Men & Women, Love & Sex

[JMeganSnow]

So you're saying that you're testing me? For what purpose?

No, I meant that I have a defective personality and I'm up-front about this fact.

[walsh]

In case either of you (A is A and Inspector) would like to see another view of some of this information, including a view refuting the more Puritanical stance on relationships, Dr. Hurd wrote an essay on Sex and Morality you can get from his website for like 5 bucks. And he's a real, live, accomplished psychologist, not just some guy who talks to girls and reads books.

[Inspector]

No, I meant that I have a defective personality and I'm up-front about this fact.

Ah, then I am glad I responded without dropping to insults.

[Inspector]

In case either of you (A is A and Inspector) would like to see another view of some of this information, including a view refuting the more Puritanical stance on relationships, Dr. Hurd wrote an essay on Sex and Morality you can get from his website for like 5 bucks.  And he's a real, live, accomplished psychologist, not just some guy who talks to girls and reads books.

In case you were doing so, stop calling me a Puritan!

And if it's in his book, I have it right here next to me.

My point is not that one should be puritanical or deny oneself. My point is that people should be more careful to know when they are in love and when they are not, and to act accordingly, sexually speaking. People who fail to heed this warning are going to get HURT. There are few things more capable of hurting or twisting a human being than a bad relationship, and if you're having sex with someone you don't love, you're setting yourself up for PAIN. It's denial of reality and it will hurt you badly. It's a lie and lies BLIND you. Swallow that first little lie, and you just don't know where it's going to stop. How many more lies will it take to sustain the lie? And then pretty soon, you're blind enough that *bam* reality comes hits you like a ton of bricks.

[JMeganSnow]

Precisely. So why are you so hesitant to say that such a person was capable of making mistakes?

I am not hesitant to say that such a person (meaning DAGNY) is incapable of making mistakes, I am saying adamantly that her relationships with Francisco and Hank were not mistakes.

It is both. They are the same thing.

See, that's entirely my point. You say that you would "attempt" to retain them for more than one night, but you are GROSSLY understating things. If the relationship was one of romantic love, then NO WAY would either person have any business letting that other person go. Only if it WERE NOT IN FACT romantic love would a one-night-stand be a consideration, and in that case (no love), then there is NOT a proper reason for sex.

You are saying, then, that loving another person makes you a slave to your love, and you lose any right to choose anything but staying with that person? And, if, for some reason you have other values you are not willing to sacrifice, it's not love? Have you ever been in a relationship where your partner said things like "if you REALLY love me you'd put up with my mother/kowtow to my every irrational whim/ruin everything you ever wanted in order to kiss my little toe" etc. Wouldn't that make you crazy?

I highly recommend you get The Early Ayn Rand and read "The Husband I Bought." Sometimes the only way TO love someone is to let them go. This doesn't mean that you were wrong to love them, that it was somehow a mistake.

As I said, it's not simply because there's only the one night. (I gave the example of the war as one in which it would be proper to sleep with someone you knew you would not see again) It is in fact because those two people AREN'T in fact in love and if they were, they would NOT settle for one night.

You're using circular reasoning, Inspector. "If they were in love they wouldn't settle for one night so if they do then they aren't in love." (that's not a direct quote) You gave an example where this situation would not pertain, so please stop trying to pretend that a one-night-stand is somehow intrinsicly objectionable. You say it isn't, then you contradict yourself and say it is.

My original statement was condemning anyone who pursued a relationship with the opposite sex after they knew that it was not true love; I merely cited the one-night-stand as the worst possible example of this behavior.

...

Like in my war example? Listen, that's not at all the sort of example I'm focused on. I am talking about one in which at least one party knows that it is not romantic love, (as evidenced by their unwillingness to make it more-than-one-night) yet has sex anyway.

All right, you've qualified your statement about a one-night-stand being objectionable. (You did elsewhere, also.) Well done. However, why is it necessary to condemn this behavior? You may find it evidence of a poor values-structure (I do) but without lots of supporting evidence I would most likely dismiss it as irrelavent: I wasn't there, and it's none of my business.

This whole one-night-stand issue is really not that important to me, it's a minor technicality. What I really am striving to understand is your view that, in order to have a romantic relationship with someone you must dismiss all previous relationships as mistakes and errors. I used Dagny as a specific example.

Could you really not love a woman that was proud of her previous loves? Why does that disgust you? Should it not instead elevate you, because she is with you now, her joy in her previous relationships adding to and magnifying the joy she has now with you?

Here's the full conversation between Dagny and Rearden in Atlas Shrugged, please re-read it and try to understand the point Ayn Rand was trying to make. (I really hope this won't be too long!)

"Who were the other men that had you?"

He looked at her as if the question were a sight visualized in every detail, a sight he loathed, but would not abandon; she heard the contempt in his voice, the hatred, the suffering--and an odd eagerness that did not pertain to torture; he had asked the question, holding her body tight against him.

She answered evenly, but he saw a dangerous flicker in her eyes, as of a warning that she understood him too well.  "There was only one other, Hank."

"When?"

"When I was seventeen."

"Did it last?"

"For some years."

"Who was he?"

She drew back, lying against his arm; he leaned closer, his face taut; she held his eyes. "I won't answer you."

"Did you love him?"

"I won't answer."

"Did you like sleeping with him?"

"Yes!"

You would probably benefit more by reading the entire passage over again; this happened when Rearden was still tormented by the idea that his love for Dagny was perverted, animalistic. Dagny of course knew the truth, but she knew he would not understand it right away, if ever.

[JMeganSnow]

My point is not that one should be puritanical or deny oneself. My point is that people should be more careful to know when they are in love and when they are not, and to act accordingly, sexually speaking. People who fail to heed this warning are going to get HURT. There are few things more capable of hurting or twisting a human being than a bad relationship, and if you're having sex with someone you don't love, you're setting yourself up for PAIN. It's denial of reality and it will hurt you badly. It's a lie and lies BLIND you. Swallow that first little lie, and you just don't know where it's going to stop. How many more lies will it take to sustain the lie? And then pretty soon, you're blind enough that *bam* reality comes hits you like a ton of bricks.

This is quite true. *sad smile* Yes, very true.

[JMeganSnow]

Ah, then I am glad I responded without dropping to insults.

Why? If you could make me mad enough to leave, you wouldn't have to deal with my defective personality anymore. Sounds like a win-win situation to ME.

[Inspector]

You are saying, then, that loving another person makes you a slave to your love, and you lose any right to choose anything but staying with that person?

...No.

And, if, for some reason you have other values you are not willing to sacrifice, it's not love?

If you have other values that permanently make it impossible for you to have a true relationship with that person, then trying to pursue one would be a lie.

Have you ever been in a relationship where your partner said things like "if you REALLY love me you'd put up with my mother/kowtow to my every irrational whim/ruin everything you ever wanted in order to kiss my little toe" etc.  Wouldn't that make you crazy?

No, and yes.

You're using circular reasoning, Inspector.  "If they were in love they wouldn't settle for one night so if they do then they aren't in love." (that's not a direct quote)

It'll do, though. It does handily summarize my point.

You gave an example where this situation would not pertain, so please stop trying to pretend that a one-night-stand is somehow intrinsicly objectionable.

If I gave an example of where it would not pertain, then what makes you think I was ever addressing anything on an intrinsic basis?

However, why is it necessary to condemn this behavior?

Somebody asked. I forget who, even.

What I really am striving to understand is your view that, in order to have a romantic relationship with someone you must dismiss all previous relationships as mistakes and errors.

I don't think I ever stated that as such. What I said is that people should not pursue relationships that they know are not romantic love, and that they should ESPECIALLY not have sex in such a relationship.

You said:

In order to love someone you do not have to intend or be able to spend the rest of your life with them.

My point was that you do have to intend to. You do not have to be able to. As an aside, I mentioned one bit of damage that one does by sleeping with people not worthy of romantic love: a loss of exclusivity. You then used Dagny as a counter-example.

But I don't think she proves your point.

Could you really not love a woman that was proud of her previous loves?  Why does that disgust you?  Should it not instead elevate you, because she is with you now, her joy in her previous relationships adding to and magnifying the joy she has now with you?

I have no idea. I can tell you that I would say, "But now that you know me, don't they seem like silly childish mistakes? Don't they pale in comparison to my magnificence? Now that you know me, don't you wish you could take it all back?" If she said that no, they were not mistakes, and that she would do it all again, I would push her away and tell her to go have fun with them... because she won't get me.

I insist that my woman be mine. Not that she pines for the former mistakes that she once thought she loved.

But that is purely hypothetical. My wife has never loved another man. And she has told me that everyone pales in comparison to my magnificence.

You would probably benefit more by reading the entire passage over again

It's okay, I remember it well. However, being that Hank was of mixed premises, it's hard to tell if he was acting on the good ones or the bad ones.

[DPW]

Only a few more comments from me.

You have not presented your positions as mere possibilities or theories. 

Dude, I already admitted that I stated my views more strongly that was warranted. That's not backpedaling...that's admitting when you're wrong.

You have presented an image of females that is utterly inconsistent with the Objectivist position on the nature of man (and woman) as rational beings of volitional consciousness.

Now you're just being dishonest.

And your proof of all this is that we should take your word for it because you have talked to women and read some books.

Uh, I didn't offer any proof, because I wasn't trying to prove the point. As I've said, I was sharing my views and you are free to reject them or accept them as you see fit. I *could* debate these issues, but as I told another poster, I have other priorities.

I sure as hell wouldn't make up a lie, expect her to recognize it as a lie, then be turned on by my lying and rush right over.  I would not invent some sort of vague, "a-literal" cover story.

Being indirect is not lying in this context. By that standard, every time we don't say the explicit literal truth, we are lying. What then is left of subcommunication? You're just trying to find fault for the sake of finding fault. How sad.

Yes, there is a lesson here.  The lesson is that this confirms your view of women as inherently schizophrenic beings who must, in effect, be tricked out of a state of rationality and into a state of arousal, by never saying explicitly what you mean or want, and then kept in the state of arousal by never giving a "non-a-literal" answer to a question.

It's a good thing most people here know me, and they know how utterly crazy your ravings are, because I would hate to have to take the time to pick your nuttery apart piece by piece. Say what you will. We're done.

[DPW]

So you would say, "Yes I am a 'player...'"

A "player" being a playboy, or one who uses women as mindless objects for some kind of perverse sexual pleasure divorced from love. Exactly the sort of man Francisco pretended to be.

That's either sick, or you're advocating lying to the girl.

Oh my God, are you guys all as socially retarded as you sound? Being indirect, playful, and relying on subcommunication rather than direct verbal communication is not lying! If it was, then flirting would be immoral. Ugh. I'm done with these boards. I'm going to finish replying to those comments already posted and then I'm canceling my account. I can't stomach this sort of thing any longer.

[Al Kufr]

Oh my God, are you guys all as socially retarded as you sound?  Being indirect, playful, and relying on subcommunication rather than direct verbal communication is not lying!  If it was, then flirting would be immoral.  Ugh.  I'm done with these boards.  I'm going to finish replying to those comments already posted and then I'm canceling my account.  I can't stomach this sort of thing any longer.

This discussion about attracting women got way way way out of hand.

I really dont see why what DPW is saying is so hard to understand.

Being cocky and funny is not immoral.

Role playing is not lying.

Looking and acting confident is not wrong.

I dont see why improving the way you carry yourself is so difficult to understand.

[Inspector]

Oh my God, are you guys all as socially retarded as you sound?  Being indirect, playful, and relying on subcommunication rather than direct verbal communication is not lying!  If it was, then flirting would be immoral.  Ugh.  I'm done with these boards.  I'm going to finish replying to those comments already posted and then I'm canceling my account.  I can't stomach this sort of thing any longer.

All you had to do was say "that's not what I meant by 'player.'"

[The General]

Somebody asked. I forget who, even. 

Hey, that was me - did everyone forget about me so quickly . Anyways, I can't believe the avalanche my little question to Don started (and Don, though I am inclined towards Puritanism, I'm still "chewing" your response).

As for the discussion which followed, between Inspector and Jennifer, here's my thoughts.

Inspector, I think I agree with your comments on one-night stands (also, I get your point about the two people vis a vis war - I also agree). Jennifer asks why a one-night stand should be condemned. I'm going to define a one-night stand (again) as sex with someone you've just met (that night), whose values you either 1) don't know yet or 2) know to be incongruent with your own.

The essence of the issue here is that you don't know this person (or worse yet, you know you couldn't have a relationship with them), yet you still have sex with them. I think that's disgusting; maybe that brands me as a puritan, but I'll wear that title as a badge of honor. Let's concretize what we're talking about here.

I am a 26 year old male; suppose I go to a party, where I see a beautiful woman (or "hot chick" in modern vernacular); I am filled with arousal, and proceed to investigate. In the course of conversation, she mentions her admiration for the Julia "Butterfly" Hill (I think that's her name), because she was courageous for living on "Luna" (a tree) for like 2 years, and she fought against those evil corporations. I shrug off her comments, and later that night we sleep together. Isn't that disgusting? Would you have any respect for me if you found this little fact out about me? Or worse, if I boasted about it! Now, let's be clear, I'm not implying anyone here is advocating that this is ok - I'm just explaining what I think we should call a "one-night stand".

To throw in some ambiguity here, I would certainly have sympathy for someone who had sex with another person whom they honestly thought embodied their deepest values, but later turned out not to. Even if it were the first date! But if someone kept on meeting people who embodied there "deepest values", my sympathy would begin to run dry - there simply aren't that many people on this planet who qualify for your deepest values.

On the other side, I agree completely with Jennifer regarding Dagny, and her relationships with Francisco, Hank and John. None of them were mistakes. They were all appropriate celebrations of her deepest values (hell, if I met any of them, I might succumb to their charms too! ).

To call them mistakes is wrong - in her context, they were not mistakes, nor did they become mistakes when she fell in love with Galt. They would only be mistakes if there was a divine commandment that said "Thou shalt only sleep with thy ultimate value, and no other" (of course, then you'd have to accept the other side of the commandment: "If a man sleeps with a lesser value he must die; his blood is on his own head" )

I'd like to ask how one goes about determining that a given person is your "ultimate" value? My response is you can't, not if by "ultimate" you mean the highest, greatest and last person you'll ever value. There is no way for you to know such a thing - it would require omniscience, and as we all know, it isn't possible. Furthermore, it seems to assume that there is one person out there for all of us (just keep following the tracks everybody - you'll get there eventually...); but that is simply ridiculous. What does exist are numerous people who we are compatible with to varying degrees; if we are fortunate, we get to meet one person who falls towards the very compatible side of the continuum.

One question I'd like to ask Inspector: If your wife died, are you telling me you'd become celibate for life? Or that if you met another woman (following her death) who was her equal (or better), that you'd shrug your current wife off by saying she "pales in comparison" to your new wife and was a mistake?

[JMeganSnow]

Thank you, General!

Now that you've again defined a one-night-stand for us I think I understand the point a little better. I still wouldn't find it disgusting, just, well, stupid, largely because I don't consider sex to be a form of recreation.

If I may be blunt, I would consider such to be a form of masturbation that for some bizarre reason involves another person. If all participants understand this I'd consider it morally neutral; a void where a real relationship might be, a nothing instead of a something.

[JMeganSnow]

Thank you, General!

Now that you've again defined a one-night-stand for us I think I understand the point a little better.  I still wouldn't find it disgusting, just, well, stupid, largely because I don't consider sex to be a form of recreation.

If I may be blunt, I would consider such to be a form of masturbation that for some bizarre reason involves another person.  If all participants understand this I'd consider it morally neutral; a void where a real relationship might be, a nothing instead of a something.

AND I proceed to talk myself into a corner, forgetting that actively pursuing a nothing is evil. I shouldn't try to post before breakfast.

Well, that sparks another question, then: if I'm right that these kinds of one-night-stands are a nothing, and thus that actively seeking them is bad, what's the moral status of masturbation?

If this offends someone I'm sorry but I don't approve of euphemisms.

[Inspector]

Thank you, General!

Now that you've again defined a one-night-stand for us I think I understand the point a little better.

What, you didn't know what a one-night-stand was? First, the definition he is using is the definition of a one-night-stand. I assumed that you knew all along, which is why I was so confused that you defended it!

Second, um, he defined it in his initial post...

I feel a little bit silly having debated you so long when you didn't know the basic definitions involved...

[Inspector]

Hey, that was me - did everyone forget about me so quickly  .

Okay, now I remember.

To throw in some ambiguity here, I would certainly have sympathy for someone who had sex with another person whom they honestly thought embodied their deepest values, but later turned out not to.

As would I.

But if someone kept on meeting people who embodied there "deepest values", my sympathy would begin to run dry - there simply aren't that many people on this planet who qualify for your deepest values.

Again, agreed.

On the other side, I agree completely with Jennifer regarding Dagny, and her relationships with Francisco, Hank and John.  None of them were mistakes.  They were all appropriate celebrations of her deepest values (hell, if I met any of them, I might succumb to their charms too!  ). 

JMeganSnow makes a good point about Dagny not having realized her values yet and not having earned Galt yet. Let's explore that point: What is a person who has not fully realized their values? What does such a person do? I would be inclined to say that such a person is bound to make mistakes. Those men were the realization of her values... AT THE TIME. (as you say, General, "in her context") Later, she grew into a better person; she "outgrew" Francisco and Hank.

So are they mistakes? Well, they were only appropriate for her because she was an incomplete person... because she had made mistakes.

Take from that what you will, I guess.

I'd like to ask how one goes about determining that a given person is your "ultimate" value?

The person that you are in love with.

My response is you can't, not if by "ultimate" you mean the highest, greatest and last person you'll ever value.  There is no way for you to know such a thing - it would require omniscience, and as we all know, it isn't possible.

I never said that you couldn't make a mistake; that you needed omniscience. What you do need is certainty. For example, I am certain that my wife is the highest, greatest person I'll ever value... and that nobody else will ever come close.

One question I'd like to ask Inspector:  If your wife died, are you telling me you'd become celibate for life?

Yes.

Or that if you met another woman (following her death) who was her equal (or better), that you'd shrug your current wife off by saying she "pales in comparison" to your new wife and was a mistake?

I will never meet such a woman. Every woman pales in comparison to my wife.

[A.West]

I'm so glad that I did not have DPW's skills in creating sexual encounters with women when I was a young man. Otherwise I would for the rest of my life be regretting the multiple sexual relationships based on few or no shared values, the hearts I would inevitably and unnecessarily have left broken, and the many stark mornings feeling sickened by the sight of a postcoitally unwelcome visitor.

To a teenage boy or young man, the ethics of "American Pie" might seem to make a lot of sense. With time and maturity, one comes to understand that the relationship is the key element of a sexual relationship, not the sex.

I'm surprised to hear comments that indicate that some young women are increasingly beginning to see sex as a semi-anonymous recreational activity.

I suppose I'm a "puritan" in the sense that I do want to keep myself morally pure, part of which, in my opinion, involves reserving sexual relations only for those who have earned with their virtues such a relationship. (And I do not categorize "looking sexy", and "being drunk and flirtatious" as virtues.)

FYI, I recall Leonard Peikoff once commenting on the topic of multiple romantic partners in a pretty old Q&A tape on Objectivism. His take, as I vaguely recall it, was something to the effect that it's not appropriate to have a romantic relationship with multiple people just because they each have one or two good qualities.

[JMeganSnow]

JMeganSnow makes a good point about Dagny not having realized her values yet and not having earned Galt yet. Let's explore that point: What is a person who has not fully realized their values? What does such a person do? I would be inclined to say that such a person is bound to make mistakes. Those men were the realization of her values... AT THE TIME. (as you say, General, "in her context") Later, she grew into a better person; she "outgrew" Francisco and Hank.

So are they mistakes? Well, they were only appropriate for her because she was an incomplete person... because she had made mistakes.

They were not mistakes. A mistake is a negative action; for these purposes it is irrelavant whether it was undertaken through ignorance or intent. When I make an "innocent" mistake I'm still mortified and do whatever I can to rectify the situation. Do you think Dagny should be mortified? No, on the contrary, she should be proud!

For varying reasons she ended those two relationships. Francisco actually ended his knowingly and with full intent (he hoped he'd be able to pick it up again later but he knew it might never be a reality). In order to be true to his own ideals he had to leave Dagny behind; he couldn't take her where he was going. By calling their relationship a mistake you are asserting that a.) Francisco was wrong to leave her, b.) Dagny was in error for not forseeing that the relationship wasn't "meant to be" and refusing to engage in it in the first place.

You may assert that you aren't demanding that people should be omniscient, but you certainly are implying that fact. Calling something a mistake indicates that the mistaken person would have chosen differently based on information they could have reasonably obtained at the time. If they were ignorant, they did not have the information (but COULD have it), if they were malicious they had the information and chose to act as though they did not.

Your indicating that Dagny could be "excused" is reprehensible; it states implicitly that she had done something she needed to be excused for, which is FALSE. She was acting on full knowledge of her values, full knowledge of her life, full knowledge of the character of the men involved, no excuses are wanted, necessary, or warranted.

The person that you are in love with.

This is more circular reasoning. If they are your ultimate value because you love them and you love them because they are your ultimate value then how did you ARRIVE at that conclusion?

And furthermore another person should not be your ultimate value, that should be yourself. As Howard Roark said, "Before you can say 'I love you', you must first know how to say the 'I'." Insisting that someone else should be your ultimate value is a vicious form of altruism. If you are your own ultimate value there is no reason why, over the course of your life, you cannot value several people enough to sleep with them. I don't advocate maintaining several relationships at the same time; you should go with the best and not settle.

I agree with A. West's quote of Dr. Peikoff: one or two good qualities is not a sufficient reason to sleep with someone.

I never said that you couldn't make a mistake; that you needed omniscience. What you do need is certainty. For example, I am certain that my wife is the highest, greatest person I'll ever value... and that nobody else will ever come close.

...

I will never meet such a woman. Every woman pales in comparison to my wife.

Sorry, gents; Inspector has first claim on the best woman in the world. I guess the rest of you are just screwed out of luck.

[JMeganSnow]

What, you didn't know what a one-night-stand was? First, the definition he is using is the definition of a one-night-stand. I assumed that you knew all along, which is why I was so confused that you defended it!

Second, um, he defined it in his initial post...

I feel a little bit silly having debated you so long when you didn't know the basic definitions involved... 

ME?! You're the one that included as "one-night-stands" actions like, oh, sleeping with someone that is going off to war in the morning etc. Don't complain at me for debating you on your terms.

My understanding of your argument was that any sexual relationship whose duration was a single sexual encounter counted as a "one night stand." You then proceeded to give a few examples that might be "excusable" but you in no way indicated that such "excusable" status removed it from argument as it was no longer a "one-night-stand".

I wasn't debating with the General's stand on the issue, I was debating yours, and you did not explicitly state that you were using his definition, in fact you went to considerable effort to muddy the waters AND his clear, concise and (in my mind, excellent) definition.

[Inspector]

Do you think Dagny should be mortified?  No, on the contrary, she should be proud! 

Proud that she has Galt, yes. Indifferernt to past mistakes which can't harm her, yes.

By calling their relationship a mistake you are asserting that a.) Francisco was wrong to leave her, b.) Dagny was in error for not forseeing that the relationship wasn't "meant to be" and refusing to engage in it in the first place.

No, I am not asserting those things. Her incomplete, incorrect values of the time are what made her relationship with Francisco possible. He properly left her when he himself discovered wider knowledge and values. (although why didn't he try harder to teach her...?)

Calling something a mistake indicates that the mistaken person would have chosen differently based on information they could have reasonably obtained at the time.

See, you've introduced Dagny, whose values change, thus adding a new variable to my original statement. You've complicated the matter and that's why you're confused.

This is more circular reasoning.  If they are your ultimate value because you love them and you love them because they are your ultimate value then how did you ARRIVE at that conclusion?

Okay, I should have put a joke face there. But if one is acting properly and one's values are all proper, one will not feel love unless that other person is one's true love.

And furthermore another person should not be your ultimate value, that should be yourself.

Of course. And valuing myself ultimately, I deserve nothing but the best. Anything less would be degrading myself.

If you are your own ultimate value there is no reason why, over the course of your life, you cannot value several people enough to sleep with them.

The kind of low self esteem required to think that and to sleep with several people is not the state of a person who is their own ultimate value.

Sorry, gents; Inspector has first claim on the best woman in the world.  I guess the rest of you are just screwed out of luck. 

You're darn straight!

[Inspector]

ME?!  You're the one that included as "one-night-stands" actions like, oh, sleeping with someone that is going off to war in the morning etc.  Don't complain at me for debating you on your terms. 

I never stated that I included that in my definition of a one-night-stand. Sorry that you took it that way.

you went to considerable effort to muddy the waters AND his clear, concise and (in my mind, excellent) definition.

I did no such thing, but I am sorry if I was unable to be clear enough to you.

[The General]

Well, that sparks another question, then: if I'm right that these kinds of one-night-stands are a nothing, and thus that actively seeking them is bad, what's the moral status of masturbation?

Masturbation is entirely moral; Ayn Rand once said something to the effect that masturbation was your means of survival in a world where you hadn't found a worthy lover.

[Inspector]

Masturbation is entirely moral; Ayn Rand once said something to the effect that masturbation was your means of survival in a world where you hadn't found a worthy lover.

I'd like to see that exact quote!

[AisA]

This discussion about attracting women got way way way out of hand.

I really dont see why what DPW is saying is so hard to understand.

Being cocky and funny is not immoral.

Being cocky and funny is not immoral -- provided it is not faked or forced.

Role playing is not lying.

How do you define role playing?

If it is an attempt to project a personality, an intellect or a sense-of-life that differs from one's own, it is clearly dishonest. If the "role" projects one's actual character, it is not a role.

Looking and acting confident is not wrong.

Looking and acting confident is not wrong provided one has earned it, i.e. provided one actually is confident.

I dont see why  improving the way you carry yourself is so difficult to understand.

What do you mean by "carry yourself"?

Caring about and improving one's appearance by make-up, clothing, hair cut, etc. is certainly rational. Beyond that, however, people of self-esteem do not spend time worrying about how they are perceived by the opposite sex. They do not feel a need to play any role in life other than the role they are actually living. They feel no need to project any particular image. They do not believe their value is a function of the number of sex partners they can seduce.

They are not Peter Keatings who focus on trying to find out what others want them to be or say, so they can proceed to fake it or say it. They are Howard Roarks and Dominiques, who, in any encounter, are focused on, "What do I think of them?", not "What do they think of me?"