At What Point Does The Value Of Sex Become Compromised?

[tnunamak]

For the purposes of this thread, let's call sex anything having to do with at least two people sexually stimulating each other with touch, sight, or sound.

Something I've been thinking about, especially after reading through the threads concerning masturbation and pornography, is when sex becomes hedonistic or immoral, the costs outweighing the benefits. For two extremes, lets say on one end is a happily married couple who recognize and celebrate each other's values with the act of sex every few days. On the other end might be a rebellious teenager who goes to parties, distorts his judgement with drugs and alchohol, and engages in sex with half a dozen random people, doing things that would make the average american sick.

I'm going to say that there is at least one point in between those two ends of the spectrum that would still be moral, but not at either end (this can be discussed if anyone disagrees). This would mean that there has to be some point where sex becomes immoral because of how the individual(s) is/are engaging in it.

How do other acts which might be considered sex, "but not really sex," such as talking/visually stimulating over the phone or internet play into this?

In other words, what exactly determines what makes sex moral and what makes it immoral? Does it have to do with the whole, "whatever it is, it's moral as long as there are no better alternatives?"

[ggdwill]

This is a good question.

I think you're off the mark though in your approach at answering it. I don't think that there's anything inherently wrong with any type of sex act between consenting adults so I disagree with your spectrum theory. Rather's what's important to consider is the psychological motivation underlying why they're doing what they're doing.

Psychologically healthy people have sex - any type of sex - for the reason you described; "to celebrate each others values". Psychologically unhealthy people (at least when it comes to the issue of sex. I'm not a psychologist so I don't know if sexual attitudes are linchpin attitudes) have it for lots of other reasons. The common stereotype most people think of is the slutty girl who just wants attention and hasn't ever been paid attention to any other way. There's lots of other common types that don't have as much noteriety. People have sex to relieve stress, to induce excitement, or to simply feel whatever emotion happens to be ilicited because they might be "feeling" emotionally empty.

My point is that once sex becomes thought of a surefire way to alter your emotional state or to escape from an unpleasant reality, it is probably as addictive as certain drugs. I've read about how sex messes with your endorphin levels and so it's likely that people who have alot of sex become addicted to the high that comes from that shift in brain chemisty - so much so that being "sober" feels unpleasant by comparison.

I think the reason why so many people have problems with things like pornography and phone sex is because it is used as a crutch so commonly. Since sex is supposed to be about celebrating values it's no coincidence that is usually occurs after a pleasant evening where two people really connect emotionally and intellectually. It's that connection that they're celebrating, as well as all of the individual work that went into creating attractive characters and intellects. Pornography or phone sex or prostitution is a cheap short-cut to the reward without having to do any of the work.

I'm not saying that short-cuts are never appropriate. In certain circumstances they are (eg: after the sudden termination of a long-term relationship). However, when people become dependent upon these things, or even get to the point where they subconciously prefer them to actual interpersonal interaction, then obviously there is a problem. By "problem" I mean that one is not comfortable enough to make the best possible choice for himself. Despite having many traits that others would find emotionally and sexually attractive, he has become so disconnected emotionally from other people, and his sexual attitudes have become so complacently below his potential, that he is habitually choosing a less rewarding alternative.

Ayn Rand said "tell me what a man finds sexually attractive and I'll tell you his philosophy on life". This is a very astute statement. If someone has bad philosophical beliefs they are going to fall in with like minded people and end up sharing their art, their recreation, and maybe even their beds. If he does this long enough it becomes automatized as an emotion; a subconcious sexual response. So, what I think she meant by this is that a person's general emotional tempraments are heavily influenced by and can tell you alot about their concious convictions; with sexual attitudes being the best indicator.

One other point. You could make an argument that there's a strong correlation between certain sexual activities and the general personalities of the people who enjoy them. I think there is, but I'm not going to address it in this post since I still think any possible causal link would have to be found using the ideas I've stated above. You'd probably need a few PhDs to find it.

-Grant

[tnunamak]

This is a good question.

I think you're off the mark though in your approach at answering it. I don't think that there's anything inherently wrong with any type of sex act between consenting adults so I disagree with your spectrum theory. Rather's what's important to consider is the psychological motivation underlying why they're doing what they're doing.

I agree that there isn't anything inherently wrong with sex, since no action itself can be measured on a scale of morality, so I suppose that my question should have referred directly to the motivations behind the acts of sex themselves.

My point is that once sex becomes thought of a surefire way to alter your emotional state or to escape from an unpleasant reality, it is probably as addictive as certain drugs.

And you would say that this is the point where it becomes immoral, correct? I guess this is something I have trouble with with all kinds of topics. For the sake of simplicity, say there are two components of motivation involved with sex... the moral component, which you described as being the healthy one, and any immoral component, or unhealthy one.

In the case of sex, say that my primary motivation is the healthy component, but I still go into it knowing that I'm going to get attention, alter my emotional state, etc, expecting that to some degree. Is it wrong if my unhealthy desires are the deciding factor in my decision to have sex, even if they are just a miniscule amount compared to the healthier motivation, but just enough to change my decision and make me want to do it? Or does the unhealthy part have to be the primary motivator? Or am I looking at it incorrectly?

I guess something I've been struggling with since reconstructing, or constructing for the first time, my philosophy and values, is how do I consider my unconscious desires and emotions, resulting from my old philosophy, or lack of one, when I'm making decisions based on my new new one? For example, consciously, I've decided that it's moral to have a healthy relationship with someone whose values I respect and admire. But say I'm pursuing a relationship with a person and they are extremely physically attractive, attractive enough for me to have immorally pursued them solely based on that quality before restructuring my philosophy. If my old philosophy, which largely remains with me subconsciously, is subconsciously encouraging me to pursue this person because of their physical features, how do I pinpoint that that's the source of those motivations/desires? Couldn't the person's physical qualities, coupled with their personality traits and values that I admire, also motivate me in a healthy way to pursue them? With different questions, I guess I sometimes have trouble distinguishing between the two, and deciding whether I would be making a moral or immoral decision. This could be applied to sex as well, although I'm not really sure that's a problem for me at the moment, but to relate it more closely to the original question of the thread. I think the solution lies in introspection, but I will admit that when making tough decisions during my philosophical transition, I've had trouble with that as well. I know it takes a while before the subconscious can completely absorb the implications of a consciously chosen philosophy.

So, what I think she meant by this is that a person's general emotional tempraments are heavily influenced by and can tell you alot about their concious convictions; with sexual attitudes being the best indicator.

I think this ties in very closely to what I'm talking about.

[JMeganSnow]

And you would say that this is the point where it becomes immoral, correct? I guess this is something I have trouble with with all kinds of topics. For the sake of simplicity, say there are two components of motivation involved with sex... the moral component, which you described as being the healthy one, and any immoral component, or unhealthy one.

There's nothing inherently wrong with wanting to get attention or alter your emotional state, either. The question doesn't lie in what you want out of sex, but WHY you want those things out of it. If you want to get attention from someone you deeply admire for rational reasons, that's a wonderful reason for it! If you want to fake being good enough to deserve their attention, that isn't.

I don't think it's possible to have an immoral reason for having sex if you are honest with yourself about what you expect and why. The whole idea of immorality is that you're trying to pretend your reasons are other than they are. Someone that seeks to fake a sense of their own value from the act of sex cannot admit what they want without destroying it: if they admit that they are faking, they can no longer fake.

Now, I think it's immoral to have sex simply because you want sex and not sex with a specific partner, because you're trying to pretend that sex is a purely physical act without any emotional attachment. Desire isn't something your body inflicts on your mind . . . desires arise in the mind and your body responds to them; when you're profoundly unhappy or disgusted with the world, you feel no desire for sex. At least, I don't; the whole concept of sexuality seems completely alien to me when I'm not happy.

[ggdwill]

I agree that there isn't anything inherently wrong with sex, since no action itself can be measured on a scale of morality, so I suppose that my question should have referred directly to the motivations behind the acts of sex themselves. And you would say that this is the point where it becomes immoral, correct?

Yes, that's correct.

I guess this is something I have trouble with with all kinds of topics. For the sake of simplicity, say there are two components of motivation involved with sex... the moral component, which you described as being the healthy one, and any immoral component, or unhealthy one.

I'm not all that surprised that you have this problem in all kind of topics. Honestly, when I first read your original post, the thought that kept occuring to me was "this guy is a recovering intrinsicist". I think your intrincism is still there in this paradigm as well, it's just become more camoflaged. As I said, I don't believe that there is anything inherently moral or immoral about a particular sex act itself. I also don't believe that about any particular psychological trait a person may have. In fact, I don't think that you can divide one's psychological identity into seperate parts. Certainly, conceptually you can for the purposes of introspection, but to think of them as literally seperate entities is unrealistic. Psychology doesn't work that way. Instead, what happens inside someone's head when they're faced with a decision is that the more deeply held belief will win out. If that belief/desire/emotion is rational, then they will make the right choice; it's it's not, they won't. Any opposing beliefs/desires/emotions will only produce hesitation or a feeling of conflict that will only exacerbate the deeper emotion and make the desire more difficult to conciously oppose. If you only hold good ideas conciously, you may win some battles, but you will ultimately lose the war.

In the case of sex, say that my primary motivation is the healthy component, but I still go into it knowing that I'm going to get attention, alter my emotional state, etc, expecting that to some degree. Is it wrong if my unhealthy desires are the deciding factor in my decision to have sex, even if they are just a miniscule amount compared to the healthier motivation, but just enough to change my decision and make me want to do it? Or does the unhealthy part have to be the primary motivator? Or am I looking at it incorrectly?

I think you're looking at it incorrectly. As JMeganSnow pointed out, there isn't anything inherently wrong with wanting attention or wanting to alter your emotional state. Attention and emotion are largely unavoidable parts of sex. I say largely because two people can be completely in love and passionately attrached to one another and still from time to time have sex for the wrong reasons. I don't believe that once someone decides to have sex for a good reason, the encounter is guaranteed to leave them feeling rewarded, and vice versa. However, I do believe that if someone feels like having sex for the right reasons, and the oppotunity presents itself, it is guaranteed to be a good time (unless, of course, your mother-in-law calls). Psychologically, the important thing is to communicate to yourself and/or your loved one what the sex was about and if it was bad, figure out why.

For example, consciously, I've decided that it's moral to have a healthy relationship with someone whose values I respect and admire. But say I'm pursuing a relationship with a person and they are extremely physically attractive, attractive enough for me to have immorally pursued them solely based on that quality before restructuring my philosophy. If my old philosophy, which largely remains with me subconsciously, is subconsciously encouraging me to pursue this person because of their physical features, how do I pinpoint that that's the source of those motivations/desires?

I think you just did pinpoint them. I think that bringing something into concious, lucid awareness is the definition of pinpointing. As for pursuing someone only because they're physically attractive, no, I don't think that's a good idea. However, if you do it and he or she turns out to have alot of other traits you admire, then you got lucky. There's a big difference between pursuing someone and having sex with them immediately. There's no point in feeling guilty about not being omnicient about someone and only going on looks; besides, looks can be very iindicative of character. In fact, that's why I pursued my ex-girlfriend. Fortunately, she and I had enough in common that we had a 3 and 1/2 year relationship, but unfortunately we had too much negative in common that we weren't growing from one another anymore - bad sexual atttitudes were a big part of the negativity throughout the relationship.

-Grant

*edited to properly punctuate JMeganSnow's moniker.

Edited June 12, 2006 by ggdwill

[tnunamak]

I don't think it's possible to have an immoral reason for having sex if you are honest with yourself about what you expect and why. The whole idea of immorality is that you're trying to pretend your reasons are other than they are.

Ok, I think this clears up any remaining bits of confusion I had in my original post. Thanks.

Desire isn't something your body inflicts on your mind . . . desires arise in the mind and your body responds to them; when you're profoundly unhappy or disgusted with the world, you feel no desire for sex.

I think in my mind I've always wondered about whether this applies to sex. Is it impossible for physical stimulation, completely abset of any mental stimulation, to be pleasurable or a value in itself? It seems to be for some people, or are they just kidding themselves?

If you only hold good ideas conciously, you may win some battles, but you will ultimately lose the war.

I've always thought (and felt) that if you perservere long enough with consciously held beliefs, they will sink into your subconscious or integrate into a new one. Otherwise, how does one successfuly transition into a new philosophy?

I think you just did pinpoint them. I think that bringing something into concious, lucid awareness is the definition of pinpointing.

I guess this is what I personally need to work on more. Sometimes it can be very hard to pinpoint one of two possible sources of an emotion, I don't think there's any avoiding the transition where the subconscious is partially in conflict with the conscious... I think that's just part of growing out of bad habits and beliefs. I think I will work more on accurately identifying the sources of certain subconscious conflicts I sometimes have.

Thanks guys

Edited June 13, 2006 by tnunamak

[JMeganSnow]

I think in my mind I've always wondered about whether this applies to sex. Is it impossible for physical stimulation, completely abset of any mental stimulation, to be pleasurable or a value in itself? It seems to be for some people, or are they just kidding themselves?

Well, physical stimulation CAN be pleasurable, and since it's not hurting you it's certainly a value, but tell me, do you really desire to spend your time in lonely masturbation or do you want a partner and a relationship, which will culminate in sexual activity?

I think it's wrong to have sex with someone you don't want because it lacks integrity: you're not suiting your actions to your thoughts, and your thoughts don't suit your actions. You know the other person is more than a slab of meat, but you're treating them as one, and you know you're more than a bundle of uncontrollable urges, but you're acting like you are. It's an odd case, though, because I don't think many people have this problem . . . they wouldn't be able to derive any enjoyment from sleeping with someone they didn't want in the first place, so why do it?

[Bold Standard]

Desire isn't something your body inflicts on your mind . . . desires arise in the mind and your body responds to them;

Do you mean this to apply only to sexual desire? If not, hunger would seem to be an obvious exception to this rule. Emotions are physiological experiences. They do involve the mind and values, but they don't end or necessarily always originate there.

[ggdwill]

David,

I would agree that emotions don't always originate in the mind. Hunger is a good example. Sex probably qualifies aswell. However, I disagree that emotions or desires do not end in the mind. I think that they do.

Those who live a celibate lifestyle are living testament to it. Granted, most of them probably just lie to themselves and others about their sexual desires and even their behavior; but I'm sure that if practiced long enough, the desires dissapate to the point where, if presented with something that would be sexually stimulating to a typical person, these people would only feel anxiety or scorn. I think that at that point you could safely say that their mind, and the lifestyle it has dictated, has killed that desire.

Also, another point that I think reinforces this is that humans are the only species I know of that can intentionally kill themselves. A hunger strike is a good example. You could argue that the desire for food doesn't go away but is just overtaken by a desire for something else - such as political change; but at what point does your desire for food die? Well, it dies when you die for the sake of an idea.

I know I'm risking changing the subject, but maybe there's something of value relevant to the original topic in what I have said.

- Grant

[LaszloWalrus]

I don't think hunger is an emotion; it's a directly sensorial experience that can trigger emotions, but it's not itself an emotion.

[JMeganSnow]

Do you mean this to apply only to sexual desire? If not, hunger would seem to be an obvious exception to this rule. Emotions are physiological experiences. They do involve the mind and values, but they don't end or necessarily always originate there.

Obvious to whom? It's not obvious to ME. A sensation of pain in the stomach and saliva in the mouth doesn't tell you what your body needs or why. You can never desire a food or even food in general until you've encountered it at least once AND observed it satisfying your needs adequately. Your body "needs", your mind "wants". Your body needs protein so your mind wants a steak. If you don't eat steak, you'll probably want fish or something else.

[Bold Standard]

I would agree that emotions don't always originate in the mind. Hunger is a good example. Sex probably qualifies aswell. However, I disagree that emotions or desires do not end in the mind. I think that they do.

What I meant was more along these lines.. A deep sadness might originate in your mind, but the end result might be that you break into tears. I would argue that crying is part of the experience of "being sad." In the same way, joy might cause a person to laugh, uncontrollably. As long as the emotion is there, the physiological experience will proceed naturally.

I don't see any reason to divorce emotions from their physical manifestations. They are "body" and "mind," as far as I can tell. Also, emotions are automatic. If you've accepted certain premises, and you're in a specific situation, you will feel such and such emotion, and your only choice is to experience it, or try and repress it.

I don't think hunger is an emotion; it's a directly sensorial experience that can trigger emotions, but it's not itself an emotion.

I was using "hunger" to mean "the desire for food."

Obvious to whom? It's not obvious to ME.

Ok, I shouldn't have said it like that. : )

A sensation of pain in the stomach and saliva in the mouth doesn't tell you what your body needs or why. You can never desire a food or even food in general until you've encountered it at least once AND observed it satisfying your needs adequately. Your body "needs", your mind "wants". Your body needs protein so your mind wants a steak. If you don't eat steak, you'll probably want fish or something else.

Why do you limit hunger to the mere sensation of pain in the stomach and saliva in the mouth? Hunger is a physiological experience-- not just out-of-context sensations. Lots of things could make your stomach hurt and your mouth salivate that would not add up to an experience of hunger. As I said, emotions "do involve the mind and values."

It just seems to me that your choice of words, "Desire isn't something your body inflicts on your mind . . . desires arise in the mind and your body responds to them," seems to suggest, to me, a kind of mind-body split. I know you don't believe in that, but taken literally, that's how I think it sounds.

My point in mentioning hunger is this: Hunger is not something that your mind merely invents, and your body responds to. Not if you accept the primacy of existence. Hunger begins with the physical experience, and your mind automatically grasps that what it wants is food-- assuming you're a rational adult, and you've learned what food is, etc. All emotions are the result of similar subconscious "programming" that usually originates in some conscious act that you've automatized in various ways. What I'm getting at is that desire can't exist in the body apart from the mind. And it can't exist in the mind apart from the body. Man is an integrated entity-- body and mind.

As this all applies to sex, I'm not decided. I was only commenting on your generalizing to all desires originating in the mind. If desire is a conscious pursuit of some value, I would agree with you. But I usually understand desire to mean an emotional experience of wanting some value, which might include some physical and mental aspects.

Edited June 15, 2006 by Bold Standard

[JMeganSnow]

Ahh, that makes more sense. I wasn't trying to indicate that there was some kind of mind-body split involved; it's because of the integration that your body responds to what your mind dictates.

I think it's difficult to see it with sex, especially, because it can be terribly difficult to consciously identify the nature of your sexual desires. I, at least, do it much more readily with things like food. I mean, if I'm hungry, I can figure out what I want pretty easily; if I have food that doesn't appeal, I know immediately why it doesn't appeal. Not so complicated.

Sex, though? That's a godawful job of introspection, so much so that you have to go through a serious amount of trial-and-error just to find out what it is that you're feeling!