Men & Women, Love & Sex

[DPW]

DFW, I am reading the above to mean that you believe that a man with the right knowhow can shut off a woman's logical mind for the purpose of sleeping with her... and furthermore you are implicitly advocating that your male readers do so. If so... ick.

It's DPW. And you misinterpreted what I said. Where in it did I advocate ANYTHING? I didn't. I merely noted a FACT because there are a lot of guys who judge girls for bad sexual decisions in a way that is unfair given female sexual psychology.

Also, I would say that to engage in a doomed relationship of any sort is immoral behavior, and to have a one-night-stand that one knows in advance will be a one-night-stand is the worst sort of this kind of behavior.

Sex is the highest form of value-exchange and should properly be reserved for one's HIGHEST value in a human being. If you don't honestly believe that you will be spending the rest of your life with that person, you should not sleep with them. To sleep with someone while believing this and then later realize you are mistaken is an unfortunate tragedy. To sleep with someone that you KNOW is not worth spending the rest of your life with is immoral, because it is a lie; a self-lie.

Oh, gag me on a stick. Even Ayn Rand didn't agree with this sort of thinking. I know I certainly don't. Reply if you want. I'm not even going to debate such utter nonsense.

[JMeganSnow]

Also, I would say that to engage in a doomed relationship of any sort is immoral behavior, and to have a one-night-stand that one knows in advance will be a one-night-stand is the worst sort of this kind of behavior.

Sex is the highest form of value-exchange and should properly be reserved for one's HIGHEST value in a human being. If you don't honestly believe that you will be spending the rest of your life with that person, you should not sleep with them. To sleep with someone while believing this and then later realize you are mistaken is an unfortunate tragedy. To sleep with someone that you KNOW is not worth spending the rest of your life with is immoral, because it is a lie; a self-lie.

(edited for spelling)

DPW is actually correct about this, although WHY he is correct could use some explanation.

First off, I think it would be more correct to say that love is the highest form of value-exchange etc. Sex is PROPERLY a result of romantic love. In order to love someone you do not have to intend or be able to spend the rest of your life with them. You may choose to sleep with someone out of celebration of their values, that is right and proper.

What the Objectivist view of sex indicates (to me) is that you should NOT engage in sex with people you despise, for no reason whatsoever, etc. It does not mean you should take on a Neo-Puritanical view and refuse to celebrate your values unless you intend to get married.

However, sex is and remains an effect of values, not the cause of them; you are no more nor less virtuous for engaging in/refusing to engage in sex. Merely your attitude towards romantic love and sex is an indication of your most deeply held values.

[Inspector]

It's DPW.

Right, sorry.

Where in it did I advocate ANYTHING?  I didn't.

First, you noted that women have "defense mechanisms." Second, you noted that a man will be in a position to sleep with a woman if he can get past those defenses. Third, you proceed to tell everyone what you believe will likely get a man past a woman's defenses. If you're going to say those things, you should at least post a disclaimer that you only advocate using these "powers" for good and not for evil.

Oh, gag me on a stick.  Even Ayn Rand didn't agree with this sort of thinking.  I know I certainly don't.  Reply if you want.  I'm not even going to debate such utter nonsense.

Well, then, show me where I am thinking incorrectly on this matter. If you think that it is okay to engage in sex with a woman with whom you know you have no future, that seems like a LIE to me. Suppose that your future wife had engaged in this kind of behavior? What if she belived as you do, and has absolutely no regrets about having done so? Would you be comfortable with that? Have you fully considered the implications of what you advocate?

(edited for grammar)

Edited January 31, 2005 by Inspector

[Inspector]

What the Objectivist view of sex indicates (to me) is that you should NOT engage in sex with people you despise, for no reason whatsoever, etc.

That's step one. Step two is that sex is the highest and most wonderful celebration of values possible to a person. Why would one want to do that with someone that ISN'T one's highest value? That girl from England he mentioned: if she isn't worth following back to England, she isn't worth sleeping with. Relationships are about exclusivity, as is sex. You're not making yourself a higher value to your ultimate partner by spreading yourself around.

Again, if your lover is about to go off to a war and die defending you, that is one thing. But if you know that he/she is NOT Mr/Mrs "right," then how is it a worthwhile exchange? How are you not cheapening your ultimate love?

[AisA]

Uh, maybe I was unclear.  The point wasn't that you can get a girl to sleep with you against her will.  The point is that a girl in sexual state is not thinking logically.  To think logically in this context is to think in terms of goals and the means of achieving those goals.  Men are goal-directed even in regard to sex, but women are not.  That's why women often refer to their sexual state as "letting go."  That's why trust is so important to girls when it comes to sex: when they choose to have sex, they are putting themselves in a position where they have to depend on the man's judgment, because theirs is essentially GONE.

The notion that an aroused woman loses her volition, her ability to think logically and her judgment is one of the most profoundly patronizing and degrading notions toward women that I have ever heard. It has no place on an Objectivist forum.

Such a notion, just to concretize it, means that a Dagny Taggert, once sexually aroused by John Galt, would be unable to stop herself from sleeping with Orren Boyle if he stepped in and took over at the right moment.

Oh, gag me on a stick.  Even Ayn Rand didn't agree with this sort of thinking.  I know I certainly don't.  Reply if you want.  I'm not even going to debate such utter nonsense

"Even Ayn Rand"?

[Inspector]

"Even Ayn Rand"?

Good point! I had missed that!

"Even Ayn Rand," I read to mean that there is a scale to measure these kind of things and that you and I are on opposing sides of where Miss Rand stands. (and that I am "even" more extreme than her!)

Wow.

[JMeganSnow]

That girl from England he mentioned: if she isn't worth following back to England, she isn't worth sleeping with. Relationships are about exclusivity, as is sex. You're not making yourself a higher value to your ultimate partner by spreading yourself around.

Again, if your lover is about to go off to a war and die defending you, that is one thing. But if you know that he/she is NOT Mr/Mrs "right," then how is it a worthwhile exchange? How are you not cheapening your ultimate love?

You have a highly sacrificial view of love, Inspector. Did Dagny "cheapen" her relationship with Hank Rearden and later John Galt by sleeping with Francisco d'Anconia? No. In her relationships with all three men she was celebrating the SAME THING, her profound love of her life and her ability to live it.

You seem to be (by default) indicating that there is only ONE "true love" for each person and that if you don't keep yourself "pure" for that person you don't deserve them. There are MANY people with good values in this world and your response to one is not "taken away" from another any more than a lack of response to someone is a "denial" of that person.

If Dagny had NO response to Hank Rearden or Francisco d'Anconia, she would have not been the heroine worthy of John Galt. Are you arguing that such responses should be repressed because we might meet someone better down the road, i.e. that humans are able to see the future? Or simply that such things should go unexpressed? This is a feature of the mind-body dichotomy. If you feel love for someone, you SHOULD want to express it in reality, via sex.

Values should not be disconnected from virtues.

[DPW]

The notion that an aroused woman loses her volition, her ability to think logically and her judgment is one of the most profoundly patronizing and degrading notions toward women that I have ever heard.  It has no place on an Objectivist forum.

Such a notion, just to concretize it, means that a Dagny Taggert, once sexually aroused by John Galt, would be unable to stop herself from sleeping with Orren Boyle if he stepped in and took over at the right moment.

Uh, no. First of all, nowhere did I say a woman loses volition while in sexual state. If I implied that, I didn't mean to. As for the other stuff, you can call in patronizing, but it's not. It's a metaphysical fact: neither good nor bad, just true. As for the last part, that doesn't follow at all. I was very clear that lots of things can bring a girl out of state, and Orren Boyle stepping in would certainly be one of them.

[DPW]

By the way, I'm done posting now that the Puritans are out in full force. If anyone wants to PM me, feel free.

[Inspector]

Did Dagny "cheapen" her relationship with Hank Rearden and later John Galt by sleeping with Francisco d'Anconia? No.

I will allow my previous statement to speak for itself:

To sleep with someone while believing this and then later realize you are mistaken is an unfortunate tragedy.

To answer your question, yes, but only slightly. She honestly believed that Francisco was THE man for her, and later believed the same of Hank. She later realized that she was mistaken about both and that Galt was really THE man for her. Thus, those relationships were mistakes, but hardly grand ones. If she had slept with either of them while believeing that they WEREN'T her ultimate value, then she would have been acting immorally. This is, of course, the difference between an error of knowledge and a moral error.

(edited for punctuation)

Edited January 31, 2005 by Inspector

[Free Capitalist]

By the way, I'm done posting now that the Puritans are out in full force.

Hold up, I'm still here too

You said that women lose their capacity for goal oriented thinking during sex (or rather, give it up, as you'll probably correct me). One could make a very similar argument that people, once intoxicated with alcohol, are not morally responsible for their actions; since women are more easily intoxicated than men, they are even less morally responsible, if degrees are allowed. You undoubtedly know that the argument about alcohol is wrong, and hope you will clarify what the difference is between that, and what you're saying here.

Btw, while I am not 100% with the Puritans in this discussion, I don't think you can simply state your observations as undeniable facts, and impatiently stomp your feet at people who disagree. What you've said is highly controversial, simply claiming that it's fact will not make it more obvious, or easily understood; please show some patience if you want to argue your point (and it's an interesting point so I hope you don't give up).

[AisA]

First of all, nowhere did I say a woman loses volition while in sexual state. If I implied that, I didn't mean to.

Then you need to revise the following statement:

If you know how to push the right buttons, you can put girls into a sexual state without setting off their defenses, and no matter what rules they’ve set down for themselves, they will sleep with you.

If you can get a woman to sleep with you despite her conscious decision not to, you have negated volition. Not that I believe for a second that you can actually do such a thing.

I was very clear that lots of things can bring a girl out of state, and Orren Boyle stepping in would certainly be one of them.

You were really clear when you put forth the preposterous assertion that an aroused woman's "judgment is GONE", in all capitals for emphasis. If her judgment is gone, her volition overcome and her "logical mind disconnected" as you put it, how is she to know the difference between Galt and Boyle?

[Inspector]

Not that I believe for a second that you can actually do such a thing.

I also do not believe that such a thing is possible, but if it were, it would be rather monsterous for a man to do it.

[Inspector]

By the way, I'm done posting now that the Puritans are out in full force.  If anyone wants to PM me, feel free.

This is kind of pointless since he's not coming back, but by calling unspecified persons by the insult "Puritan," he is engaging in the kind of generalized personal attack that is against forum rules.

[DPW]

Hold up, I'm still here too

You said that women lose their capacity for goal oriented thinking during sex (or rather, give it up, as you'll probably correct me). One could make a very similar argument that people, once intoxicated with alcohol, are not morally responsible for their actions; since women are more easily intoxicated than men, they are even less morally responsible, if degrees are allowed. You undoubtedly know that the argument about alcohol is wrong, and hope you will clarify what the difference is between that, and what you're saying here.

First of all, let me confess that I overstated my point on this issue. I was more interested in the nature of female sexual state and should have talked about that while avoiding the moral judgment issue. But I didn't, so...

Take the alcohol example. It is true that being drunk does not absolve you of moral responsibility for the actions you take while drinking. Even so, it is still a mediating factor to a certain extent.

Even better, a crime commited in the heat of passion is not as morally severe as one commited after calm deliberation. A man who shoots his wife's lover after finding them in bed together still did something wrong, but it is of a completely different order than first degree murder. In fact, we might even have sympathy for the fellow. I would say that certain actions taken by a girl in sexual state fall into this sort of category.

To clarify: a girl in state is not literally unconscious, out of control, or any of that (which one could have concluded from my previous posts). But she is in a state completely different from a man's. A man's logical mind is congruent with his sexual state: he is doing what he always does, he is pursuing a goal. For a girl, her sexual state is at odds with her logical mind, because she is giving up goal pursuit and letting herself be taken. As human beings, we all pursue values. In that sense, we are all like car drivers, choosing our destination and how we'll get there. Sex, for a guy, is merely another destination (albeit a favorite one!). To get there, all he does is hang a right on M Street. For a girl, sex is not a destination, it's like a really cool detour that requires her to vear off the path, shut off the car's engine, and enjoy the scenery for a while.

But the deeper she is in that state, the more blurred is her ability to think logically and make rational decisions. This doesn't mean her volition is gone anymore than a man acting in the heat of passion loses his volition. It's merely more difficult to initiate and sustain a thought process, and the second she TRIES to initiate and sustain any sort of thought process, she starts to go out of state. As evidence, if you create too much sexual tension with a girl you've just met, she will try to throw herself out of state by trying to force you into a logical discussion. For example, she might ask you, "Are you a player?" If you give a logical answer to that question, no matter what it is, you will take her out of state, which is exactly what her (subconscious) intention is.

I don't know if that clarifies things.

Btw, while I am not 100% with the Puritans in this discussion, I don't think you can simply state your observations as undeniable facts, and impatiently stomp your feet at people who disagree. What you've said is highly controversial, simply claiming that it's fact will not make it more obvious, or easily understood; please show some patience if you want to argue your point (and it's an interesting point so I hope you don't give up).

I am so over arguing my points. I came here to *share* some of my ideas, not debate them. Don't get me wrong, it's important for *me* to be able to answer such challenges in my own mind, but I don't have any interest in trying to convince anyone else I'm right. I did that for years, and learned a lot, but my priorities are different right now.

The only reason I spent so much time going back and forth about the other stuff was because I haven't really tried to communicate these ideas before so I wanted to be sure I did so clearly and accurately. Turns out I have a lot of work to do.

[JMeganSnow]

To answer your question, yes, but only slightly. She honestly believed that Francisco was THE man for her, and later believed the same of Hank. She later realized that she was mistaken about both and that Galt was really THE man for her. Thus, those relationships were mistakes, but hardly grand ones. If she had slept with either of them while believeing that they WEREN'T her ultimate value, then she would have been acting immorally. This is, of course, the difference between an error of knowledge and a moral error.

(edited for punctuation)

ABSOLUTELY NOT. What an INSULT to the heroic nobility of Francisco d'Anconia and Hank Rearden! Can you IMAGINE how CHEAPENED Francisco and Hank would have felt if Dagny had said to him "oh, well, sorry, my entire relationship with you was a mistake." She DIDN'T say that for a very good reason, instead she felt a sort of wistful sadness in that, knowing the full measure of her response to John Galt she could not accept anything less in substitute.

The simple fact that Dagny was ABLE to recognize John Galt's exemplary heroism and respond to it elevated her relationships with Francisco and Hank, it didn't DEGRADE them or make them into "errors". Although, having discovered a higher value, she would not want to go back to her relationships with Hank and Francisco, such would have been a sacrifice, the willful destruction of a higher value in favor of a lesser one.

For reference, see Dagny's response to Hank's "Who were the other men that had you?" question, as well as the sanction Hank gave her when he joined the strikers:

"I have met him, I don't blame you."

Edit to add one more point: Hank's relationship with Lillian was an error. Cherryl's relationship with Jim Taggert was an error. Dagny's relationships were NOT.

I find this "Even Ayn Rand . . ." thing to be comical and misplaced, also. Ayn Rand did not advocate a particular position on the subjectivist/intrinsicist free love/sexual abnegation scale. She advocated a very specific view of love and sexuality that had no place whatsoever on that scale. Calling oneself "more extreme than Ayn Rand" indicates that you place her somewhere on that scale, which is of itself completely inaccurate.

[Inspector]

Although, having discovered a higher value, she would not want to go back to her relationships with Hank and Francisco, such would have been a sacrifice, the willful destruction of a higher value in favor of a lesser one.

If she had known who John Galt was and that he existed, would she have ever slept with Francisco or Hank?

For reference, see Dagny's response to Hank's "Who were the other men that had you?" question, as well as the sanction Hank gave her when he joined the strikers:

"I have met him, I don't blame you."

I think that Hank was acknowledging that Francisco is, in final estimate, the better man than him. I'd have to know the exact point in the story when that comment was made. In any case, saying to a person "I don't blame you" usually means that they have made a mistake, but an understandable one. That's the kind I'm saying she made.

I find this "Even Ayn Rand . . ." thing to be comical and misplaced, also.

So did I.

Calling oneself "more extreme than Ayn Rand" indicates that you place her somewhere on that scale, which is of itself completely inaccurate.

I did not call myself that. I simply showed that HIS comment was calling me that. I was showing what his comment implied about his beliefs: namely that Ayn Rand was merely a point on the, as you so eloquently put it, "subjectivist/intrinsicist free love/sexual abnegation scale." I by no means share that belief or endorse it. I was merely pointing out how silly he sounded.

[JMeganSnow]

If she had known who John Galt was and that he existed, would she have ever slept with Francisco or Hank?

What does that have to do with anything?

I think that Hank was acknowledging that Francisco is, in final estimate, the better man than him. I'd have to know the exact point in the story when that comment was made. In any case, saying to a person "I don't blame you" usually means that they have made a mistake, but an understandable one. That's the kind I'm saying she made.

Hank said this after he met John Galt, (also after Dagny's radio speech, which is when Hank realized that she'd found another she loved). Yes, he was acknowledging that John was a "better man" than he was. However, his "I don't blame you," was not to excuse Dagny for the "error" of sleeping with Hank, it was to excuse her for the unfortunate pain Hank experienced when she left him for a greater value. He was essentially saying, "You're right, he IS better than I am, and what's more, you deserve him. Don't mind my pain, it'll pass, and it doesn't destroy the joy we had together or the fact that we deserved THAT, too."

I did not call myself that. I simply showed that HIS comment was calling me that. I was showing what his comment implied about his beliefs: namely that Ayn Rand was merely a point on the, as you so eloquently put it, "subjectivist/intrinsicist free love/sexual abnegation scale." I by no means share that belief or endorse it. I was merely pointing out how silly he sounded.

Yes, and I meant the response generally, although I can see why you may have thought it was directed your way. Apologies.

[Inspector]

What does that have to do with anything?

If the answer is "no," then she made an error (two, actually). She did something that she would not have, looking back at it, done. Let me stress that in this case it was a MINOR error of KNOWLEDGE, not a moral error, since she sincerely believed at the time that each was THE man for her. You seem to be operating on the premise that I am claiming a major, or moral, error. I am not.

Apologies

No problem.

However, his "I don't blame you," was not to excuse Dagny for the "error" of sleeping with Hank, it was to excuse her for the unfortunate pain Hank experienced when she left him for a greater value.

By acknowledging Galt as the greater value, and by saying "I don't blame you," he is recognizing that their relationship was an accident of circumstance (thus, error) and that Galt really is THE man for her. I read that passage differently than you, I guess.

[JMeganSnow]

If the answer is "no," then she made an error (two, actually). She did something that she would not have, looking back at it, done. Let me stress that in this case it was a MINOR error of KNOWLEDGE, not a moral error, since she sincerely believed at the time that each was THE man for her. You seem to be operating on the premise that I am claiming a major, or moral, error. I am not.

It doesn't have anything to do with our discussion because it didn't happen that way in the story; saying "if" doesn't accomplish anything, you might as well say "if humans had gills, we would live underwater and fire wouldn't be such a great invention then!" It's speculation, it doesn't pertain to anything.

By acknowledging Galt as the greater value, and by saying "I don't blame you," he is recognizing that their relationship was an accident of circumstance (thus, error) and that Galt really is THE man for her. I read that passage differently than you, I guess.

No. Calling Dagny's earlier relationships an "error" negates them, renders them non-values, destroys them. As I added above (I should have made it a seperate post) Cherryl's relationship with Jim Taggert was an error, it was based on a lie, it eventually destroyed her. Hank's relationship with Lillian was also an error, it was based on his misunderstanding and willful self-torture. However, he didn't let it destroy him, oddly, it was this fact that caused it to destroy Lillian. You cannot gain values through errors, all you can gain is damage. The greater the error, the worse the damage. If you are fortunate, you may manage to escape surrendering the greatest value (your life) to an error, but this is by no means assured.

I can even provide an example from my own life. Not long ago I was involved in a very destructive relationship; destructive, because I allowed it to be. I realized my mistake and took steps to correct it, namely by leaving the relationship. I gained no value from that relationship, and sustained serious damage (not the fault of my ex, poor guy). THAT is an error.

Dagny's relationships were not errors, they were and REMAINED beautiful affirmations of her heroic spirit. You should not attempt to destroy that.

[Inspector]

it didn't happen that way in the story

Nevertheless, she would not have.

No.  Calling Dagny's earlier relationships an "error" negates them, renders them non-values, destroys them.

That she had relationships was not in error. That she had sex was. Again, error of knowledge and not a moral one, like Jim Taggert's. They retained the value of their relationships: that is, the value they would have had if Galt hadn't existed. A part of the value of their relationships was destroyed, which is why Hank had any pain at all. The point is that Hank saw that pain as unimportant because the error was unimportant (and because he was that big of a man).

The greater the error, the worse the damage. If you are fortunate, you may manage to escape surrendering the greatest value (your life) to an error, but this is by no means assured.

I 100% agree. Which is why people need to be a LOT more careful with relationships.

[Inspector]

A part of the value of their relationships was destroyed

To clarify, the part that was destroyed was the part that they WOULDN'T have had if she had known Galt existed. The same part that they could no longer have from that day forward.

[AisA]

To clarify: a girl in state is not literally unconscious, out of control, or any of that (which one could have concluded from my previous posts). But she is in a state completely different from a man's.

How can you know the state of mind of every sexually aroused female on the planet? What an incredibly presumptuous notion.

A man's logical mind is congruent with his sexual state: he is doing what he always does, he is pursuing a goal.  For a girl, her sexual state is at odds with her logical mind, because she is giving up goal pursuit and letting herself be taken.

Why do you assume that "letting herself be taken" is not her goal? And if it is not her goal, and she does retain volition and judgment, then why does she permit it? She just can't control herself in your presence?

But the deeper she is in that state, the more blurred is her ability to think logically and make rational decisions.  This doesn't mean her volition is gone anymore than a man acting in the heat of passion loses his volition.  It's merely more difficult to initiate and sustain a thought process, and the second she TRIES to initiate and sustain any sort of thought process, she starts to go out of state.  As evidence, if you create too much sexual tension with a girl you've just met, she will try to throw herself out of state by trying to force you into a logical discussion.

The fact that a woman responds to your sexual advances with a logical question or statement is not necessarily evidence that she is slipping into some sort of diminished capacity, quasi-conscious state. Why would you make such an assumption?

For example, she might ask you, "Are you a player?"  If you give a logical answer to that question, no matter what it is, you will take her out of state, which is exactly what her (subconscious) intention is.

So now you are a mind reader, able to divine a woman's true intentions? And we must interpret any question asked during arousal as an attempt to get a logical answer and regain control of her mind? Her arousal can only be maintained by giving her illogical answers? Any trace of logic is an automatic turn-off for an aroused woman?

[JMeganSnow]

That she had relationships was not in error. That she had sex was.

It WOULD have been an error if, feeling the response as she did, she engaged in self-abnegation and refused to permit herself to bring her values into expression in reality. To make an analogy: it would have been the same betrayal if, loving the railroad as she did, she had refused to have anything to do with it and instead become a second-assistant-bookeeper somewhere. One should always act to bring expression to one's values in reality.

Hank's pain was unimportant in part because there was no error. (Leaving aside for now whether one should allow pain to have importance in one's life at all.) He had lost Dagny, the woman he truly loved, he SHOULD feel pain. Such pain, though, is the result of a passionate LOVE of life, not a destruction of it, and as such should be welcomed, acknowledged, then dismissed. What he felt at losing Dagny was what he felt at losing his mills, to him, they were one and the same. Early on in the book he could not have endured either, but as he grew as a person and came to realize what his deepest values were he was able to do BOTH.

[Inspector]

It WOULD have been an error if

Are you familiar with the difference between an error of knowledge and a moral error? You continue to attack the strawman of the latter, where I am merely stating it was the former.

Now, REMEMBER how we got started here: DPW had said that it was okay to have one-night-stands in the circumstance where one has foreknowledge that they will be one-night-stands (and that the other person is certainly NOT one's highest value). Now surely we both agree that THAT is a moral error?!?