Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Is the Objectivist view of sex flawed?

Rate this topic


Dormin111

Recommended Posts

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.

We're talking about more than casual sex right now, I realize, but is this ever true of fiction? Are a fictional character's particular reactions meant to "apply to everybody" who shares any of their ideas or attitudes? Christy was also raped (assuming we agree on that, which, given previous discussions, perhaps I shouldn't take for granted), but I don't mean to imply that her reaction to that is the reaction that a person raped will have. Do I believe it is a possible reaction? Yes.

Were this a novel length work (or even a novella), I would want to present a more careful study of Christy, insofar as my abilities allow. But as this isn't even a short story (more a vignette, really), I just wanted to hit highlights, especially as they pertain to the discussion, as that is its raison d'etre.

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.

What's more, I think I need to point out that, at heart, this isn't Christy's story I'm presenting; it's Misty's. Christy's dramatization isn't what's meant to "help" -- but my presentation of Misty as "the woman who has casual sex and apparently doesn't suffer from it." Which is why I keep asking for your assessment of Misty's morality and whether (and in what specific fashion) she's hurting herself, rather than inquiring after Christy. Christy's role is something like Peter Keating's in The Fountainhead. Keating is important -- he is a foil for Howard Roark, against whom Roark's character and "fate" stands out more distinctly, and a sometime antagonist, (and I think there's yet more; I think he has his own subplot) -- but The Fountainhead is not about him; it is about Roark.

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.

I don't know. I think that there is an interplay between people's consciously held convictions and their subconscious. I think that "cognitive dissonance" can speak to this, and also "evasion." Let me give you an example of what I mean (assuming such examples are "helpful" ;) ).

I've known many quite sincere Christians in my life (or sincere for all I can tell, at least). They talk of "good news," and the joy of their teachings, and the happiness that God's love inspires in them, and etc. And yet? I have found that the most sincere tend to have a sort of general... haze of sadness about them. A certain kind of resignation.

Now obviously, I'm not offering "proof" of anything by relating this example to you, let alone with my wishy-washy phrasing. Yet I believe I'm right, I believe I've experienced this, and I believe that it has meaning. Consciously, they are convinced that their path is the way to happiness. And yet they do not manage to fool themselves to such a degree (down to their subconscious) that they can evidence this happiness in the manner that others might, that others do.

I think that Christy can be convinced on a conscious level that hers is the right path -- the good thing to do, and the road to happiness -- and yet wind up bitter, jealous, and unhappy, because somewhere she understands that she's actually at war with reality... and herself.

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)...

LOL. That sounds like a much better story; I'll bear it in mind for the rewrite! ;)

...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.

Here's what I see her doing by my use of the term "dating": she goes out on dates. Meaning: she goes to dinners, or to movies, or some similar activity, and spends pre-allotted time with these men, for the purpose of a shared, enjoyable experience.

Certainly this is in the category of "romantic relationship," though she 1) is not actively seeking a life-partner (or even an exclusive one); and 2) does not consider these men to be life-partner material. Rather, she pursues these dates because they are pleasant of themsleves, for a night or a weekend. She enjoys the dinners, the movies, the company of these men, and the conversations she has with them. She enjoys the fact that they are interested in her, and attracted to her. She is attracted to them, sexually, and her body responds in such manner when they make an advance on her. She approaches all of this "casually," and quite unlike her sister, who would not date a man (let alone sleep with him), unless she believed him to be life-partner material, no matter how supposedly pleasant the dinner/movie/conversation/sex might promise to be.

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.

I know this isn't what you mean, or what you're talking about, but it is what I mean, and what I'd like to talk about:

It's always "a now or never situation." The sexual experiences and romantic relationships I had in college, and elsewhere, would not have come again had I not pursued them at the time. Misty does not wind up with Wesley in the end -- she only had that time to explore her relationship with him, and to have those specific, particular experiences. Had she opted not to, as Christy would have done (for after all, Wesley is no John Galt), then her life would have been the poorer for it.

I believe I've expressed how much I love my wife, but if I have, I don't mind doing it again; I love her so incredibly much. And yet? I wouldn't strike any of my prior relationships with other women from my history. All of them have enriched my life, and contributed to who I am today. I don't expect that everyone can or would say that -- if you've slept with Supermodel Stalin, that's not apt to have enriched your life -- but I did endeavor only to sleep with those women who were of value to me, if not "highest value."

"There are places I remember, all my life, though some have changed. Some forever, not for better. Some have gone and some remain. All these places had their moments with lovers and friends I still can recall. Some are dead and some are living. In my life, I've loved them all.

"But of all these friends and lovers, there is no one compares with you. And these memories lose their meaning when I think of love as something new. Though I know I'll never lose affection for people and things that went before -- I know I'll often stop and think about them -- in my life, I love you more."

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.

I think there might be value in taking issue with the idea of having sex "with a mind," but yes -- a person is a body and mind, too, and if you're sleeping with someone, you're sleeping with all of them. Granted.

And you and I would be united in objecting to "indiscriminate sex" or "sex with an awful person," like Supermodel Stalin.

But what about sex with a great person, who is not the greatest (or, dare I ask, a good person who is not great)? That's what Misty does, after all. She has sex with intelligent, good-looking men to whom she is attracted, but of whom she does not consider the best, or reflective of her "highest values"; her "threshold" for sexual intercourse is lower than that. Her sister Christy's "threshold" is "John-Galt-or-bust," and she goes through college without meeting a John Galt (and her twenties, and her thirties, and part-way through her forties). Without going so far as to say, "that's wrong of Christy," upon what grounds does Christy pronounce Misty's "casual" attitude improper?

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. =]

LOL. Oh, I know, I know. But I don't have much issue to take with "the important stuff," I don't believe. I think that experience is important, though it remains that such experience is not my grounds for defending causal sex, which I hold defensible on its own merits -- good sex with a good-looking, good person is... what's the word...? ...good. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When I first read that thing about Christy I just had skipped right to reading that part since my focus was on replying to somebody else who had referenced the Christy/Misty stuff. I didn't know exactly what the point of the stories was at the time and so that showed in my post, but now I'm more aware. The whole thing I wrote in response to that can be thrown out. Moving along now . . .

"I think that there is an interplay between people's consciously held convictions and their subconscious."

Agreed. But that means you have to not be completely convinced. You subconsciously think your claims are wrong. With no subconscious conflict those particular reactions can't happen. (Dang it, I wanted to move along from discussing these two girls. ;^; )

"she goes to dinners, or to movies, or some similar activity, and spends pre-allotted time with these men, for the purpose of a shared, enjoyable experience."

That sounds like stuff people do with their friends all the time with no romantic element involved.

Can I request that the conversation be continued with no reference to Christy or Misty or Sandra or Stalin or me or you or any other specific people for a little while? These examples are meant to help clarify things, but instead I think particulars of these cases are getting too easy to get bogged down in and have disputes over.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"I think that there is an interplay between people's consciously held convictions and their subconscious."

Agreed. But that means you have to not be completely convinced. You subconsciously think your claims are wrong. With no subconscious conflict those particular reactions can't happen.

We may have to temporarily "agree to disagree" on the nature of "conviction" or "being convinced." I think that "being convinced" of something means to hold it as the truth consciously and explicitly, but it does not necessarily speak to a complete integration of one's subconscious mind. (And actually, I would hold that no one could ever be completely convinced of an irrational idea in the manner you suggest -- their subconscious will always be picking up on the disparity between their consciously-held beliefs and the information that they must evade in order to preserve those irrational beliefs against reality; in fact, it is only this that makes "evasion" possible.)

"she goes to dinners, or to movies, or some similar activity, and spends pre-allotted time with these men, for the purpose of a shared, enjoyable experience."

That sounds like stuff people do with their friends all the time with no romantic element involved.

Of course it does. Perhaps you have something else in mind, but I find that romance is much like a friendship, and predicated on many-to-most of the same values. And a great friendship is much like any other deep love, such as my life-long love for my best friend, or Samwise Gamgee's love for Frodo. The telling difference between friendship and romantic relations is a mutual interest in sexuality; i.e. shared "physical" attraction (or attraction that expresses itself physically, at least). Or, perhaps we could suppose a "chaste romance" a la the previously mentioned Don Quixote, who loved his women "pure and chaste from afar," but that's one element of his character that I don't find inspiring... and if I had to lay money, I'd bet it has its roots in a mind/body split.

People who date, and are dating, often proceed in the manner I've suggested: they go to dinner and a movie and then they have sex. What they share and express is something like friendship commingled with physical attraction. What, apart from this, do you suppose a "date" looks like?

Can I request that the conversation be continued with no reference to Christy or Misty or Sandra or Stalin or me or you or any other specific people for a little while? These examples are meant to help clarify things, but instead I think particulars of these cases are getting too easy to get bogged down in and have disputes over.

Of course. I'm happy to proceed as you wish (though disappointed that, despite my repeated entreaties, you won't specify the damage Misty has done to her life through her approach to sex, though you have pronounced her actions improper). I am afraid that an abstract discussion without reference to examples may be rather... "dangerous" in that it might become untethered to reality. But okay. Here's a general, abstract case:

Sex feels good. Sex with good people is a pleasant experience. It is discriminatory. It is a response to values. But it need not therefore be a response to one's "highest values." It can take place without causing self-harm, without doing damage to one's psyche, without destroying the possibility for other, better relationships, or without otherwise sacrificing one's higher values, or one's life.

Because of this, having such sex is not improper, but in the context provided above, can be "good."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On dates/dating: "The telling difference between friendship and romantic relations is a mutual interest in sexuality; i.e. shared "physical" attraction (or attraction that expresses itself physically, at least)."

Romance is of a different nature than just "friendship + physical appeal." If your parenthetical is meant to address that, ok then, but I'm not sure if that is what you mean. Generally though, I explained what I mean by "dating" earlier, but I must say, I've never really had a good idea of how to define a date in a way that doesn't get ambiguous about when it is a "date-date" versus when it is just a "date" as in a scheduled joint activity. Not so important to the overall topic though . . . More important to the discussion, I think the overall picture here has been getting tangled up to me along the way. I think I've been losing track of what the point is of some things we're talking about and what direction things are headed. @_@ A review may be in order.

"Sex with good people is a pleasant experience."

That's a pretty big jump. Somebody can be a good person but still not somebody you like being around. It isn't a given that just because somebody is moral will mean sex with them will be a positive experience.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Were this a novel length work (or even a novella)

You sure had me fooled; your posts are as long as novels! :smartass:

I am getting tangled up as well at just what the direction of discussion is. As I see it, the main points are: (1) a concrete example is needed to add some context, so DonAthos wants to project more on supposed negative consequences of casual sex, (2) at least on my end, I think it is important to address how one can validate ideas on sex; some notion of casual sex seems acceptable, (3) sex is of course plenty pleasurable anyway, so if there are opportunities for sex with people who are quite good people that might not be romantic companions, it should be pursued.

All those points are generally independent. The goal of discussion seems to be getting at what kind of negative effects casual sex has. On the far end of the value spectrum, there are likely not-so-good people who may only be a night of fun, which is pretty well established as bad for strongly divorcing mind and body. This does not seem to be quite the consequence of at least generally valuable/good people.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On dates/dating: "The telling difference between friendship and romantic relations is a mutual interest in sexuality; i.e. shared "physical" attraction (or attraction that expresses itself physically, at least)."

Romance is of a different nature than just "friendship + physical appeal."

I fully expected your reply to be of this nature... especially because you didn't recognize a man and woman out for a night of dinner, movies, and sex, where he likes and is attracted to her, and she likes and is attracted to him, and they wish to spend this time together, as a "date." After all, they could just be friends who are attracted to each other, and spend time doing activities with each other, and have sex...? So what does make a date a date, right? I think your answer has been "romance," but whence romance? And moreover, on a "first date," do a man and a woman have to share this romance (whatever that is)...? Or can they just be going out as an exploration of each others' character, on the basis of physical attraction? But if so, is that "first date" not a date at all? Ah, it gets so confusing! :)

But I suspect that the reason it confuses is because you're looking to invest some sort of mystical quality into this idea of romance, and thus dating (and subsequently sex).

You say that "romance is of a different nature than just 'friendship + physical appeal'"? I say, what do you mean by the word "just"? What do you believe "friendship" is? Or "physical appeal," for that matter? I'll be speaking broadly for a moment (especially because we've ruled out practical examples, which is... unfortunate), but both friendship and physical appeal are a species of love. They are not "romantic love" apart from each other, and when you put them together, the experience-in-total is different... yet I believe that this combination does fundamentally describe romantic love. (Just as, if you have the ingredients of a cake, and eat them separately, you will not thereby experience "the cake." And yet... a cake is the combination of those ingredients.)

Check this out. Taken from the Ayn Rand Lexicon, on the subject of "Love," from "Philosophy and Sense of Life":

There are two aspects of man’s existence which are the special province and expression of his sense of life: love and art.

I am referring here to romantic love, in the serious meaning of that term—as distinguished from the superficial infatuations of those whose sense of life is devoid of any consistent values, i.e., of any lasting emotions other than fear. Love is a response to values. It is with a person’s sense of life that one falls in love—with that essential sum, that fundamental stand or way of facing existence, which is the essence of a personality. One falls in love with the embodiment of the values that formed a person’s character, which are reflected in his widest goals or smallest gestures, which create the style of his soul—the individual style of a unique, unrepeatable, irreplaceable consciousness. It is one’s own sense of life that acts as the selector, and responds to what it recognizes as one’s own basic values in the person of another. It is not a matter of professed convictions (though these are not irrelevant); it is a matter of much more profound, conscious and subconscious harmony.

All right. So Rand stipulates that she's describing "romantic love." But what does she actually describe? In what way is this description dissimilar from the most profound ("non-romantic") friendships a person can have, which are also a form of "love"? I contend: there is no difference. (Go ahead and read it again with that context/critique in mind; I'll wait...) At least, not per this discussion of "romantic love"... but elsewhere, Rand does note the key element.

From "Of Living Death," emphasis added:

Romantic love, in the full sense of the term, is an emotion possible only to the man (or woman) of unbreached self-esteem: it is his response to his own highest values in the person of another—an integrated response of mind and body, of love and sexual desire. Such a man (or woman) is incapable of experiencing a sexual desire divorced from spiritual values.

[...]

Man is an end in himself. Romantic love—the profound, exalted, lifelong passion that unites his mind and body in the sexual act—is the living testimony to that principle.

Sexual attraction/desire (or "physical appeal") is the sine qua non of romantic love. And I don't want to bring us back to examples, given that you think they're hurting more than helping... but... had my life-long best friend been a woman I found physically appealing? There's no question to me that we would have had all that "romance" entails.

A review may be in order.

Quick version:

* Rand says that sex apart from one's "highest values" is "casual" and improper.

* I claim that this is unfounded, and moreover false -- that casual sex (taking the term to mean apart from one's "highest values," as reflected in Rand's quote) can be proper. Sex as a response to values, though not highest, can be pleasant and pleasurable, and these form a positive case for such sex. The only "casual sex" to be ruled a priori out is that which can be demonstrated to be self-destructive, as in: "Supermodel Stalin" and "sex in a burning building" and similar, all of which rely upon some additional "poison element" (as I've termed it), apart from the casual (i.e. non "highest values") nature of the sex itself.

* Support for Rand's position/critiques of mine include: casual sex is "indiscriminate" (which is false); casual sex divorces mind from body (false); casual sex is unnatural (false); the desire for casual sex is hedonism (false); casual sex makes a person unable to enjoy romantic love or better sex (false); casual sex can be habit forming (possibly true, but addresses a potential issue with psychology of the actor rather than a problem with casual sex, per se; any activity, done to excess, is potentially destructive).

There's been a lot more than that, of course, and in greater specificity and with nuance and at length, but what we need right now is what we've always needed, and it isn't that complex:

We need a clear, unequivocal explanation of the damage that casual sex does to a person, and how it operates. Not a straw man version, either; not "indiscriminate sex" or "sex with a horrible person" (which is what Supermodel Stalin represents), but sex with a good human being, one who cares for you, and has rational values, and you find attractive, and he finds you attractive, and all of that... and yet isn't your choice for "life partner," isn't your John Galt, isn't your "highest values made manifest."

"Sex with good people is a pleasant experience."

That's a pretty big jump. Somebody can be a good person but still not somebody you like being around.

That may be true, but I think it's another issue altogether. (If we do not like being around a good person, I believe it's important to begin asking ourselves why, and whether we've defined "good person" quite correctly, or estimated their character with precision.)

Anyways, what you're responding to is all predicated on the notion of "attraction," as in: sex with someone you're attracted to (which is, again, "discriminatory," yet not necessarily on the level of "highest values").

It isn't a given that just because somebody is moral will mean sex with them will be a positive experience.

Too right. That's why practice is so important. ;)

You sure had me fooled; your posts are as long as novels! :smartass:

Bastard. :P

I am getting tangled up as well at just what the direction of discussion is.

[...]

The goal of discussion seems to be getting at what kind of negative effects casual sex has.

Precisely.

I kept asking folks to demonstrate the harm Misty (from my maltreated example <sniff>) did to herself through the sex she had. No one did. I think it's because I was asking the impossible: she did nothing wrong, and casual sex is not necessarily immoral.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I kept asking folks to demonstrate the harm Misty (from my maltreated example <sniff>) did to herself through the sex she had. No one did. I think it's because I was asking the impossible: she did nothing wrong, and casual sex is not necessarily immoral.

Now hold it right there, partner! No one did because you made it impossible by the very example. You could as easily write a story about Fisty, the Italian mobster hit man who kills dozens of people, never gets caught, suffers no negative emotional consequences, rapes Misty, who loves him for it and lets him have some strange on the side while living happily ever after, as a roller in the Bahamas....From which we can deduce that, murdering is peachy keen. You can make that story up and it could even be true on occasion, but usually, in real life, like the prostitute with a heart of gold, that's just not how it works. My experiences have led me to see my initial example as the more common playout of those sorts of actions. I respect that you may have seen otherwise, but yours is not a view that I have seen confirmed by any first or second hand experience.

People invest in their romantic relationships emotionally. Even when they're short, the breakups are one sided, and leave one party, at the least a little more jaded than they were before. It's possible as an individual, to skate through quite a few relationships by always shooting first, but I don't imagine anyone can seriously think they have done so and not left some wreckage in their wake. So that's one harm. Prostitutes don't have hearts of gold because they come from sad, abusive backgrounds, and live in a truly heinous world the likes of which I don't care to describe. They're usually hurt and broken people with even less left of themselves by the end of their "careers." Incidentally, for the record, I've never used one. Likewise, I just haven't seen anything like this world where people get together for a day, a month, or a year and then politely part company with a high five and a "better luck next time," Relationships are sticky messes and sex causes increased intimacy and emotional investment that can be disproportionate to the levels of commitment and interest. When they tear asunder, bits ad pieces get left behind and go missing and damage is done. Certainly they are exceptions, but that's what they are so they don't make for terribly good advice.

Anyways, I'm drunk, so I apologize in advance for any grammar errors or inordinate hyperbole that will embarrass me tomorrow. Night, night.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Anyways, I'm drunk, so I apologize in advance for any grammar errors or inordinate hyperbole that will embarrass me tomorrow.

I'll try to keep this in mind. ;)

Now hold it right there, partner! No one did because you made it impossible by the very example. You could as easily write a story about Fisty, the Italian mobster hit man who kills dozens of people, never gets caught...

I think I was open and upfront in inviting critique as to whether or not my example was impossible for some reason -- whether Misty could or could not exist as a real human being. And though bluecherry would rather not deal in such examples at present, you're still welcome to demonstrate Misty's fundamental impossibility.

...rapes Misty, who loves him for it...

Funny you should mention that. I happen to know of a fictional character who pulls off a very similar trick!

You can make that story up and it could even be true on occasion, but usually, in real life, like the prostitute with a heart of gold, that's just not how it works. My experiences have led me to see my initial example as the more common playout of those sorts of actions. I respect that you may have seen otherwise, but yours is not a view that I have seen confirmed by any first or second hand experience.

I understand. And early on, I responded to you with mention of our surrounding culture and the role that I believe it plays in such matters. You replied that it wasn't of such things you were talking about -- and again, I know that (and knew that at the time).

But here's what I think: I think that as a culture, we are deeply, deeply screwed up when it comes to sexuality. And I think that the general ethos against pleasure, against selfishness, against the body, against humanity, really, etc. -- I think all of that contributes to making our first hand observations of sex and related matters rather difficult to parse. Especially given how intimate these views and experiences tend to be.

So let me tell you of a couple of my intimate experiences at the risk of thoroughly embarrassing myself. The first time I went to a strip club. I'd recently turned eighteen -- the legally requisite age -- and after my friend's birthday a month later, he said that we should go. I was nervous. I was raised to be a "good guy," and a "gentleman," and so forth, and I believed fervently that women ought to be treated in some sort of romantic, elevated way, and not as "objects"... but I had also long-experienced a profound libido and a love of women in a sexual way, and I found it difficult to reconcile these notions.

Well, it was quite an eye-opening experience. I was utterly naive. But what I quickly found at the club (and perhaps rather contrary to expectation) was a sense of... inner peace. For the first time, I was able to indulge the fully sexual side of my nature without apology. Not only without apology, but it was accepted and even encouraged. I, as a man who strongly enjoyed women -- and strongly enjoyed looking at them, and thereby experiencing my own sense of sexuality and virility -- could simply do that, without any excuses or remorse or pretense that I was doing anything other than indulging myself in that way. I tipped the dancers what I was able (I was quite poor at the time, so "not much," and I was quickly broke) and applauded for every routine (which I didn't yet know was... untypical). I enjoyed myself fully, and I expect that it showed, and I was rewarded with smiles and winks and passing conversation.

At some point, one of the dancers with whom I'd been chatting came up to me and asked whether I would want a lapdance. The club was running a "promotion" of "the first thirty seconds free." I had no idea what they were, though I assumed something enjoyable, and it was with great regret that I explained that I had no money... though I would gladly take the free thirty seconds, were it available. She laughed and explained that such an idea was against their policy -- the "free" thing was really just a ruse... but... aw, what the hell! And so, at risk of incurring the anger of her management, she brought me to the back area and soundly disabused me of my ignorance.

Talking with her afterwards, I marveled. To be able to provide such pleasure and have such pleasant exchanges must make her job one of the best available. Again she laughed, and said that if all of her customers were like me, her job would be the best.

Now, I've subsequently been told that "strippers lie." And maybe that's what was going on there? But for all I can tell, she was sincere.

A few years later, I was in a long-term romantic relationship that was coming to an end -- my lover was moving across the country. Before she left, she said to me that of all the things about our relationship she loved, the sex was what she would miss the most. She said that, apart from me, she had never found anyone who treated sex nearly so much as a celebration, of life, of pleasure, of love... and she expected never to find that again. And that gratified me deeply, because indeed, that's how I view it and how I treat it, and I was happy that such moved her as well.

So, maybe I've had atypical experiences? Or maybe I've been too naive to understand what sinister forces were really at play, both in the world and in my own subconscious? I don't know. But the conclusion I've reached is that a healthy attitude to sexuality (and I believe mine to be healthy, or healthier than average at least) leads to positive sexual experiences. So if I've reflected that attitude in Misty's story, it's only because I believe it to be true.

People invest in their romantic relationships emotionally.

I don't believe I've said otherwise. Not long ago, I quoted "In My Life" to demonstrate my attitude towards my past lovers; I've invested in every such relationship I've had -- I am enriched by those experiences, and judge those investments to have paid off.

Even when they're short, the breakups are one sided, and leave one party, at the least a little more jaded than they were before. It's possible as an individual, to skate through quite a few relationships by always shooting first, but I don't imagine anyone can seriously think they have done so and not left some wreckage in their wake. So that's one harm.

I don't know quite what to say to this. If this is your general experience, I'm sad to hear it.

It's not that I've never had a bad break-up; I have, for sure. But do I think they left me "more jaded"? No. I'm the least jaded I think I've ever been, and that's in full view of all of the good and bad I've gone through. And anyways, I don't know that holding sex to these higher standards (or highest) necessarily protects one from a broken heart. In fact, I am certain that it does not.

I just haven't seen anything like this world where people get together for a day, a month, or a year and then politely part company with a high five and a "better luck next time," Relationships are sticky messes and sex causes increased intimacy and emotional investment that can be disproportionate to the levels of commitment and interest. When they tear asunder, bits ad pieces get left behind and go missing and damage is done. Certainly they are exceptions, but that's what they are so they don't make for terribly good advice.

I don't know. This sounds like excellent rationale to avoid intimacy altogether... I mean, you're saying that experiences such as these make us weaker, chip away at us. But I feel stronger for my experiences, and that I've learned from them, and that I've grown by them, and that they have helped to make my life more than just breathing and processing nutritional requirements and excreting... but an actual human life, and one worth living. I don't know that your characterization agrees with the experiences of the other people I know well, either. My best friend, for instance, has kept strong friendships with nearly all of his past lovers. My wife is friends with some of her former lovers, and I hang out with them too. I'm not saying that there can't be a "blood and tears" aspect to relationships -- frankly, I think that there exists in our culture a pervasive view of sex that almost demands it -- but I'm saying it doesn't have to be that way. Fundamentally, sex is healthy and pleasurable and good. And I believe that we could opt to treat it that way... and should, in reason.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think I was open and upfront in inviting critique as to whether or not my example was impossible for some reason -- whether Misty could or could not exist as a real human being. And though bluecherry would rather not deal in such examples at present, you're still welcome to demonstrate Misty's fundamental impossibility.

I didn't mean to imply that you weren't. And there's nothing impossible about Misty's character or the friendly neighborhood prostitute, for that matter.I just find them implausible. whether they would be more common in a more objectivist world is not something I could hazard a guess about. I think of it like smoking. Usually, 3 cigarettes won't hurt you. Occasionally, 3 packs a day for 90 years won't hurt you either. Most of the time, moderate regular smoking over the course of a life time causes painful medical conditions and early death. So I don't advocate smoking. Same with choosing romantic partners based on trivial characteristics. It can turn out well, usually doesn't. We don't get a play book so I don't in anyway mean this to imply that one should wait for the perfect person to skip along, but generally more selective behavior with regard to sex partners works out better than less selective behavior, so I aim in that direction, and recommend the same for others.

Funny you should mention that. I happen to know of a fictional character who pulls off a very similar trick!

So let me tell you of a couple of my intimate experiences at the risk of thoroughly embarrassing myself. The first time I went to a strip club. .... But for all I can tell, she was sincere.

I've known quite a few and they mostly lie to support the coke habits they need to feel comfortable with what they're doing. Whether or not they should feel comfortable or not, that's the case. I've only been to strip clubs 3 times, dragged by friends. All I could think about was the fact that my friends had paid $25 to have this girl pretend to like me for the 3 minute duration of the song. There's nothing real about it. I love naked women, but more the kind that I can interact with. Like anyone in the service industry(waitresses, hookers, etc) that makes their living by convincing people hat they're liked, I don't put a lot of weight in that as being representative of authentic human interaction.

A few years later, I was in a long-term romantic relationship that was coming to an end -- my lover was moving across the country. Before she left, she said to me that of all the things about our relationship she loved, the sex was what she would miss the most. She said that, apart from me, she had never found anyone who treated sex nearly so much as a celebration, of life, of pleasure, of love... and she expected never to find that again. And that gratified me deeply, because indeed, that's how I view it and how I treat it, and I was happy that such moved her as well.

This gratified you, but, assuming that it turned out to be true, it means that all of her future sexual interaction will seem sub par. Is her life really better because she had that one chance to enjoy really great sex? Spending the rest of her life wishing it was you fucking her instead of the guy she loves? For my part, there's no level of enjoyment of physical enjoyment that could justify that.

I don't believe I've said otherwise. Not long ago, I quoted "In My Life" to demonstrate my attitude towards my past lovers; I've invested in every such relationship I've had -- I am enriched by those experiences, and judge those investments to have paid off.

I don't know quite what to say to this. If this is your general experience, I'm sad to hear it.

Maybe I've spent too much time around single women in their 30's, but that is predominantly the case as I have encountered it. Earlier promiscuity and failed relationships are mostly regretted. I would guess it's somewhat different for most men, but for them it often seems that many of those choices are held as wastes of time at best and existants that limit their options going forward, decreasing their capacity and willingness to trust, increasing their skepticism, and frankly wishing that they had donated their "pretty years" to someone more deserving and/or permanent.

It's not that I've never had a bad break-up; I have, for sure. But do I think they left me "more jaded"? No. I'm the least jaded I think I've ever been, and that's in full view of all of the good and bad I've gone through. And anyways, I don't know that holding sex to these higher standards (or highest) necessarily protects one from a broken heart. In fact, I am certain that it does not

No, but people acclimate to pain pretty well by devaluing the source. People take forever to get over their first loves, months to get over their second, and weeks to get over their 3rd. Not necessarily how it has to be, I agree, and maybe not at all what it has been for you, but that's been more or less the case for most people I've known.

I don't know. This sounds like excellent rationale to avoid intimacy altogether...
Not at all. I'm suggesting that intimacy is enhanced by the selectivity of the intimator (Yeah, I just made that up) Careless choices, lack of selectivity, and all that lead to less capacity for intimacy. That girl who's world you rocked; she can't share that experience and her requisite lack of satisfaction with her new lover. Knowing that something way better is out there isn't going to bring her closer to the poor guy she chooses to spend her life with. As much as I'd like to think that I've done a bunch of girls favors with my dick, I can't really believe it, but that's because I relegate physical pleasure to a much lower status than other pleasures in life. I completely agree that mileage may vary and with a different evaluation of sensation as opposed to conceptualization, one might reach a very different conclusion.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I didn't mean to imply that you weren't. And there's nothing impossible about Misty's character or the friendly neighborhood prostitute, for that matter.I just find them implausible. whether they would be more common in a more objectivist world is not something I could hazard a guess about.

Implausible? Perhaps, though I'm not quite sure what to do with that word. I don't find John Galt very "plausible" in the sense that I expect to meet him anytime soon. My wife is quite plausible in that I know her and am married to her, but it took me a while to find her, too (and I haven't found another one since, so I'd better hang on as best I can). Frankly, I find people of high-quality rare in the world. And I do hope that in a "more Objectivist world," or a more rational world generally, people of high-quality would be more common, and people would more commonly be of higher-quality. But yeah, that's somewhat speculative.

I guess my arguments -- in defense of casual sex, for instance -- are my way of fighting for the rationality, and the resultant higher-quality world, that I would like to see. To make the implausible good slightly less "im."

I think of it like smoking. Usually, 3 cigarettes won't hurt you. Occasionally, 3 packs a day for 90 years won't hurt you either. Most of the time, moderate regular smoking over the course of a life time causes painful medical conditions and early death. So I don't advocate smoking.

I'm right there with you. I don't smoke, don't have the slightest interest in starting, and neither do I advocate it. (To be honest? I don't even get drunk.) Despite what some might try to imply, I'm no Hedonist.

For me, the difference is that I see the harm in cigarette use, and while there are (I know it's claimed) pleasures to go along with it, the harm (in terms of stark longevity, risk of disease, overall decrease in health and comeliness, out of pocket expenses, being a slave to a physical habit, the poor smell, the social intrusion of needing to be accommodated with special areas and trays, etc., etc., etc.) does not seem at all worth whatever pleasures are suggested. I believe that to indulge in cigarettes would have the result of making my life worse.

But sex? Where routine cigarette smoking destroys your health, routine sex promotes it. Sex provides pleasure and... apart from certain STDs (which are a risk, but a manageable one), there's no lung cancer to be had, no yellowing of teeth. We could talk about prostitution and the costs of dating, but by and large, orgasm is free. And while the downside of rational sex looks downright miniscule to me next to the downside of cigarette smoking, the upside of rational sex seems huge.

Same with choosing romantic partners based on trivial characteristics. It can turn out well, usually doesn't.

Well fine, but what of "non-trivial characteristics"? And by the way, I suspect you're talking about physical appearance, but do you consider that to be a "trivial characteristic"? I'm not so sure that's true.

Anyways, I can have -- and have had -- relationships with women that were predicated on their intelligence, their kindness, their humor, their personality in total, with physical characteristics included, and as understood by me in total as "attractive." Some of these relationships were "serious" and some were "casual," but none were "trivial."

We don't get a play book so I don't in anyway mean this to imply that one should wait for the perfect person to skip along, but generally more selective behavior with regard to sex partners works out better than less selective behavior, so I aim in that direction, and recommend the same for others.

My Christy was highly selective. She only wanted a Randian hero. I do not believe it worked out better for her than Misty's path, and I wouldn't recommend it.

Anyways, I'm not arguing against selectivity. I wouldn't argue against selectivity if we were talking about anything. Suppose we were talking about people to bowl with. Should you "be selective" in your choice of partners? Absolutely. If you choose 7-10 Split Stalin, you know, you'll probably have an unpleasant bowling experience. But is there any call to have standards higher than "those you expect you'll enjoy bowling with"? Or any charge of immorality if you were to bowl with someone who didn't reflect your "highest values"; was not akin to John Galt in bowling shoes? And if not, then why shouldn't that reflect a similar standard for one's sex partners?

I've known quite a few and they mostly lie to support the coke habits they need to feel comfortable with what they're doing.

Yeah, I'm sure that's the case for some. I've also heard of women using such businesses to put themselves through an education, but I have nothing like statistics to know what's "common" (nor would such statistics really interest me).

Whether or not they should feel comfortable or not, that's the case. I've only been to strip clubs 3 times, dragged by friends. All I could think about was the fact that my friends had paid $25 to have this girl pretend to like me for the 3 minute duration of the song. There's nothing real about it. I love naked women, but more the kind that I can interact with. Like anyone in the service industry(waitresses, hookers, etc) that makes their living by convincing people hat they're liked, I don't put a lot of weight in that as being representative of authentic human interaction.

Heh. I can't tell you very much about the private lives of hookers, but my mother was a waitress for most of my youth. And I can tell you that she was very authentically human. (I'll never mention to her that you equated her profession to hooking. ;) )

And as for there being "nothing real" about a lapdance, say? I disagree. We're perpetually within reality, though we must endeavor to identify things correctly. A stripper who acts in love with you for those three minutes isn't actually in love with you, but that doesn't mean that nothing about such experiences are "real," or that there isn't an opportunity for "authentic human interaction." If she's human (and most I've met are), there's an opportunity.

What is true is that many people (and certainly not just "service industry" people) often put up fronts, or are false. But I try to approach each new situation and each individual relatively untouched by cynicism, and with the benefit of the doubt. For instance, whenever I'm in the market for a car, I hold out hope that the salesman won't turn out to be a vicious, aggressive, horrible person to deal with. I'm nearly always disappointed. Same with discussing things with posters on this board (present company excluded, naturally). I guess I just don't learn. ;)

This gratified you, but, assuming that it turned out to be true, it means that all of her future sexual interaction will seem sub par. Is her life really better because she had that one chance to enjoy really great sex? Spending the rest of her life wishing it was you fucking her instead of the guy she loves? For my part, there's no level of enjoyment of physical enjoyment that could justify that.

This is an interesting angle. But I'll answer: "yes," even if she never finds better or on par (though I hope she does), I think such things are worth it, and are justified. (Though I think "wishing it was me" is possibly overstating the case; with regards to sexual proficiency, there are things former lovers did "better" than my wife on a technical level, but I've never once wished to be with anyone other than her, for any purpose. Actually... I've never wished to be with anyone other than the person I'm with, at any point.)

Suppose my wife died tomorrow through some horrible accident. It's quite possible that I would never again meet anyone I could love so deeply. Well, what of that? Should I foreswear romance eternally thereafter? Should I regret having had such a wonderful experience, to know and love my wife? The idea of regretting the best things we have in life seems almost blasphemous to me. What my wife has given to me is permanent and irrevocable. I am eternally made better because of these experiences.

Here's another story. Another woman I dated for an extended time once contacted me years after that relationship had ended. She was married with children, living in a rural area, and she spoke to me of how she kept the remains of a rose I had given her once, and how it exists permanently among her keepsakes, and that she considers it every once in a while. In her current circumstances, there's not a lot of that kind of typical "romance" to be found, and it inspires her that she once knew a person who thought of her in that fashion, and was moved to give that to her, and who loved her in that way.

You may be suggesting that I damaged that woman, and have caused her to be less satisfied with her current situation? But I don't see it that way at all, and I don't think that she does, either.

Maybe I've spent too much time around single women in their 30's, but that is predominantly the case as I have encountered it. Earlier promiscuity and failed relationships are mostly regretted.

Why should a person regret a failed relationship, I wonder? Because it's "failed"? Perhaps, but there are some women I dated where, had we made the relationship "work" (in the sense that we would still be together today), I would probably be much worse off. The casual nature of those relationships worked much to my benefit, and "failing" in the sense of ending when it made sense to end was a good (or great) thing.

I would guess it's somewhat different for most men, but for them it often seems that many of those choices are held as wastes of time at best and existants that limit their options going forward, decreasing their capacity and willingness to trust, increasing their skepticism, and frankly wishing that they had donated their "pretty years" to someone more deserving and/or permanent.

I don't know what to say to this except that it wasn't my experience. I certainly didn't waste my time. And even where things went "badly" -- leading to temporary impacts on my general trustfulness or skepticism -- I came away with valuable lessons on how better to manage myself, or mistakes that I made. (Never once was my lesson, "I just have to choose a higher quality partner." I never chose a low quality partner to begin with.)

Even if we imagined a person who made just mistake after mistake after mistake in their choice of partners, I wonder... do you suppose that Edison, through all of his initial failures, (or Lincoln, or Grant, or etc.), considered their time wasted?

No, but people acclimate to pain pretty well by devaluing the source. People take forever to get over their first loves, months to get over their second, and weeks to get over their 3rd. Not necessarily how it has to be, I agree, and maybe not at all what it has been for you, but that's been more or less the case for most people I've known.

I don't know about "acclimating to pain" or "devaluing the source," but I also don't know that there's nothing unhealthy about learning to rebound successfully from a relationship-gone-sour.

On the subject of my first love, I've shared enough already! -- that's a tale for another time. :)

Not at all. I'm suggesting that intimacy is enhanced by the selectivity of the intimator (Yeah, I just made that up) Careless choices, lack of selectivity, and all that lead to less capacity for intimacy.

Let's agree that "careless choices" and "lack of selectivity" are apt to work out badly. I'm not advocating either of those things. I'm instead making the case for careful selection for the purpose of casual sex. Values? Yes! Attraction (and sex) based on values! But "highest values" as a requirement, else immorality? No!

That girl who's world you rocked; she can't share that experience and her requisite lack of satisfaction with her new lover.

But anyways, this isn't making the case for taking care and being selective. If I was such a high value for my lover, then she did right (or closer to right) by Rand's standard in being intimate with me. Instead, here, you might even be read as implying that she should have initially chosen someone of low (or lower) quality, so that her new lover would seem like a stud in comparison.

On reflection, some of these arguments... seem to be against having a great partner, because once you do, should that partnership end, its very greatness soils everything afterwards. But you can't mean that, can you?

Knowing that something way better is out there isn't going to bring her closer to the poor guy she chooses to spend her life with.

Or... suppose that being with me, and the wonderful times that we shared, helped to make her a better person, generally? So that the "poor guy" she winds up with is unknowingly in my debt? Here's a fun fact: Though she was not an Objectivist, it was through that lover that I came to read Ayn Rand. Is my wife "better" than this past lover? Does my wife reflect "higher values"? I would say 'yes.' But I will always be a better man for those previous experiences, and I could not have the relationship I currently have with my wife if it hadn't been for that history.

As much as I'd like to think that I've done a bunch of girls favors with my dick, I can't really believe it, but that's because I relegate physical pleasure to a much lower status than other pleasures in life. I completely agree that mileage may vary and with a different evaluation of sensation as opposed to conceptualization, one might reach a very different conclusion.

Since explicitly rejecting a mind/body split, I've come to embrace pleasures both mental and physical. I like art, love, sunshine, beautiful women, good food, restful sleep, sport, sex, problem solving, and so on. Putting it altogether for myself, I like life. But life isn't just a buzzword to me, or an aphorism. It's those things. Life is art, love, sunshine, beautiful women, etc. I would be doing myself a great disservice not to take what pleasure I can, while I have it, or to enjoy those pleasures so deeply, so fully as I am able.

Edited by DonAthos
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Continuing to think about and reflect upon this topic...

I've been wondering about my first experience at that strip club, and what it would have been like if I had gone there with a different attitude and expectations.

In real life I went at the request of my friend, and I may not have gone without his interest and encouragement; like I said, I was nervous, and moreover I was conflicted about how my "carnal" interests could be reconciled with my aspirations to be a "good" human being, and better than the supposedly base (Hedonistic) man who cares about physical pleasures and so forth.

But instead of merely ambivalent, suppose I had been actively hostile to his intentions? Suppose he'd had to "drag me there"... and suppose I had prejudged the strippers I would later meet to be necessarily immoral, and irrational...

I wouldn't have tipped or applauded their performances. I wouldn't have smiled. I would have rebuffed any attempt at conversation, and I would have clearly communicated my fundamental stance with my eyes and body language. No, whatever possibilities may have existed for "authentic human interaction" would certainly have been torpedoed. Interactions would have become stiff and formal. Instead of being somewhat an oddity there -- the naive-but-delighted young man in a bit of a wonderland -- I would have been an average customer, or maybe something worse. I would have subconsciously guided the entire affair into a reconfirmation of my worst fears, like the child who has his arms crossed and face set, determined not to enjoy the birthday party -- he probably won't, for all the good that will do him.

Would I have been approached for a lapdance? Almost certainly -- that's the job. But I would have been curt in my refusal, even while ignorant of what I was turning down specifically, and that would have been that. There would have been no unlikely arrangement for a free dance, no subsequent conversation where I would have been paid the compliment of being the kind of customer to make her job wonderful. For I certainly would no longer be that kind of customer. What I hope was a highlight of her day, and maybe longer than that, would never have occurred. She would have never known what it was like to have that specific interaction and experience with me, and I'm arrogant enough to believe that her life would be the worse for it.

But we're selfish, yes? What do we care whether I made some stripper's day (or life) any better at all? But what about my life...? That I remember this incident, all these years later, and remember it in such a light as I do may provide some information. Had I not taken this step more along a path where I would ultimately come to view sexuality in the fundamentally positive light that I do now, perhaps I would never have had the romantic relationships I finally did. If this (now) negative experience at a strip club would have reinforced my woeful, implicit beliefs that there's something essentially wrong with desiring sex or pleasure, then I have to imagine that my future lover would never have thought to describe sex with me as being a "celebration" of anything at all. Perhaps I wouldn't even have had that relationship. And without that experience, and others like it, how would I ever have been able to become the man who could today love my wife like I love her?

But in truth, it's too, too much to try to approach "butterfly effect" scenarios such as these. But I'm glad to have had the experience that I did, and believe that I would have lost out in ways small and potentially great, if it had happened in some lesser way, or not happened at all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I guess my arguments -- in defense of casual sex, for instance -- are my way of fighting for the rationality, and the resultant higher-quality world, that I would like to see. To make the implausible good slightly less "im."

I understand that, and holding it in my mind, I think that may be why we seem to be talking past one another to a certain extent. I'm trying to apply your ideas to how things are, at least within the context of my own knowledge and experiences and they aren't working very well for me.

I think we might be at the point where we(or I) have little left to add that wouldn't just be a rewording of previous arguments but I also recognize that there is quite a bit that I haven't responded to in previous posts, due to time constraints and not lack interest in the conversation or evasion. So if there are any questions or ideas which you feel that I ignored or left unanswered, which you think were especially salient to your understanding of my position or yours, then I would be happy to respond.

Otherwise I wanted to thank you for the conversation. I have enjoyed hearing your perspective on a pretty complex issue...one which I admittedly still struggle with. Despite what you may think about me, I do see value in and reason to enjoy casual sex and sex for its own sake and have even engaged in it myself. I have also, though, seen quite a good deal of harm attached to it with people I have known as well as in my own life and integrating the two is not something I have so far been able to be successful with. If what you have is and has worked for you, then don't let me talk you out of it....except the stripper part. :) I've known quite a few and am even related to one and I can nearly promise you that your impression of that is incorrect. Strippers Lie! ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Otherwise I wanted to thank you for the conversation.

Likewise. I appreciate it (and we can always pick it up again in the future).

Despite what you may think about me, I do see value in and reason to enjoy casual sex and sex for its own sake and have even engaged in it myself.

I understand that what I'm about to say would probably make for a thread in its own right, but I try not to draw too many deep conclusions about people based on their professed beliefs alone, and especially in the context of a discussion like this where we're trying to work out complex and controversial matters. More than anything, what I think about you thus far is that you're a fair and thoughtful person to talk to, and that inclines me to look forward to discussing things with you in the future.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

DonAthos, not even I would be surly with strippers like that (awkward? a little uncomfortable? maybe even a little grossed out depending on exactly what is involved perhaps? Not surly though). XD I know somebody who was a stripper for a few years and I never gave her any kind of stink eye about her job while she was employed as a stripper. We've been on pretty good terms really. Depending on how closely somebody treads the line between just sexy versus outright pornographic in what they are doing, I'm not sure even I would say there was anything inherently wrong with stripping. (Not that I think all porn is wrong either, the conditions of what is ok versus what may not be for porn is another topic though.) There are notable differences between stripping and sex after all, like that stripping is a one sided activity.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are notable differences between stripping and sex after all, like that stripping is a one sided activity.

I agree that there are differences (and even "notable" ones) between sex and stripping, and sex within the context of producing a pornographic film against a personal relationship, and sex with oneself versus others, and sex within the variable and individual contexts of any given relationship. There are also commonalities.

To me, the primary commonality is these activities, as with all others I endorse or pursue, is: what I do, I do for the sake of my own life. For my happiness, for my pleasure, for my experience, for me.

And if I'm ever to agree with you that there's anything immoral with any broad category of sex act (i.e., a "Thou Shalt Not"), then I must be shown that to engage in that act is inherently self-destructive -- it must demonstrably work against my long-term survival, or pleasures, or happiness, or overall experience of life. That is my requirement and threshold, and nothing else will suffice.

If I've understood you correctly throughout this thread, you seem to have two fundamental claims with regards to "casual sex" (which is taken as being all that sex engaged without regard to Rand's call for sex as only being proper as a response to one's "highest values"):

1) That it pays a kind of compliment to the one you're having sex with -- specifically the highest compliment possible -- and thus it would be wrong to pay this compliment to anyone who was not actually reflective of your highest values.

2) That it would "disconnect" the "mental and physical considerations" of sex, and "[decrease] how much pleasure you are capable of experiencing as a whole person."

I find both of these approaches mistaken or untrue, and here's why:

Number One.

It's true that I'm paying a necessary compliment of a kind by engaging in sex with a person, but the baseline compliment (worded roughly) is this: "you are such that I can enjoy sex with." So far as I can tell, that's really the only thing that's required. After all, I'm not sleeping with a person for their sake, but for my own -- for my enjoyment. So what's required to "enjoy sex"? A certain sex appeal, certainly -- which is a form of attraction. And whence sexual attraction? I believe it to be a response to values, and where physical "good looks" are concerned, I believe that we find them "good" because we typically judge them to be reflective of one's inner virtues and values. (There's much more to say on this subject, especially given the nature of this attraction as a kind of "emotional evaluation," but we can come back to it.)

So, at minimum, I believe that what is required for sex is: a sexual attraction to a person. A belief that one can enjoy the sex act -- find pleasure in it, and sees no immediate or long-term source of threat (i.e. to pursue this will not destroy one's exclusive relationships; it will not cause disease or pregnancy; etc.) -- is belief enough to license its pursuit, all else being equal. And in so pursuing, the desire for sex (i.e. for its pleasure, for its enjoyment all around) specifies the nature of the "compliment" being paid: I desire you for sex, because I believe that to have sex with you would be enjoyable.

And that? Is a nice compliment, but it is not the highest compliment possible of man. Or at least not of its nature. Even within my relationship with my wife, I have "meant" different things when we've slept with one another at different times. Our lovemaking on our wedding night paid her a compliment far beyond the first time we slept together, which was actually fairly casual (we did not yet know whether we were "meant" for one another, or reflected one another's "highest values," in the way we eventually came to understand). Just as I mean something completely different when I hug my best friend versus when I hug, say, a new-but-friendly acquaintance, though the physical activity remains the same, the "complimentary" nature of my lovemaking does not always remain the same. And actually, through marrying my wife, and consenting to raise a child with her, and etc., I have paid her far deeper and more nuanced and more specific compliments than sex alone, in and of itself, could ever do.

After all, it is not true that, of all of those for whom we feel sexual attraction, we thereby simultaneously judge them to be worthy of a life-long partnership, or to serve as the nucleus for the demanding responsibilities of raising a family. Sexual attraction -- the basis of sex -- pays some compliment of its nature, but not all, and not the most.

Number Two

I've already taken pains to demonstrate the fault to this argument. Primarily, it seems to suggest that our capacities for appreciating greatness (in pleasures physical and spiritual) are diminished when we use them to consider anything "lesser" than the highest possibilities of its type, which I find absolutely untrue in any other context we could supply. Eating a mediocre steak does not make one incapable of enjoying a great steak; seeing a lousy movie does not necessarily render one insensitive to a masterpiece. (And actually, it might even be argued that having some understanding for the "range of quality" -- even to the negative -- helps one to appreciate the greatness of the great.) For some reason, sex is held to be "unique" in this respect, though that seems much to me like special pleading, and furthermore inconsistent with my personal experiences.

Further, I cannot grasp the notion that this would be true, and yet there would be nothing to fear from masturbation, which I find to be the exemplar of the "disconnection" we otherwise fear through casual sex.

Elsewhere you've said:

I just see masturbation as getting the physical aspect of sex without there being a partner to add any mental considerations.

And yet it's not my partner's mind I'm primarily concerned for -- it's my own. And if the contention is (as it initially appeared to be), that to have sex without incorporating these "mental considerations" -- to "disconnect" them, just as we recognize that masturbation does in fact -- is to diminish my long-term capacity for pleasure... then I think we'd have to regard masturbation as absolutely evil, and far, far worse than the sort of examples of "casual sex" I've provided throughout the thread.

If, on the other hand, your point is that sex with a partner necessarily means "mental considerations," meaning only that one needs to take into account that one's partner is human, and thus has a mind...? Then that's true, but it does us no good in helping to sort out good sex from bad, because "casual sex" (as has been stated and restated to my exhaustion) is neither "indiscriminate sex," nor "sex with awful people," nor "sex with mindless people," nor necessarily anything other than what it is.

Casual sex can be sex with a great person, though not the greatest. Sex within the context of an enjoyable affair, though with no plans or desire for an eternal partnership. Sex for mutual pleasure, for the enjoyment of company, etc., etc., etc., and not with Stalin, nor with a worthless slacker, nor in a burning building, nor any of the other inessential poisons that are continually added to make the resultant mixture seem toxic.

It is the best case of casual sex that must be shown to be destructive, if casual sex is, of itself, destructive. And if it cannot be done -- and I hold that it cannot be done -- then there is instructive meaning there. Because there is nothing wrong with good sex with a good partner, with great sex with a great partner, even outside of one's "highest values."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, at minimum, I believe that what is required for sex is: a sexual attraction to a person. A belief that one can enjoy the sex act -- find pleasure in it, and sees no immediate or long-term source of threat (i.e. to pursue this will not destroy one's exclusive relationships; it will not cause disease or pregnancy; etc.) -- is belief enough to license its pursuit, all else being equal

Hmm, this line made me wonder if a mutual sexual attraction - as opposed to saying someone looks attractive without any real desire for sex - may be sufficient for a romantic relationship, so any description you try to make here of a casual (sexual) relationship may as well be a romantic relationship. The other option is to literally hold back any mental considerations, which you are not advocating. If you are having sex with a person you are sexually attracted to, my thought is that the relationship ought to be pursued in terms of romance, especially since you are even saying the supposed person is a pretty great person. There is even room to say that the person is a highest value in your context; not highest in the Platonic way, but highest now. In your description of sexual attraction here, what is lacking for a potential romantic relationship? You didn't mention personality you really mesh with, but I don't see how you'd even be sexually interested if there was a personality clash. You also didn't mention reciprocation, although if there is no reciprocation of attraction, no sex will even happen. As far as I see here, if you want to remove the relationship aspect, you are also removing the aspects needed for sexual attraction.

I wonder, then, how would you define a romantic relationship? Is it desiring a life-long partnership that is also sexual (to differentiate it from life-long friendships)? The discussion so far has been about casual sex as sex with people you aren't in a relationship with, so it would be difficult to come to any conclusions if anyone differs significantly in what a romantic relationship is. I get the sense that for you, only a relationship hopefully going towards marriage and exclusivity - neither of which I see as relevant - really counts as romantic.

Edited by Eiuol
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Aw hell. I wasn't expecting such a long reply to such a short post. ;^; Actually, that's kind of the story of this thread - I just keep getting surprised at how large a volume of text this thing generates.

About the commonalities thing, sometimes in this thread it is hard to tell when something somebody says is supposed to apply widely or not. In case you wrote about the strip club thing again with the idea that if one opposes casual sex they must also both oppose stripping and be really hostile toward strippers I figured I'd clarify that this wasn't so. It could perhaps be that you could disapprove of casual sex and yet still not find a strip club a miserable den of sin that you break out into hives from just entering. :P

"1) That it pays a kind of compliment to the one you're having sex with -- specifically the highest compliment possible -- and thus it would be wrong to pay this compliment to anyone who was not actually reflective of your highest values."

That's not quite accurate. It isn't inherently saying much complimentary that somebody would be willing to have sex with you. How complimentary it may be for somebody to be willing to have sex with somebody else depends on the standards of that somebody. If somebody was willing to have sex with pretty much anything that had two legs and moved then it isn't saying much that you meet that person's standards and so they are willing to have sex with you.

It's kind of like how making the sounds "aw - sum" don't have any built in meaning, the meaning depends on what you decide those sounds should signify and sticking to using those sounds in a way that comports with that meaning you determined for them. If you start using those sounds for a zillion other things then the meaning gets lost. In language we'd probably solve this problem by taking some other sounds to make up a new word to take over the meaning that the old word was supposed to be for. There is nothing in particular about one set of sounds versus another that makes one set any more suited than another to mean one thing or another. So, as long as you can get the new word to catch on and get used widely then it isn't too big a deal if a word gets degraded.

With sex it is another story though. What else is there that people can do to cause physical pleasure in one another that even rivals that of sexual stimulation? Without an equally good physically pleasurable medium to connect with one's top emotional pleasure they can give and receive then there's just nothing one can do instead to get that kind of integrated experience . One would just be SOL.

So, the issue isn't that sex IS of some inherently high complimentary nature, it's that if you don't make it so you lose out on something really great. Unless you've got some equally good physical pleasure medium I've been unable to think of thus far.

The thing about sex versus masturbation is that sex does by its nature involve another mind while masturbation does not. Since another mind is involved in sex then acting like there isn't one is ridiculous. That's where a problem may come in, with how one deals with the other minds that are there in sex. When there is no other mind there then one can't have any problems with other minds involved. Is this clear enough or should I further elaborate on why stimulating oneself is okay but having really minimal standards for the minds in those one participates in sex with gets problematic? I think your second supposition of what I meant is pretty accurate to what I've been trying to get at with sex versus masturbation. Your further point is also correct that the question of what are sufficient standards for sex and why still depends on something else then. So, the question of sexual standards reverts back to the earlier stuff to sort it out. The "why" of these standards I attempted to explain again earlier in this post. The "what" of exactly what those standards should be I talked about in another post not long ago - if you don't know which I'm talking about just say so and I'll point it out since I'd rather not have to redo that subject again if it isn't needed. It feels like I've been typing this post for hours as it is. D;

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hmm, this line made me wonder if a mutual sexual attraction - as opposed to saying someone looks attractive without any real desire for sex - may be sufficient for a romantic relationship

All right. I'm going to take care here to try to describe exactly what I mean. (Please forgive the novel-length work which may ensue. ;) )

In the first place, I think that the word "attractive" is important. In my opinion, there's an important difference between the recognition that someone is "good looking" and finding a person "attractive" (even "physically attractive"). The example of Supermodel Stalin is instructive here. Supermodel Stalin is certainly good looking (i.e. "is a supermodel") but is not attractive, on account of being Stalin. In my life, I have found that my own experience of attraction will change, depending on my knowledge of the object of consideration, so that I have ultimately found attractive some whom I might not have thought particularly "good looking" at first sight. Likewise, there are some conventionally "good looking" people that I ultimately find repulsive, when I know what they are like more fundamentally.

My wife is no supermodel, and yet no human alive is more attractive to me.

So yes, I believe that a mutual sexual attraction is certainly sufficient for a romantic relationship, or the beginnings of one at least (and if it continues indefinitely, it might well be experienced as one unbroken chain of attraction; perhaps "love at first sight"). If you see Supermodel Stalin, knowing nothing else about her, and find her attractive -- that is well, and probably as it should be. If you pursue her (as is reasonable, hence "attractive"), and you learn about her in the process, you come to understand that she is not the good person that perhaps her good looks have suggested; she is a rosy apple with a rotted core. And I believe that your experience of attraction will change accordingly.

...so any description you try to make here of a casual (sexual) relationship may as well be a romantic relationship.

Oh certainly. bluecherry tried to draw some distinction between the "casual dates" I'd been describing (people attracted to each other, like each other, dinner + movie + sex) and "romantic dates" which are... in some unspecified manner different, yet now allowable and proper. But I do not recognize that distinction, and I suspect that it does not exist in reality.

The other option is to literally hold back any mental considerations, which you are not advocating.

The only mental consideration I advocate is keeping full context -- or as full as a person can muster -- at all times. Thereafter it's about acting in your own best interest, as best as you can determine it.

If you are having sex with a person you are sexually attracted to, my thought is that the relationship ought to be pursued in terms of romance, especially since you are even saying the supposed person is a pretty great person.

Rather, if you are having sex with a person you are sexually attracted to, I would argue that this relationship is being pursued in terms of romance. "Romance" is not some pixie dust that we sprinkle on a copulating couple to give their mutual interest moral/philosophical legitimacy. Having sex with a person you find attractive is acting in romantic fashion.

Among the remaining separate questions are: must this person be the best person you know? the best person you can imagine? must you plan to spend your life with this person? Must you see this person to the exclusion of all others? Etc.

If you review the examples I've provided... for instance, I believe at one point I asked about meeting an attractive business woman at an airport, and spending one wonderful night with her, knowing that you would never see her again (or at least that it is unlikely). That one night is certainly a romantic encounter. The relationship is a romantic one. And yet it is simultaneously an example of casual sex. It is a mistake (and a critical one, in the context of this discussion) to think that these categories are mutually exclusive.

There is even room to say that the person is a highest value in your context; not highest in the Platonic way, but highest now.

"Suzy was the highest value in my context last night; Amy is my highest value right now; and Joanna will be my highest value tomorrow." ;)

I want to take Rand at what she meant, to the best of my ability. And while I agree with you that there's certainly a way in which your interpretation expresses the truth of what I'm saying (we must always seek to do the best for ourselves in our particular situation), I do not believe that this captures what Rand meant by the quote upon which this discussion is predicated:

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

If your interpretation was correct, after all, don't you think that you and I and bluecherry and others would have found common ground comparatively quickly? Where Christy and Misty were concerned, we only had to recognize that Misty's behavior was a-ok, and that Christy was errantly seeking "highest value" in a "Platonic way" and ignoring the reality of her context. But in looking for ways to show Misty wrong and Christy right, we've been tacitly giving credence to the idea that Rand meant more than this with "highest values."

Or maybe I misunderstand what you mean? If so, let's explore this further.

In your description of sexual attraction here, what is lacking for a potential romantic relationship?

Nothing at all. It's true that what I'm saying will ultimately have the advantage of seeming sensible, and maybe even "obvious," if I'm right. ;) We should pursue sexually that which we find sexually attractive. This is all the province of "romance," and more widely that of "love." (You'll recall how I was probing at the boundaries of "aesthetics" in another thread? I suspect that this all ultimately falls under that umbrella, as well.)

You didn't mention personality you really mesh with, but I don't see how you'd even be sexually interested if there was a personality clash. You also didn't mention reciprocation, although if there is no reciprocation of attraction, no sex will even happen. As far as I see here, if you want to remove the relationship aspect, you are also removing the aspects needed for sexual attraction.

There can be personality clashes that aren't so divisive or fundamental (or readily understood) as to render someone unattractive, immediately if ever. This is true in "Platonic" friendship as well, is it not? You might have a friend, or several, with whom you have a "personality clash" of one kind or another. Probably these clashes won't run very deeply, given the comparative depth of your feelings of friendship -- or if they do, then probably the friendship won't last for very long.

And I don't "want to remove the relationship aspect," which actually cannot be "removed" at all. ;) There's always a "relationship," but the question is: what is the nature of the relationship?

Finally, there are other considerations you're not... considering. Let's bring this together:

With the chance meeting in the airport -- a relationship quickly develops predicated on sexual attraction. That attraction, itself, is reflective of deeper values and etc., and they certainly suggest the possibility for everything you might desire in a long-term "romantic relationship." But there might be personality clashes as well, whether large or small. We don't know that right away, and our initial attraction is not necessarily a reliable guide for long-term action ("looks" can "be deceiving"). Nor is there necessarily time to find those things out before you're caught up in the passion of the moment, or you have to make a decision about whether to sleep with this woman or not.

Now... if you were to date this woman over a long time, perhaps you would learn certain things about her which you would find annoying. Or maybe problems would run deeper than that? Maybe you find that you enjoy spending one night a week with her, but not seven? Maybe you've found that after spending half a year in her company, you no longer feel the same passion for her as you did originally? Or maybe you've met someone with whom you'd prefer to spend that time?

Or in the case of the one night affair, you might yet judge that nothing stands in the way of a permanent romance of yourselves (based on the available data), but other factors/values such as your careers call you apart, and the investments you've made in friendships, in family, in building lives in separate places. Perhaps this is yet worth it -- this one night in such company, pursuing such pleasurable ends -- and yet to uproot everything else for the sake of pursuing this relationship would be a sacrifice.

In these cases, it might not be in your interest to pursue a life-long partnership; your affairs may be rather more "casual" than that. And yet they are not immoral.

I wonder, then, how would you define a romantic relationship?

There's no need to "wonder"! :)

...I find that romance is much like a friendship, and predicated on many-to-most of the same values. And a great friendship is much like any other deep love, such as my life-long love for my best friend, or Samwise Gamgee's love for Frodo. The telling difference between friendship and romantic relations is a mutual interest in sexuality; i.e. shared "physical" attraction (or attraction that expresses itself physically, at least).."

...both friendship and physical appeal are a species of love. They are not "romantic love" apart from each other, and when you put them together, the experience-in-total is different... yet I believe that this combination does fundamentally describe romantic love. (Just as, if you have the ingredients of a cake, and eat them separately, you will not thereby experience "the cake." And yet... a cake is the combination of those ingredients.)

Check this out. Taken from the Ayn Rand Lexicon, on the subject of "Love," from "Philosophy and Sense of Life":

All right. So Rand stipulates that she's describing "romantic love." But what does she actually describe? In what way is this description dissimilar from the most profound ("non-romantic") friendships a person can have, which are also a form of "love"? I contend: there is no difference. (Go ahead and read it again with that context/critique in mind; I'll wait...) At least, not per this discussion of "romantic love"... but elsewhere, Rand does note the key element.

From "Of Living Death," emphasis added:

Sexual attraction/desire (or "physical appeal") is the sine qua non of romantic love.

Is [your definition of a romantic relationship] desiring a life-long partnership that is also sexual (to differentiate it from life-long friendships)?

So my answer to this is no -- there's no stipulation that you must seek a "life-long partnership" -- but there is a sexual requirement. You could have a romance in a day, in a week, etc.

The discussion so far has been about casual sex as sex with people you aren't in a relationship with, so it would be difficult to come to any conclusions if anyone differs significantly in what a romantic relationship is. I get the sense that for you, only a relationship hopefully going towards marriage and exclusivity - neither of which I see as relevant - really counts as romantic.

This isn't about "romance." Romance is not the opposite of "casual sex," and isn't what this discussion has been about. bluecherry introduced this idea of "romance" as making a dividing line between the kinds of dates Misty was involved in, in my example (which, recall, she found on the wrong side of some moral line or other), and other somehow more-proper dates. But that idea of romance is a fantasy element. It has nothing to do with our discussion.

"Casual sex" here has not been about "sex with people you aren't in a relationship with." There's no such thing, anyways: we all "have a relationship with" all those with whom we come into contact.

Instead, "casual sex" remains as it's been the entire time, as I'd explained it here:

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

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

That's the source of dispute, not "romance," which is a red herring, and in my estimation, in this conversation, has been an attempt to divide supposedly "good sex" from "bad" by mystical means.

So why not just take the subject head on instead? Here's my case, and this is the entirety:

Good sex with good people is good.

That's it. No "romance." No mention of "relationships," whether long-term or exclusive or what-have-you. No mention of "highest values." Just that "good sex with good people is good." It thus does exclude Stalin as a partner (and renders the tiresome objection of "indiscrimination" impotent), but it upholds Misty's experiences -- which was one of many, many attempts to try to exemplify specifically what I've been talking about. Should anyone wish to show the self-destructive nature of Misty's actions, they are still welcome to try, or that of any of the other examples I've provided. But this idea of trying to figure out what "romance" is, is not going to help us answer the questions that have been raised.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Aw hell. I wasn't expecting such a long reply to such a short post. ;^; Actually, that's kind of the story of this thread - I just keep getting surprised at how large a volume of text this thing generates.

Yes, well, that seems to be the nature of trying to understand complex things for oneself, and not taking authoritative statements as the given, and especially when they seem to disagree with one's life, as lived.

About the commonalities thing, sometimes in this thread it is hard to tell when something somebody says is supposed to apply widely or not. In case you wrote about the strip club thing again with the idea that if one opposes casual sex they must also both oppose stripping and be really hostile toward strippers I figured I'd clarify that this wasn't so.

Are you quite sure that was my meaning?

Or should it be considered that I was in the midst of a discussion with someone who'd said the following, re: strippers?

I've known quite a few and they mostly lie to support the coke habits they need to feel comfortable with what they're doing. Whether or not they should feel comfortable or not, that's the case. I've only been to strip clubs 3 times, dragged by friends. All I could think about was the fact that my friends had paid $25 to have this girl pretend to like me for the 3 minute duration of the song. There's nothing real about it. I love naked women, but more the kind that I can interact with. Like anyone in the service industry(waitresses, hookers, etc) that makes their living by convincing people hat they're liked, I don't put a lot of weight in that as being representative of authentic human interaction.

I think if you read what I've written with that context considered, it should make more sense.

"1) That it pays a kind of compliment to the one you're having sex with -- specifically the highest compliment possible -- and thus it would be wrong to pay this compliment to anyone who was not actually reflective of your highest values."

That's not quite accurate.

[...]

So, the issue isn't that sex IS of some inherently high complimentary nature, it's that if you don't make it so you lose out on something really great. Unless you've got some equally good physical pleasure medium I've been unable to think of thus far.

Okay, so sex has the capacity to pay this "highest compliment," but does not necessarily do so. I understand and accept this adjustment to your position. Furthermore, I think it's clear that I agree with you. And yet -- what of my analysis of your argument, that adjustment notwithstanding?

Are you saying that if I have sex with someone outside of that "high complimentary nature," that I lose the ability to use it in that manner in other situations? You say, "Without an equally good physically pleasurable medium to connect with one's top emotional pleasure they can give and receive then there's just nothing one can do instead to get that kind of integrated experience . One would just be SOL."

But this is speaking like one has to choose between having those kinds of experiences -- sex connected with one's top emotional pleasure -- or casual sex, but that one cannot have them both in his lifetime. The term "SOL" I expect means "shit out of luck" -- yes? But what luck am I out of precisely, and by what means?

I've had casual sex with women who did not reflect my highest values -- that was sex that was not connected with my top emotional pleasure (but still enjoyable according to their own merits). But with my wife? I have what you describe. So when did my luck run out, how did it happen, and how have I been unaware of it all this time?

The thing about sex versus masturbation is that sex does by its nature involve another mind while masturbation does not.

Okay... this continued use of "mind" is somewhat strange for me, but I'm willing to keep going. I think it's another "person," really, but they do have a mind, so... carry on.

Since another mind is involved in sex then acting like there isn't one is ridiculous.

'Kay... but I think we're okay, since I don't believe I'm talking about "acting like there isn't" another person (or "mind") involved in sex.

That's where a problem may come in, with how one deals with the other minds that are there in sex.

Alright. I'll wait to see what this leads to. But right now we have: "potential problems" with having sex with another human. (Er, mind.) And I agree. AIDS is one such potential problem.

When there is no other mind there then one can't have any problems with other minds involved.

That stands to reason.

Is this clear enough or should I further elaborate on why stimulating oneself is okay but having really minimal standards for the minds in those one participates in sex with gets problematic?

Please observe: this isn't about "having really minimal standards."

I mean, should you provide a further response, would you mind signalling to me somewhere that you understand that this isn't the issue -- that I'm not arguing for "really minimal standards"? That this discussion is not about "highest values" vs "really minimal standards"? That there seems to be a very large gap between those two conceptions?

But on the difference between masturbation and sex with a partner, this explanation is clear enough. The only sticking point is that your reasoning in your first post in this thread (and possibly here as well) makes it seem like to experience the pleasure of sex apart from the emotional pleasure that one can theoretically have during sex-at-its-best represents "disconnecting" them, and that it threatens to "[decrease] how much pleasure you are capable of experiencing as a whole person" in the "long run." And if that remains your point of view (or if it ever was), then I can understand why masturbation would avoid the potential problems of having sex "with another mind"... but I don't understand how it would avoid the problems of disconnecting your own experience of that emotional pleasure from the physical pleasure of sex. Because if you're masturbating, then those two types of pleasures are completely disconnected.

I think your second supposition of what I meant is pretty accurate to what I've been trying to get at with sex versus masturbation. Your further point is also correct that the question of what are sufficient standards for sex and why still depends on something else then. So, the question of sexual standards reverts back to the earlier stuff to sort it out. The "why" of these standards I attempted to explain again earlier in this post. The "what" of exactly what those standards should be I talked about in another post not long ago - if you don't know which I'm talking about just say so and I'll point it out since I'd rather not have to redo that subject again if it isn't needed. It feels like I've been typing this post for hours as it is. D;

You may have to point out what you're referring to here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's it. No "romance." No mention of "relationships," whether long-term or exclusive or what-have-you. No mention of "highest values." Just that "good sex with good people is good." It thus does exclude Stalin as a partner (and renders the tiresome objection of "indiscrimination" impotent), but it upholds Misty's experiences -- which was one of many, many attempts to try to exemplify specifically what I've been talking about. Should anyone wish to show the self-destructive nature of Misty's actions, they are still welcome to try, or that of any of the other examples I've provided. But this idea of trying to figure out what "romance" is, is not going to help us answer the questions that have been raised.

Every time you mention "Supermodel Stalin" I think of this (it's a grammar joke, the best kind of joke!): http://allday.cc/wp-...ford-Comma.jpeg

Anyways, the whole mention about romance in my previous post is how it seemed there might not be anything to indicate "casual" sex. You explained what you meant by casual sex, but I'm not really seeing how the word casual is even conveying anything unique. I am not seeing how your usage of the word casual actually indicates non-romantic relations, in addition to you agreeing that sexual attraction (with your explanation) is sufficient for a relationship to be romantic. If anything, romance seems to be indicator of when sex is appropriate with a person, especially since sexual attraction looks to be the indicator of when romance is appropriate with a person. So, what is even casual about what you're discussing? Could a full sexual attraction even happen when the other person is not a highest value? I'm not saying "should or shouldn't", I'm saying I'm doubtful you would be attracted enough anyway. This is where that quote of Francisco back on page one is relevant again. The only way I see that happening is if you try to take out one of the elements of sexual attraction, namely the mind of the other person (hence my mention of the meat puppets from Neuromancer).

I was getting at discussing borderline cases earlier, but here at least, we're not talking about any outstanding or obscure circumstances. Your airport example is a special circumstance, so I don't want to get into that one.

Edited by Eiuol
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sex as a romp, guilt-free and uncommited. Sort of a healthy gym work-out,

leaving both of you glowing. Great, so far.

But I don't know. It's more, in my experience.

Sex always involved intimacy, which meant feeling, and ultimately, thought -

self-examination, and introspection, mainly.

Even (I repeat) when that was the last result I wanted.

Maybe, in my escapades, I have never known 'casual' sex.

Is there really such a thing? Where's the passionate emotion? The interest

in another human? What are we distancing ourselves from? It's personal, dammit.

In truth, I really don't know whether to feel envy, or sympathy, for anyone

who experiences it differently.

Edited by whYNOT
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just ask yourself a question:

When you sleep with someone, is having sex about the sex, the person, or do you want to have sex with that person?

Is it about rubbing one off or do you want to sleep with her specifically? If it is about the sex and the target doesn’t matter, that is your hedonism (the playboy). If it is all about the person then that is the spiritualist (altruist) that thinks sex is selfless and about something that is not your happiness.

If you want to have sex with someone specific, well now you’re on the right track. It’s about what you want and the person that fills that role. It’s a union between your desires and values and the person that fulfills them. You’re also fulfilling that role for the other. Passion is the result.

This does not mean that you are condemned to be a monk if you can’t sleep with the perfect person every night but it does mean you shouldn’t settle for something simply to gratify yourself. If you think Hank Rearden became celibate after Dagny hooked up with Galt I’ve got news for you. Free of his family and clear of conscious I’m sure he would live large and in charge. He would not have settled for anyone but he would have had any number of guilt free encounters as well. Moral of the story, it’s about quality over quantity. Both are good but the first is the most important.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I thought to draw some of my own partial conclusions on Ayn Rand and sexuality,

since this thread has wound down (and I apologize if put a damper

on Eiuol's and DonAthos' conversation - they are each always worth reading).

The profusion of views in all the current transgender threads shows

that - as we always knew - sex is hardly ever simple.

Way I see it, there are two parameters to sex: on the one hand, it's no more than nature's 'con game', blindly ensuring the propagation of a species - any species - via

pleasurable sensations. Every form of life can do it.

On the other, it represents, or flows from, the highest value two individuals

may hold in each other and themselves. Only man can choose why? and who?

In between those extremes - what? Many shades. For one, we discover as we go along that not all sexual activity merits a purpose. Though self-evidently anything that does not sustain one's self-esteem is harmful, so discipline is necessary. I suppose this varies hugely, from person to person.

*************

For general interest, here's (I think) a lesser-known extract from one of AR's

letters - in "Letters of Ayn Rand":

" I would say - find what you want and go after it openly, whether you're a man or a woman.

A little less openly, if you're a woman...Don't wait for the other party to make the overtures.

[...]

I believe that our mind controls everything - yes, even our sex emotions.

Perhaps the sex emotions more than anything else. Although that's the opposite of what

most people believe, Everything we are and do proceeds from our mind.

[...]

The only danger is to succumb to some such fallacy as that "the heart is more

important than the brain." (By "heart" they actually mean here a less polite anatomical

organ.[:)] NOTHING IS MORE IMPORTANT THAN THE BRAIN. NOTHING. And no man can find any lasting happiness, any kind of kind of satisfactory existence in any part of his life -professional, mental, emotional, sexual - not in any part, unless the primary choice and decision and action proceeded from and with the consent of his brain."

****************

At the core, I think Rand is right - very right to make sex as objectively

known as is possible. And to elevate it to its rightful and proper place as

the celebration of a lover's existence and of one's own.

Peripherally, I'm not in full agreement with her: because of less-than-ideal sex,

(which can be quite rational) but especially her vision of gender stereotypes.

The mind's "consent" in all things is palpably true. However, in sex, I think, most people have mixed premises and varied 'senses of life'.

Edited by whYNOT
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 months later...

is sex really THAT different if you like the girl's personality?

You're thrusting back and forth thinking about her curves and dumping jizz in her orifices. I fail to see how disliking the girl's personality or completely disagreeing with what she stands for leads to your unhappiness or unethical behavior.

If I derive pleasure fucking a communist lobby coordinator, why not?

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...