Is the Objectivist view of sex flawed?

[tadmjones]

, until they learn to be clear about the separation between sex and love, and to know that they really are separate concepts.

20+ years of marriage does the trick.....I kid, i kid

[Eiuol]

Evolutionary psychology aside, lemme address at least a specific application here.
 

because it would have left her without a partner willing to take on parentage of the child

How do you know that proving who the father is will make sure a partner is willing to take on parentage? How do you know primitive societies did this, with fossils or written documents? It's not like primitive societies could send out cops to get child support even just if the woman knows. You'd probably have to implement it through social norms, which aren't generated biologically. Some societies actually don't care who the father is because everyone works to raise a kid, not just parents. Now, you *could* argue that social norms have been in place only until recently due to safe sex practices, so it takes a lot longer to eliminate a norm about sex. That would be valid.
 

And none of her partners would volunteer himself to be the father or to share resources for a child whom he couldn't be sure was his.

Again, is there any evidence besides speculation? For the most part, marriage has grown out of males taking ownership over females to have control over their kids and inheritance. Sometimes it was the opposite, but that was rare. My evidence is written history, and official documents, all throughout history. You are making a lot of claims about what people *would do* if put in a situation when you can't possibly know what they would do. At the very least I can grant that evopsych gives an underlying stimulus to do something, but it's different to presume to know what primitive cultures did without specifying the historic and geographic context.
 

This is the whole reason why we have the views on sex and marriage and relationships (and the double standards regarding women and sex) that we do.

The whole reason? You only provided a plausible explanation of the origin of some norms, except without any historical evidence to actually prove it. Largely the modern views on sex and relationships came out of dividing men and women into "spheres" in the 19th century, which wasn't based on any pre-Enlightenment standards, let alone primitive standards. If anything, there are also evopsych people who claim the opposite of what you're saying, where casual sex is more consistent with human psychological makeup and primitive society. You need a more philosophical argument anyway, since we want to figure out what is the *right* thing to do.

In any case, what do you mean by casual sex? I don't think many people here have even said their must be a romantic attachment, so if casual sex is defined as sex outside of a relationship, then I agree it may often be good. If it also includes one-night stands, I'm likely against that kind of sex (needs more context). Similar to what 425 has said.
 

It's not deep and romantic love to be sure, and yet you think that's the only kind of love that sex belongs to.

No one said this. See bert's post, and the rest of Nicky's post that you quoted.

A lot of this is repeated stuff, I'd suggest at least reading page one of the older part of the thread.

Edited March 19, 2013 by Eiuol

[whYNOT]

Meaningless in what way? 

 

Are you sure it's entirely meaningless? How much meaning does something need to have before you decide to do it? Is eating dinner with friends at a restaurant meaningless?

 

It seems to me that in your estimation, sex needs a much higher level of meaning than most other things. Would you agree with that assessment? If that's true, it appears to be a bit of a begging of the question.  I would wonder also, then, if you are opposed to anything done "casually." 

 Ah - that 'eating food' metaphor again. To equate or compare sexual relations with it, says plenty.

To get it straight, I haven't much concern about casual sex, but I've a big problem with treating sex casually.

The one becomes the other if an individual isn't focused enough - from what I've known.

"Meaningless" as I intended it, is without identity and without purpose. She's reasonably attractive to you, you're

attractive enough to her, so what else matters, right? But what is she to you? Who are you to her? Obviously, the whole point

of the exercise is not to know and not to care (or pretend it) To go ahead without egoistic identity or value means you are self-abnegating in the process, and so is she.

I wonder how much of that before one loses a hefty measure of self-esteem - from an intimacy that should be accomplished with the mutual pride and pleasure of both partners. (In fact, personally I have a fair idea.)

[Leonid]

" Ah - that 'eating food' metaphor again"-or rather drinking glass of water.

 

“You must be aware of the famous theory that in communist society the satisfaction of sexual desire, of love, will be as simple and unimportant as drinking a glass of water. The glass of water theory has made our young people mad, quite mad…I think this glass of water theory is completely un-Marxist, and moreover, anti-social. In sexual life there is not only simple nature to be considered, but also cultural characteristics, whether they are of a high or low order…Of course, thirst must be satisfied. But will the normal man in normal circumstances lie down in the gutter and drink out of a puddle, or out of a glass with a rim greasy from many lips? But the social aspect is the most important of all. Drinking water is of course an individual affair. But in love two lives are concerned, and a third, a new life, arises. It is that which gives it its social interest, which gives rise to a duty towards the community.” (Clara Zetkin, Reminiscences of Lenin, p. 49)"

 

So what really wrong with this theory and how people went askew by misinterpretation of Ayn Rand? In both cases we deal with the fallacy of dropping context. The glass of water theory is a pure empiricism-it brings sex to the animal level. It ignores the fact that people act on conceptual level and their emotions are driven by internalized premises. Of course people could be attracted by physical look or by some "chemistry" but they cannot completely put aside all other personal features-even for the sake of one single round. From the other hand, it's a mistake to approach Objectivist theory of sex as a pure rationalism. From the Objectivist point of view love is response to values and the highest romantic love is response to the highest values-in Ayn Rand words : "The total passion for the total height." ( Fountainhead). Obviously it has nothing to do as communists suggest with the " duty to society". However Ayn Rand never claimed that this is the only form of love or sexual attraction. There is a huge amount of different possibilities between total passion and " drinking in the gutter out of a puddle". Sex is always a celebration of self-esteem, and based on values but the range of values which one could  respond to is huge. Physical beauty for example is one of them. Not all relationships are based on the total passion. As Ayn Rand mentioned "  But this does not mean that any relationship based on less than total certainty is improper".  Moreover, a person could respond to different values in different people. Ayn Rand affair with Nataniel Branden is a shining example. She dearly loved her husband, Frank O'Connor for his values and Branden for his.