Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Men & Women, Love & Sex

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

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

Hey, be nice. You're going to make my cry! Anyway, I can know what the female sexual state consists of very simply: by asking females. I also read a lot of psychology and have drawn conclusions based on my own experience with women. Might I still be wrong? Sure. I don't have any direct awareness of female mental states. But I find it amusing that an Objectivist would accuse me of being presumptuous simply because I claim to know something about consciousness which is not directly available to me via introspection.

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?

This is semantics. Yes, letting go of goals in order to be swept away by pleasure is a goal in an attenuated sense, but not in the sense relevant here. Isn't this obvious?

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?
That's not what I said. Stop trying to prove me wrong; rather, start trying to figure out what's right. I said that such questions CAN be an effort to stop guys from turning them on when they don't want to go into sexual state. If you don't agree, cool, I'm not trying to force feed the idea or anything, but I spent a lot of time asking women about certain behaviors that baffled me, and these are the conclusions I've drawn based on their answers. No need to freak out just because you don't think I'm correct.

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?

Don't get cute with me, dude. I don't know what I said that is so opposed to your sensibilities. Frankly, I don't care. I mean, all I said was that asking logical questions was one means of throwing herself out of state -- I didn't say that was ALWAYS the case. That's just you putting words in my mouth.

As to your last two questions, to maintain her arousal, you don't give illogical answers, but a-logical answers. For example, if a girl says to you, "Are you a player," you can keep her in state by responding, "Yeah, so what is it about players you like so much?" The point is that logical, or maybe a better word is literal conversations keep women from becoming aroused because of the nature of female sexual state, as I have previously explained.

In fact, let me give you this example, which maybe you can better relate to. Assuming you have a girlfriend, and assuming you two are sexually active, would you call her up and say, in a straightforward manner, "Come over so we can have sex" even if you both knew that was the only purpose of you getting together at that time? No. It is literal. It is obvious. Sexual tension requires that that shared knowledge be left unstated. (This example actually has a lot of great lessons in it, but I won't mine them out here.)

Subcommunication is SEXUAL communication. When I talk about logical communication, I mean direct, literal, communication. That type of communication will bring a girl out of state.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

I am well aware of the difference between an error of knowledge and a moral error. However regardless of the moral status of the error an error is still a NEGATIVE. The moral status is only important in judging the nature of the person committing the error.

In calling Dagny's earlier relationships an error you are destroying any good in those relationships, not even mentioning the fact that you declare that Ayn Rand's greatest heroine was either a fool or a slut. Given, I suppose it's MARGINALLY better that you seem determined to call her an idiot, but I maintain that calling her EITHER is a gross error in itself and must be rectified.

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?!?

No I do not and that is a highly intrinsicist position. An act cannot have a moral status in and of itself and not derived from any contextual relation to the individuals involved, the level of their feeling for one another, the values they are seeking to express, etc. Next you'll be telling me that it's a sin to be immodest before God.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<FC: Guys, cool off please.>

*sigh* Once again, I'm not actually enraged, but I suppose I may sound that way. I'm just ferocious! :lol:

GRR I'M FIERCE GRR!! :pirate::lol:

Inspector: I'm enjoying this dialogue tremendously, (you're a great sparring partner!) but I do ask that you refrain from any comment along the lines of "but surely . . ." That DOES tick me off.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I didn't TELL you anything. There was a question mark at the end of that sentence.

But surely . . . sounds rhetorical to me.

In Latin you would have ended the first word in that sentence with a -ne, indicating it was meant to be answered with a "no". :pirate:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

However regardless of the moral status of the error an error is still a NEGATIVE.

That's good, but you're still lumping in the sexual aspect of their relationship with the rest of it. As if if the first were in error, it would destroy both. (to note, if it were the other kind of error, I believe it WOULD destroy them both)

you declare that Ayn Rand's greatest heroine was either a fool or a slut.
I have done no such thing.

No I do not and that is a highly intrinsicist position.

So you are saying that having a one-night-stand with someone who you KNOW is not your highest value is NOT a moral error? Don't say that you can't judge without the context: I've GIVEN you the context. Don't tell me that it depends on the values they are seeking to express: sex is properly used only to express one's HIGHEST value.

Next you'll be telling me that it's a sin to be immodest before God.

I won't be telling you any such thing. I am an Objectivist and don't believe in any such nonsense. I've shown you how I deduced my ideas and you have yet to challenge them in any serious way. I don't appreciate personal attacks, by the way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's good, but you're still lumping in the sexual aspect of their relationship with the rest of it. As if if the first were in error, it would destroy both. (to note, if it were the other kind of error, I believe it WOULD destroy them both)

I have done no such thing.

It WOULD destroy both. You cannot detach the expression of love from the love. If the expression is wrong then the love is wrong and vice-versa, otherwise you're engaging in mind-body dichotomy.

So you are saying that having a one-night-stand with someone who you KNOW is not your highest value is NOT a moral error? Don't say that you can't judge without the context: I've GIVEN you the context. Don't tell me that it depends on the values they are seeking to express: sex is properly used only to express one's HIGHEST value.

That being, properly, your self.

I'm not engaging in personal attacks, I use emotionally-laden words because your response to them gives me an idea of what ideas you find appealing/unappealing. However, it doesn't seem to be helping so I'll stop.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Will do. It was meant honestly, if that matters. I didn't think you opposed that point.

I don't expect you to be a mind reader; I'm coming to the conclusion that my view on these matters is quite different from that of most of the other posters on this thread.

So, say no more on't. *Fwish* never happened. :pirate:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't expect you to be a mind reader; I'm coming to the conclusion that my view on these matters is quite different from that of most of the other posters on this thread.

I don't think so. I've certainly been in agreement with everything you've said, particularly your responses to the outrageous claim that Dagny made a mistake in sleeping with Rearden. In fact, the novel makes it clear that from the start Dagny was aware Hank was not her final choice, and yet she was absolutely RIGHT to have the affair. Keep up the good work.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In fact, the novel makes it clear that from the start Dagny was aware Hank was not her final choice, and yet she was absolutely RIGHT to have the affair.  Keep up the good work.

I second that. Rearden is not "the man at the end of the rails."

Saying that Dagny was in any way mistaken to sleep with Hank is a serious misreading of the novel.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That being, properly, your self.

I'll elaborate slightly on this point just to remove any further doubts:

The value that Dagny was celebrating as her highest in all three relationships was herself. Romantic love is a profoundly selfish emotion and sex is a profoundly selfish act. Celebrating herself, for Dagny, demanded a man of tremendous virtue and heroism; anything less would have been a degradation instead of a celebration.

Francisco, Hank, and John ALL demonstrated tremendous virtue and heroism, such that she chose to share that ultimate personal celebration with them. Francisco and Hank may have been steps on the path to the pinnacle, but the victories you achieve and the joys you experience on the way to your personal pinnacle do not diminish that pinnacle in any way, rather they refresh your spirit and remind you of what it is you are struggling to reach.

Having achieved that pinnacle, though, Dagny would not degrade herself by stepping down from it; she tested Galt to see if HE would during the toast at Francisco's cabin. When Galt refused, they had truly earned each other.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It WOULD destroy both.  You cannot detach the expression of love from the love.  If the expression is wrong then the love is wrong and vice-versa, otherwise you're engaging in mind-body dichotomy.

No I am not, I am distinguishing between levels of relationships: friendship and romantic love.

I use emotionally-laden words because your response to them gives me an idea of what ideas you find appealing/unappealing.

If I had known that, I would have gone with my first judgement and yelled at you with a counter-insult. I am not a puritan and I don't like being called one. :pirate:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No I am not, I am distinguishing between levels of relationships: friendship and romantic love.

Are you then indicating that Dagny felt only friendship for Francisco and Hank?

If I had known that, I would have gone with my first judgement and yelled at you with a counter-insult. I am not a puritan and I don't like being called one.  :pirate:

Yes, but you're ACTING like a Puritan, inasmuch that you seem to think it is wrong to engage in sex with anyone but your theoretical perfect mate. And it's probably a good thing that you didn't yell back; I can dish it out but I can't take it.

Well, no, I CAN take it but my return volley will be that much worse in consequence. See previous post on this thread about my being mean and pushing men around just to see whether I can.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hey, be nice.  You're going to make my cry!  Anyway, I can know what the female sexual state consists of very simply: by asking females.  I also read a lot of psychology and have drawn conclusions based on my own experience with women.  Might I still be wrong?  Sure.  I don't have any direct awareness of female mental states.  But I find it amusing that an Objectivist would accuse me of being presumptuous simply because I claim to know something about consciousness which is not directly available to me via introspection.

What is amusing about it? The implication of your statement is that there is something inherently presumptuous about Objectivism; is that what you mean?

This is semantics.  Yes, letting go of goals in order to be swept away by pleasure is a goal in an attenuated sense, but not in the sense relevant here.  Isn't this obvious?
Why is it not a goal "in the sense relevant here"? In what sense is it attenuated? Why is man's pursuit of sexual pleasure a full goal, but a woman's is only some kind of attenuated goal?

That's not what I said.  Stop trying to prove me wrong; rather, start trying to figure out what's right.  I said that such questions CAN be an effort to stop guys from turning them on when they don't want to go into sexual state.
Here is what you said:

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.
You did not say that her purpose might be the desire to get “out of state”, you said her intention is exactly that.

Don't get cute with me, dude.  I don't know what I said that is so opposed to your sensibilities.
I'll tell you what is "opposed to my sensibilities".

You have not presented your positions as mere possibilities or theories. Rather, you have made repeated, unqualified statements that female sexual arousal necessarily involves the suspension of logic, the dissolution of judgment, the loss of volition and the absence of a goal on the part of the female. (You are now trying to backpedal on this by stating that her volition is only diminished, though it is still inferior to the man’s and that she may have a goal-orientation, though again inferior to a man’s.)

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.

You have asserted that you have the ability to make a woman sleep with you regardless of her conscious desire -- you just "push the right buttons". You have contended that you can keep a woman under the influence of this irresistible sexual arousal -- just by answering her questions illogically, or by answering them, I suppose you will say, "a-literally".

You speak of girls being "in state" and "out of state" the way one would speak of an animal being in heat or out of heat -- and your description of a female's mental condition when she is "in state" is, in fact, pretty close to that of an animal "in heat".

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.

In fact, let me give you this example, which maybe you can better relate to.  Assuming you have a girlfriend, and assuming you two are sexually active, would you call her up and say, in a straightforward manner, "Come over so we can have sex" even if you both knew that was the only purpose of you getting together at that time?
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.

No.  It is literal.  It is obvious.  Sexual tension requires that that shared knowledge be left unstated.  (This example actually has a lot of great lessons in it, but I won't mine them out here.)
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.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Celebrating herself, for Dagny, demanded a man of tremendous virtue and heroism; anything less would have been a degradation instead of a celebration.

This is the idea I am focused on, and it is the anything less part that makes me think of Francisco and Hank as mistakes, so long as there exists a Galt. In the context of not knowing there was a Galt, which she didn't at the time, they are minor errors, but errors nonetheless.

When I look back at something in my life that I would not have done with knowledge I came upon later, I call that an error. If it was knowledge that I cannot reasonably be expected to have, it is a minor one (and Dagny could not reasonably have been expected to know there was a Galt).

And off of this is still, I will remind, spawned from your position here:

So you are saying that having a one-night-stand with someone who you KNOW is not your highest value is NOT a moral error? Don't say that you can't judge without the context: I've GIVEN you the context. Don't tell me that it depends on the values they are seeking to express: sex is properly used only to express one's HIGHEST value.

You responded with, "That being, properly, your self."

Which simply sidestepped my point. We will talk past each other unless we address the central point: sex is the highest expression of love and should therefore only be used with one's highest romantic love. Lesser relationships are not a proper medium for it. Stop me here if you dispute this point, and if you do... please explain who it is proper to have sex with.

Here we have an example of two people who are thinking of engaging in a one-night-stand. It is clear that they are NOT each others' highest love. It is clear that it is not worth the effort for either of them to ever see each other again. Yet you will not morally condemn the act of a one-night-stand. They're not about to die. There's no war on. It's a ONE-NIGHT-STAND.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Are you then indicating that Dagny felt only friendship for Francisco and Hank?

I'm saying that friendship is all she felt for them after she met Galt.

Yes, but you're ACTING like a Puritan, inasmuch that you seem to think it is wrong to engage in sex with anyone but your theoretical perfect mate.

There's a lot more to Puritans than that, and furthermore, they don't care a lick about whether the other is your perfect mate or not: they care about whether your union is approved of by BooGie and His minions. They also want you to not derive pleasure from it, and a whole bunch of other nonsense.

So no, I'm not acting even remotely like a Puritan.

As for the last... this is a big thread, so I don't know what you're referring to. Suffice to say, I am by no means a Puritan or a BooGie-worshipper or an intrincisist or the like, and I'm not interested in any insult-contests. What I am interested in is the truth.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For example, if a girl says to you, "Are you a player," you can keep her in state by responding, "Yeah, so what is it about players you like so much?"

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is the idea I am focused on, and it is the anything less part that makes me think of Francisco and Hank as mistakes, so long as there exists a Galt. In the context of not knowing there was a Galt, which she didn't at the time, they are minor errors, but errors nonetheless.

Also at that point Dagny had not earned a relationship with Galt, she had not come to the full and complete realization of her values and of their application necessary to do so. She had earned her relationships with Francisco and Hank. After she had earned her relationship with Galt she would have been settling for something less if she'd chosen to go with Francisco or Hank instead. Dagny does not remain static over the course of the book, after all. Her values do, but her understanding and application of them does not.

When I look back at something in my life that I would not have done with knowledge I came upon later, I call that an error. If it was knowledge that I cannot reasonably be expected to have, it is a minor one (and Dagny could not reasonably have been expected to know there was a Galt).

Yes, and if 16-year-old Dagny had run into adult John Galt she wouldn't have deserved a relationship with him and quite probably wouldn't have wanted one! Would she have been in error later if she discovered she could and did? This iffing is getting us nowhere.

And off of this is still, I will remind, spawned from your position here:

You responded with, "That being, properly, your self."

Which simply sidestepped my point. We will talk past each other unless we address the central point: sex is the highest expression of love and should therefore only be used with one's highest romantic love. Lesser relationships are not a proper medium for it. Stop me here if you dispute this point, and if you do... please explain who it is proper to have sex with.

Here we have an example of two people who are thinking of engaging in a one-night-stand. It is clear that they are NOT each others' highest love. It is clear that it is not worth the effort for either of them to ever see each other again. Yet you will not morally condemn the act of a one-night-stand. They're not about to die. There's no war on. It's a ONE-NIGHT-STAND.

I do dispute it, because you make an error right there. Sex is the proper physical expression of romantic love, not the "highest expression of love". Romantic love is a response to discovering that another holds and expresses one's OWN highest values and virtues, it is selfish, a valuation of one's SELF through another sharing those values. If you are seeking to celebrate those values, sex is entirely proper.

There can be many reasons not to engage in sexual contact with another person; risk of conception, one is involved in a formal contract (marriage), etc. However, all other things being equal, simple knowledge that only one instance of this celebration will take place is NOT sufficient reason. Still, one may choose not to, but this does not mean that one that DOES choose to do so deserves condemnation.

Personally I would probably not engage in a one-night-stand, but then I have never encountered anyone that so exemplified my personal values (especially on first meeting) as to provoke that sort of reaction. If I did I might very well attempt to retain them in my life for longer than one night, but I would not sacrifice my personal goals and interests in order to do so. (Well, unless he was REALLY cute :pirate:) If a one-night-stand was the only encounter possible between us, you BET I'd go for it; good luck trying to stop me. It would be a last-resort kind of thing, though.

This is similar to my stand on abortion, btw. Probably, I would not get one except as a last resort, but then it's a last-resort kind of procedure. This does NOT mean that I condemn the abortion (or the one-night-stand) as immoral.

I realize I'm hardly giving complete and concise answers to all your questions: I'm no Ayn Rand or Leonard Peikoff. I think that the major benefit I'm gaining from this is that it forces me to organize and articulate my own ideas. I don't know how convincing I am.

Edited to remove coding error.

Edited by JMeganSnow
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Also at that point Dagny had not earned a relationship with Galt, she had not come to the full and complete realization of her values and of their application necessary to do so.

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

I do dispute it, because you make an error right there.  Sex is the proper physical expression of romantic love, not the "highest expression of love".
It is both. They are the same thing.

Personally I would probably not engage in a one-night-stand, but then I have never encountered anyone that so exemplified my personal values (especially on first meeting) as to provoke that sort of reaction.  If I did I might very well attempt to retain them in my life for longer than one night, but I would not sacrifice my personal goals and interests in order to do so.  (Well, unless he was REALLY cute  :pirate:)

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.

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.

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.

If a one-night-stand was the only encounter possible between us, you BET I'd go for it; good luck trying to stop me.  It would be a last-resort kind of thing, though.

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.

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...
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...