, but discussion seems to revolve around how we can know this without just accepting an authoritative statement. I say that the only possible way to know is to physically experience sex, and some personal contexts make it so casual sex is a good option. I get the idea of masturbation being a fine "second best" option when a person is not in a relationship, but I'd claim that it's a fundamentally different activity than sex with another person, even though it is sexual stimulation. There is intimacy with oneself, and intimacy with others.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Atlas Shrugged does have things it proves reliably in there in spite of being fiction in instances where it spells out logical necessities.

Well it's true that fiction doesn't typically attempt to demonstrate "logical necessities" or to "prove," but to show cases; possibilities. Rather, formal arguments and proofs (often essays) prove. But I've given formal arguments for my position a few times in this thread -- casual sex can be enjoyable, can be a response to values, can exist without self-destruction, can contribute to one's life, can be good -- and in the face of an apparent lack of either understanding or agreement with my arguments (though no good reasons against it provided), and in direct response to a story meant to exemplify (though not prove) my argument's shortcomings, I thought I would show what I meant. I thought that would be helpful.

But you said of my story that it didn't "help progress the discussion," because it's "fictional." So why doesn't seeing what I mean, "in action" as it were, help you to understand what I'm saying? Did I fail in its specific construction? Or does being fiction, as you've suggested, automatically disqualify it from being helpful? And if providing examples to demonstrate my views is insufficient, then what further recourse do I have to intelligibly communicate my position?

I used an example of myself just to prove that the exact reactions of Christy - the bitter, jealous obsession and reclusiveness she has - are not only not spelled out how *those exact types* of dysfunctional reactions are logically inevitable but in fact demonstrably not so in reality.

I'm not certain how many more times I should repeat that it was not my purpose to demonstrate that Christy's particular reaction was a result of her approach to casual sex, or whether it would help. I've said it twice now, once as immediate context to the original story -- context that you should have read, and considered, before providing your initial response -- and then directly in response to you. So to continue to treat that as "my point" is missing the point, and frustrating to encounter, and something like a "straw man."

Further, your not being like Christy, or not behaving the way that she does, does not establish that Christy's reactions are not possible -- that they couldn't be true of someone else. People don't work in the manner you're implicitly suggesting: one predictable response to every situation out of "logical inevitability." In the same way, that most immoral people do not wind up committing suicide does not show that Lillian Rearden's particular ending is "demonstrably not so in reality." Some immoral people may be like her in particular mannerisms or actions, but not all. Some people who share Christy's views on sex may be like Christy in my story, but not all. Christy demonstrates one possibility of a human being. If your contention is that a person like Christy (externally committed to some "romantic standard," but secretly jealous of others' happiness, and lonely, and evasive of her own feelings) can not exist in reality, then I do beg to differ, and I think you'll have to prove that with more than "I'm not that way." Your existence does not disprove the incredible variability and variety of expression of human character, whether real or fictional, any more than most Objectivists not being a genius like John Galt means that John Galt cannot exist.

" . . . but irrationality and immorality will always have some negative consequence."

Agreed. We each think the other has irrationality and immorality going on though. We can't both be right. Neither of us would say we've got problems due to our positions though evidently. So, whoever is wrong just hasn't realized their loss or hasn't realized that some negative in their life is connected to their stance on sex. So making blanket claims that we don't have negative consequences doesn't prove things. We need something else to make our cases.

I agree that we need something else to make our cases. Just to clarify, I was speaking in the context of explaining my story choices, not that I think you have "irrationality and immorality going on." While it's doubtless true that our attitudes and choices manifest some particular outcomes in our own lives, it would be difficult/nigh-impossible to abstract the true cause-and-effect, and especially in a forum such as this (pointing up another benefit of fiction, which strives to eliminate the inessential and thus highlight such cause-and-effect). Also, I don't think it would be beneficial to reasonable discussion to try to start probing one another for hidden irrationality or immorality, or make accusations, etc. (Yet another benefit to fiction; we may treat Christy or Misty in any conceivable manner, and they won't get offended.)

But no case, whether fictional or real, will "prove" anything (apart from their own possibility). Such cases are meant to exemplify our arguments for the purpose of understanding, but not prove them.

"Okay, so we've granted that Misty, in dating . . . "

Hang on. I've not yet seen anything to imply Misty was dating these people first and so having some actual romantic interest in them and pursuing that before having sex with them except in the case of Wesley. Whether she is getting romantically involved first or not is relevant to my assessment of her story.

My story stands exactly as written, and I'm not changing anything by introducing the term "dating." As to that, here's the relevant section, with added emphasis:

When the strains of distance dating eventually separate Misty from Wesley, Misty decides that she should spend some time "enjoying being single." She dates lots of men, because there are a bevy of intelligent, good-looking single men on campus. Many of them she ultimately finds unappealing in a life-partner way for one reason or another, but several are still very interesting and attractive, and pleasant to spend time with, and she winds up sleeping with some number of them -- not very many, mind, but more than a few. She finds she has a passion for good sex, it makes her feel so alive and vital. During this time, she learns much more about herself and her interests in these kinds of relationships, both sexual and otherwise (partly aided by the contrast she finds among her chosen lovers). Some people see her as a "party girl," and her sister actually calls her "promiscuous" at one point, and asserts (rather without explanation) that she is acting "improperly." But Misty is enjoying herself, and getting good grades, and she's received no complaints from the men she's dated. So she doesn't see the need to stop.

One day Misty goes to a party (to which Christy was also invited, but refused to attend "on principle") and meets Peter. She has a lot in common with Peter -- they've both been actively dating, and have loved "the college lifestyle" -- and actually she finds that he's much like Wesley, but a good deal more masculine and mature and close.

I don't believe it's specified here, but I envision her as dating several of these men simultaneously (i.e. on an ongoing rotational basis; not literally at the same time). She finds them attractive -- she is responding to their values -- but she's not holding out for "her highest values" as a condition for sex, in the way that Christy apparently is. In other words, she knows of these men, even before sleeping with them, that they are not going to be her life-long romantic partner, and yet she enjoys the experiences she has with them anyways.

Christy finds this behavior immoral, and based on your initial reaction, you do, too. So I'd still like to know what damage you believe that Misty has done to herself, through her behavior.

Eiuol now: "As I was trying to reason from your own examples, Sandy does easily pass the 'enough' line without being a romantic partner."

Actually, I was trying to quickly paint Sandy before as a hypothetical romantic interest, not just a friend. :P As for the people interested in the experiential knowledge of sex, again, are you terminally ill? Are your genitals rotting off? No? Then it is a pretty safe bet that time is on your side and it is on your side enough that it isn't a disaster to hang on and just stick to masturbation until finding a romantic partner.

I don't mean to usurp Eiuol's response, but... is this really the standard? In order for a person to be justified in having casual sex (cast again here as a means to "experiential knowledge," but I hold as primarily a source of pleasure, and justified in that respect if the act is not demonstrably and necessarily self-destructive), he must be on death's door? We must wait until death is immanent to enjoy life?

Why not just enjoy it now?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I get the idea of masturbation being a fine "second best" option when a person is not in a relationship, but I'd claim that it's a fundamentally different activity than sex with another person, even though it is sexual stimulation. There is intimacy with oneself, and intimacy with others.

Do you "get" that idea? :)

I don't. I've not chosen to focus on it, and I know it's been claimed that masturbation is somehow fundamentally different from sex, but I don't see how masturbation escapes from the general claims against casual sex that have been made in this thread. Take bluecherry's original arguments:

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. )

Okay. So sex -- the "greatest possible physical pleasure" must be combined with "the greatest possible mental pleasure." If it is not done that way...

...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.

It seems to me that masturbation is the height of "treating sex as pretty much just physical" to get "some extra physical pleasure in the short run." So, I don't know how it escapes her prognosis of "disconnection" between "the mental and the physical considerations when it comes to sex," because I think that when we're talking about masturbation, we're talking about that (supposed) "disconnection" in its most palpable and obvious way.

Obviously, that's not what bluecherry thinks is happening, as she continues:

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

So she finds an important distinction, but I'm at a loss to grasp it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

About the me example: I was just trying in my recent post to explain what I had intended to do at the time by citing myself as an example. At the time I wrote that I wasn't sure if you meant for the reactions Christy had to apply to everybody who was against casual sex. Since that was not what you intended to do I now know, the me example is moot. I wanted to show that example was moot since you had at one point thought I meant something more broad by using myself as an example and so cited yourself to try to serve as a broad example.

About my comment that the Christy example isn't helping things progress: The little story about Christy is not an argument but an attempt to clarify your prior arguments. I wasn't unclear before though on those prior arguments. So, since it was clarified that Christy was not supposed to be how everybody reacts with similar ideas, there is nothing the story helps with.

As for Christy's reactions being possible, I earlier tried to explain that such a reaction would only be possible if she wasn't wholly convinced that casual sex was actually damaging. Hypothetically, if you were right that it is a good thing but somebody was really convinced otherwise then they would have negative consequences, yeah, but they would have to be something other than becoming a bitter, jealous hermit.

"Also, I don't think it would be beneficial to reasonable discussion to try to start probing one another for hidden irrationality or immorality, or make accusations, etc."

I strongly agree with this.

About the term "dating": *scratches head* Well, clearly it was used in there then. Maybe it slipped my mind because it seems the use of the term "dating" there is used differently than I typically use it? The original impression I had gotten was that at college she was at most just occasionally hanging out with some guys much the same way she would with any female friend except (since as far as the tale goes there is no indication she is bisexual) sometimes somewhere along the line while hanging out with these guys she has sex with them. It struck me more as a "fuck buddy" situation with Misty and those guys. When I use the term "dating" I always use it as the verb for what people in a romantic relationship are doing with each other.

On death's door was one option, but I was also trying to say that having one's capacity for sexual experience looking like it may not last in good condition for much longer was also an option. Basically, if it is a now or never situation that changes things because there is no long term potential for one's sex life to be considered. There's nothing to lose by having casual sex in that case and having some kind of sex is better than none ever if those are pretty likely the only options.

About masturbation, I don't get this "intimacy with self" thing either. I just see masturbation as getting the physical aspect of sex without there being a partner to add any mental considerations. Getting the physical pleasure alone isn't a bad thing, that isn't my objection to casual sex. Sex involves another human and unless they are dead/brain dead then you can't take their body to have sex with without getting their mind too. What kind of mind is one willing to have sex with? Taking and being willing to take minds that don't exceed a certain threshold is what causes problems in casual sex.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Do you "get" that idea? :)

Just to mention briefly, I was really only making a comment as a tangent in those two quoted sentences, not that it was a crucial point to the rest of my post. The rest of my post is the important stuff. =]

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...