Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Does how your partner views sex affect your view of the relationship?

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

Hey everyone,

This is my first post on the boards, but I've been lurking, reading for about a week. I'm amazed at the quality of input from the board's members, and the depth of thinking that goes into each post. I'd like to participate in the future, but I start with some concerns and questions. I was going to write a pretty huge post detailing the events of my current relationship, but instead I'll focus on a more recent issue.

I attach an incredible value to sex. To me, it is something which should be valued enough that one should want to save it for only the people they love. Because I see it this way, I would want any potential partner to see it this way as well. Do you think this is irrational?

I was discussing this with my girlfriend the other night when she presented an opposing view. She said that sex is a person's personal business, and that someone's past sexual endeavors would not affect her relationship with that person. I.e. if she met a man that had no problem whatsoever with meaningless sex, so long as he loved her when they became interested in each other, his past experiences would mean little to her.

I just cannot fathom the idea of getting together with a woman that has slept around, that would basically be telling me, "I am sincerely interested in you, and I want you, but if I did not, I would be instead having meaningless sex with men I don't care about, and I would see no problem with it." I would feel the love making between us really held no substance.

I don't believe meaning is injected into sex because of who you're doing it with, when you're doing it. Sex to me has an inherent value, and whether you choose to reserve it for those you love or not says directly how much you value the act. I'm of the notion that one who has no qualms with meaningless sex, when engaging in sex with someone they love, is doing just that, and that alone--having sex, performing a meaningless act, with someone they love. What are your views on this? Is this not the same as having sex with only people you love, anyway?

She said that although she reserves herself for only those she loves, finding someone who views sex as just mentioned would not be a problem for her. But wouldn't the value and meaning of sex be spoiled, I asked, knowing that the person had engaged in it meaninglessly with others whom they didn't care about? She said the act would not have lost its meaning, and it would not be de-valued because the act, when practiced before, did not have the meaning to begin with, and that if she and this person did have sex, and they loved each other, it would be something that the other person had not shared with others. What do you think of this? Is meaningless sex a different action than sex with someone you love?

Our disagreement is that I believe there is an inherent value in sex, while she does not. While it would be incredibly important to me who a potential partner has been with, and whether or not they had sex only in the context of love, she believes that the only thing that matters is the emotional attachment you share together, and that however one chooses to engage in sex before or after the relationship has no bearing on what it means between them.

Outside of our discussion, I've been increasingly judgmental of people based on how much they value sex, and I wonder if this is rational or not. I feel sex represents an incredible identification of a person's character based on who they share it with and the value they attach to it. With this view, I feel sad when I consider people I know to be promiscuous, even though their relationship with me, which has nothing to do with their personal sex life, is completely friendly and loyal. I do not know if this is wrong or not, I simply do not feel that I could ever be on a level of sincere understanding with a person who does not value sex the way I do.

Which brings me back to my relationship.. If this is the way I view sex--that I want my partner to find it sacred and worth saving only for the ones they love--then I feel a great... I don't know the word... distancing, between my girlfriend and I. It makes me incredibly upset that she does not see it the way I do, and I don't know if I'm being rational or not by being upset by this, especially when I already know that the both of us value what we do together, and that neither of us would give ourselves up to something meaningless.

When a mutual friend of ours who, while not necessarily promiscuous, does not attach value to sex makes a comment about a physically attractive woman in the vein of "Yeah, I'd do her if I had the chance," and you know he means it, she is capable of laughing and saying "you get 'er Joe, f* her hard," while I am capable only of feeling sorrow at it, and then a further sorrow for her comment.

There is cause for her views, though. She was raised by a father, who openly stated, without any qualm, that he had, in his life, probably slept with between 200-250 women. This is something she can laugh at because of the way she views things--she is capable viewing sex between others lightheartedly, and I am not. It just makes me upset, and I don't know if it should. Anyway, even though this was the case, she said she believed her mother and father loved each other (when she was young, they are divorced now), and asked how I could expect her to believe that the sex that had created her did not mean anything. I didn't have a response, because I don't know what to think of that. I understand that she values sex far more than her father, which is an achievement considering the extent of his promiscuity (he'd tell her stories as a child about past lovers and where and when he got handjobs from random women, cheated on friends, etc., treating sex as a completely casual act), but it still does not seem enough to me.

However, there is more. She explained to me the reason that she would not engage in meaningless sex: that experiencing a meaningless kiss, and knowing how completely empty and lonely that felt, was enough to make her vow to never engage in meaningless sex, because she knows how horrible it would be. On the other hand, I will not engage in meaningless sex because I could never gain happiness from making love to someone I do not love, and it would only be worth anything when it was with my partner. Is there a difference? Is her view reactive, and if so, what does that mean?

In the end, the issue was great enough for us to seperate over, and I wonder if I have been completely ridiculous for this or not. One might say, "if your relationship was broken up by this, then it was never very strong to begin with," to which I could only say that sex means an incredible lot to me, and it did not seem anything small. I've told her I need time to think about what it all means to me, which I am doing.

I would appreciate anyone's thoughts or input. Thank you.

Edited by cilphex
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 93
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

However, there is more. She explained to me the reason that she would not engage in meaningless sex: that experiencing a meaningless kiss, and knowing how completely empty and lonely that felt, was enough to make her vow to never engage in meaningless sex, because she knows how horrible it would be. On the other hand, I will not engage in meaningless sex because I could never gain happiness from making love to someone I do not love, and it would only be worth anything when it was with my partner. Is there a difference? Is her view reactive, and if so, what does that mean?

The difference seems only to be one of perspective: she, who did not understand the nature of sex, learned it the hard way when she experienced that empty, lonely feeling... whereas you understood sex well enough to never have made that mistake.

But if you both agree that it's a bad idea, and a mistake, then where is the conflict?

[edit: oh, I see you've added more]

Edited by Inspector
Link to comment
Share on other sites

But if you both agree that it's a bad idea, and a mistake, then where is the conflict?

The difference lies in what we want from our partners. If I had in highschool been in a few relationships strictly for sex, devoid of meaning, although it might affect her, it would be nothing of great importance because she feels that it would mean nothing between us. If she had done that in highschool, however, I don't think I could help but feel sorry for it, and not be able to view her with the admiration and reverence that I do.

Here is a concrete example: She had once been engaging in a long-distance relationship with a soldier from Iraq. It started while he was abroad, but he was to return for a couple of weeks on leave. Despite the interest they held in each other, she of course knew that it was not yet love, and explained to him that if it was sex he was looking for when he came home, that she was not going to give it to him.

But, she did say to him: "While you're home, you can be with other women if that's what you feel you need to do," and she would not have a problem with it, still believing that it would mean nothing between them.

I couldn't imagine telling a potential lover to sleep with other men because I understand she's so damn horny that she has to get it out of her system.

Although she would value whatever acts she engaged in with her partner, it just seems to me (although she would deny it) a lack of concern for her partner feeling the same way. And if that's the case, can one really find meaning in sex for themself, without the partner feeling it? It only seems this way to me, though--if you asked her, she would say that it is incredibly important that her partner find meaning in sex as well.

Sorry about updating my posts. Sometimes it takes me so long to formulate my thoughts that I feel I should just post what I've got. I usually end up coming back and adding the things which had escaped me.

Edited by cilphex
Link to comment
Share on other sites

She was raised by a father, who openly stated, without any qualm, that he had, in his life, probably slept with between 200-250 women.

This sounds to me like she holds two intertwined double standards(does that make a quadruple standard?)

One, that it is ok for boys but not for girls 'cuz boys have needs' and two, that it is ok for others but not ok for her in particular but that is just because of her personal distaste for it. In other words she does not seem to believe that morality is objective. She is unwilling to pronounce moral judgement on someone else even though she knows from personal experience that it lacks meaning.

Whether or not this is serious enough to break up over depends on a number of things which no one but you is probably qualified to decide. A couple questions I would ask myself are, does her relativism bleed over into other aspects of life? Is she is trying to defend her own past behavior, known by you or unknown? Is she just trying to maintain a positive view of her father? Is she speaking from a position of maturity, or is it just a youthful notion she is likely to outgrow? Is she open to reason in general but not with this one issue? Does she have a great many other values which outweigh this negative for you? Do her actions rather then her words toward you and toward sex correspond to her belief that it is highly meaningful or does she treat it trivially? Those sorts of things.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think she is treating sex too casually. I don't think it's wrong that when you hear people referencing/talking about promiscuity, that you feel sad or like you can't relate to them.

I attach an incredible value to sex. To me, it is something which should be valued enough that one should want to save it for only the people they love. Because I see it this way, I would want any potential partner to see it this way as well. Do you think this is irrational?
No, it isn't.

I'm of the notion that one who has no qualms with meaningless sex, when engaging in sex with someone they love, is doing just that, and that alone--having sex, performing a meaningless act, with someone they love. What are your views on this?

Unless they're utterly renounced the attitude that caused them to view it that way, seen it as a horrible mistake that they will never again make, then such a concern is valid on your part.

I feel sad when I consider people I know to be promiscuous, even though their relationship with me, which has nothing to do with their personal sex life, is completely friendly and loyal. I do not know if this is wrong or not, I simply do not feel that I could ever be on a level of sincere understanding with a person who does not value sex the way I do.

That is normal and healthy. A person's view of sex is a good reflection of their fundamental character. If their view of sex is disgusting, then you shouldn't be able to connect too closely with them.

[Edit: oh, I see you've added more again]

Edited by Inspector
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I attach an incredible value to sex. To me, it is something which should be valued enough that one should want to save it for only the people they love. Because I see it this way, I would want any potential partner to see it this way as well. Do you think this is irrational?

Having sex with someone with whom you are in a serious relationship with - with someone who shares your values and has your sense of life - with whom you are perhaps in process of falling in love with but you are not yet - is not meaningless. It may not be the right thing to do for you – but it is meaningful. You are attaching a further requirement for having sex - of already being in love – which is your personal choice.

If this is that important to you (which it clearly is) - it is rational for you to treat sex in this way; it is perfectly rational for you to want your romantic partner to reflect your values (in fact it is essential that they do). It is perfectly rational for you to be that much more selective in your choice of romantic partners to ensure that they do share your specific views on sex.

I was discussing this with my girlfriend the other night when she presented an opposing view. She said that sex is a person's personal business, and that someone's past sexual endeavors would not affect her relationship with that person. I.e. if she met a man that had no problem whatsoever with meaningless sex, so long as he loved her when they became interested in each other, his past experiences would mean little to her.

There are two things here. A person’s view on sex reflects their character and values. Personally, I would have a problem with a man who would think of sex as a meaningless physical act. But I also tend to think that someone’s past experiences are not a reflection on my current relationship with them. If someone treated sex as meaningless in the past but realized that it was a mistake – if otherwise they were what I was looking for - I would not have dwelled on their past.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd note that you seem disturbed that you can't like somebody who doesn't share your values. I suggest asking yourself why you feel so, and digging up a concrete answer. If something feels really wrong, which you seem to sense, then it's the perfect time for introspection, which you seem to do. So, you are on the right road.

Here's a blog post on this point that I conquer with. See if it gives you more ideas to work with.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are two things here. A person’s view on sex reflects their character and values. Personally, I would have a problem with a man who would think of sex as a meaningless physical act. But I also tend to think that someone’s past experiences are not a reflection on my current relationship with them. If someone treated sex as meaningless in the past but realized that it was a mistake – if otherwise they were what I was looking for - I would not have dwelled on their past.

Your second point is actually quite interesting here...

Cilphex, would it make any difference to you if she had done so in the past, but now realized it was the wrong thing to do and agreed with you completely on this issue?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just cannot fathom the idea of getting together with a woman that has slept around, that would basically be telling me, "I am sincerely interested in you, and I want you, but if I did not, I would be instead having meaningless sex with men I don't care about, and I would see no problem with it." I would feel the love making between us really held no substance.
Sex holds varrying levels of importance to everyone, and I do not see a problem with that. There is much more to a serious relationship than sex. As long as you are honest with yourself as to what you want to get out of a sexual relationship, and as long as your partner is just as honest, nothing bad can come of it.

To you, sex is very important, to your girlfriend it is not as important, in the broadest context. However, when you are together, you both hold sex in equal esteem. So where is the problem? Neither of you is sleeping with other people right now, right? I am of the opinion that it is not "unhealthy" to have less interest in sex than the next guy (you), so I think you are forcing an issue where none exists.

Edited by JASKN
Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is a lot here, to get handle on, with this subject.

As always context is critical.

The word love is contextually unattached. Therefore is useless

The term value connotes an actual identifiable assessment, or range.

i.e. I value you for these reasons.

Sex has two value assessments. Your valuation of yourself and that of your partner.

This is critical to note.

Also critical is that value has to be an objective assessment. The assessment must be based on reality and not social consensus.

You can not just say I have value, or they say I have value. There must be actual value.

I would submit to you that a person can have valueless sex. It is masturbation with another's body.

This would presume that an individual finds sexual release to be a value.

In this scenario, the individual seeking the valueless sex can be celebrating the value of themselves.

So to respond to your question: Does how your partner views sex affect your view of the relationship?

Yes

The answer would be the same for all of the potential partner's views. Another words: Are they rational?

The answer to that will absolutely affect, any potential for, relations.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would submit to you that a person can have valueless sex. It is masturbation with another's body.

This would presume that an individual finds sexual release to be a value.

In this scenario, the individual seeking the valueless sex can be celebrating the value of themselves.

What do you mean by valueless sex? Do you mean sex without value-judgement of the other person or sex with someone whom you evaluated and who does not reflect your values?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The word love is contextually unattached. Therefore is useless

The term value connotes an actual identifiable assessment, or range.

i.e. I value you for these reasons.

Do you mean that the word "love" is necessarily contextually unattached, regardless of context? Or do you mean that a specific poster in this thread has used the term love in a way that is contextually unattached? Ironically, this statement seems to lack the context necessary for it to be understood..

But, personally, I've gained a lot from AR's discussions of "love" in Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology.

The concept "love" is formed by isolating two or more instances of the appropriate psychological process, then retaining its distinguishing characteristics (an emotion proceeding from the evaluation of an existent as a positive value and as a source of pleasure) and omitting the object and the measurements of the process's intensity.

The object may be a thing, an event, an activity, a condition or a person. The intensity varies according to one's evaluation of the object, as, for instance, in such cases as one's love for ice cream, or for parties, or for reading, or for freedom, or for the person one marries. The concept "love" subsumes a vast range of values and, consequently, of intensity: it extends from the lower levels (designated by the sub-category "liking") to the higher level (designated by the sub-category "affection," which is applicable only in regard to persons) to the highest level, which includes romantic love.

Edited by Bold Standard
Link to comment
Share on other sites

What do you mean by valueless sex? Do you mean sex without value-judgement of the other person or sex with someone whom you evaluated and who does not reflect your values?

without value-judgement of the other person

The latter is a mistake, to which, the warm soft slap (a direct, sarcastic response to hearing people refer to reality as a cold and hard slap) of reality will alert an individual.

Do you mean that the word "love" is necessarily contextually unattached, regardless of context? Or do you mean that a specific poster in this thread has used the term love in a way that is contextually unattached? Ironically, this statement seems to lack the context necessary for it to be understood..

But, personally, I've gained a lot from AR's discussions of "love" in Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology.

Her explanation is good, however what I do not like is that it is used as a blanket statement. A person says "I love this"

Really? What about it do you value?

It is a word that substitutes for a more direct word. So I am nitpicking. In fact I like to nitpick further, but that is another topic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can not think of any objective standard by which I could celebrate my values, including my own value with someone who does not reflect them. For example, me sleeping with very very very hot nihillist. You can certainly masturbate with another's body but I would argue that it would not be a celebration of values - just getting off.

Her explanation is good, however what I do not like is that it is used as a blanket statement. A person says "I love this"

Really? What about it do you value?

That is exactly what Rand advocated. You should know what you value and why - especially when it comes to romantic love.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would say it's impossible to have "meaningless" sex unless you're unconscious during the entire event. (Even then, it will mean something to you when you wake up.) What you really are saying is that you think sex should have a specified "threshold" of meaningfulness attached to it: you have to love someone X amount before it's acceptable.

I don't think it's a good idea to sleep with anyone you don't love, but I also think it's up to you to decide how much you should love them before you decide to go for it, using your own particular life as the context for this decision. If any love at all is extremely rare in your life, you may not want to wait for the remote possibility of a better deal. However, if you have many opportunities for romance you may find it better to be a lot more selective about those you pursue. If a buffet is spread before you, you're going to pick and choose what you like. If all you have is a sandwich, you go with the sandwich.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If any love at all is extremely rare in your life, you may not want to wait for the remote possibility of a better deal. However, if you have many opportunities for romance you may find it better to be a lot more selective about those you pursue. If a buffet is spread before you, you're going to pick and choose what you like. If all you have is a sandwich, you go with the sandwich.
This philosophical approach is a like a knife with many edges along the blade that went into one's body, and then is slowly coming out, each edge dragging separate piece of the body, bringing a separate feeling of sharp unforgiving pain that rips one's mind apart. It runs against so many values and so many parts of one's self-esteem.

One may choose to follow such approach. I don't care.

However, I will much rather have no "sandwiches" at all if that is the price I will pay. It's worth too much to me, I'd rather not have it all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This philosophical approach is a like a knife with many edges along the blade that went into one's body, and then is slowly coming out, each edge dragging separate piece of the body, bringing a separate feeling of sharp unforgiving pain that rips one's mind apart. It runs against so many values and so many parts of one's self-esteem.

One may choose to follow such approach. I don't care.

That's a pretty strong reaction, Olex. You must care at least a little to create such a simile.

I think you may have misinterpreted Jennifer's point, though. If not, why, exactly, is such an approach so horrible?

A question to everyone generally: Where is the evidence to back up the idea that sex is like a life-and-death situation? People on this board are always spouting things like, "It's too great a thing," "It means too much," "I have too much to lose," and so forth. Do you have experience or scientific studies to back this up? How did you come to be aware of the great toll on your psychology that having sex deals?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If all you have is a sandwich, you go with the sandwich.

You know I hate food analogies. You don't need sex like you need food. But if we must use them, I will say that a food, once sufficiently rotten, is not food at all, but poison. Bad poison that will make you want to vomit.

I'm going to start with a few quotes, since there have been several questions on "valueless sex."

Sex is moral, it is an exalted pleasure, it is a profound value. Like happiness, therefore, sex is an end in itself; it is not necessarily a means to any further end, such as procreation. This uplifted view of sex leads to an ethical corollary: a function so important must be granted the respect it deserves.

To respect sex means to approach it objectively. The guiding principle should be: select a partner whom you love on the basis of values you can identify and defend; then do whatever you wish together in bed, provided that it is mutually desired and that your pleasures are reality-oriented. This excludes indiscriminate sexual indulgence and any form of destructiveness or faking—such as, among other examples, the chaser's promiscuity

the rational man's requirements, here as elsewhere, are the opposite of contradictory. He desires only a woman he can admire, a woman who (to his knowledge) shares his moral standards, his self-esteem, and his view of life. Only with such a partner can he experience the reality of the values he is seeking to celebrate, including his own value. The same kind of sexual selectivity is exercised by a rational woman. ... Romantic love is the strongest positive emotion possible between two individuals. Its experience, therefore, so far from being an animal reaction, is a self-revelation: the values giving rise to this kind of response must be one's most intensely held and personal.

This brings us to the typical subjectivist approach to sex. The subjectivist, too, severs concepts from percepts and holds that sex is a mere sensory reaction, devoid of intellectual cause. But he tells men to go ahead and revel in it, to grab whatever animalistic sensations they want without reference to principles or standards. In this theory, love is a myth, and sex is merely a wriggling of meat. So anything goes that satisfies anybody's whim—whenever he feels like it, wherever, however, and with whomever or whatever he decides to pick up.

Proper human sex, by contrast, requires men and women of stature, in regard both to moral character and metaphysical outlook.

Hopefully, that should clear up the subject of "valueless sex." Of course, there's a lot more in there about other bad attitudes with which to approach the subject, but that's the vice that was asked about.

On the subject of what the minimum requirements are for a partner that is worthy of love (love being a requirement for rational, life-affirming sex), I will only say that the above quotes make it indisputably clear that there is a minimum below which, no matter how desparate, it would be a vice. To engage in sex with such a person would, in fact, be a disgusting corruption of sex, an insult to one's self-esteem, and an act of self-defacement. A rational man would rather have no sex at all than engage in such an act.

I will not comment on precisely what that minimum is, as it causes lots of debate and I'm not in the mood. My point is only that it exists.

But going back to one's partner's view of sex, I think it is quite important, just as sex is important. Because, when engaged in improperly, sex can be so vile of an act, for someone to attach so little value to how their partner treats it (even if they are treating it properly at present) is surely an irrationality.

And, to answer another question of the original poster, yes I do think that someone who is even willing to pursue the defacing variety of sex is not capable of understanding, much less engaging in, the proper, life-affirming variety. Not without a major realignment of their entire philosophy. So, yes, that would qualify as a bad sign.

Suffice to say, a disparity between the reverence with which you treat sex and which your partner does is a serious problem. It's not neurotic or imaginary, in other words. And I don't just mean the esteem one holds for sex, personally, but also what one is willing to tolerate in the attitudes of others. An over-tolerant attitude is an error, and hopefully you will be able to convince your girlfriend of this. Tolerating bad attitudes about sex is not nearly as bad of an error as actually having them, mind you. She already understands the need for standards, so you have some hope of convincing her. Good luck.

Oh, and as for analogies between food and sex, there is the following:

Human beings, precisely to the extent that they have attained human stature, gain comparatively little enjoyment from the mere sensation of satisfying these needs. Their pleasure comes mostly from the accompanying emotions. It comes from the constellation of conceptually formulated values that define the needs' human satisfaction. Thus the joys of haute cuisine with special friends amid crystal and tapestries in a fine restaurant, or of beef stew and a glass of wine with a loving wife in one's own dining room, as against the act, equally nutritious and shielded from the elements though it may be, of chewing a piece of meat in a vacant cave somewhere. The principle is that a pleasure which was once purely biological becomes, in the life of a conceptual being, largely spiritual. The principle applies preeminently to sex.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm going to start with a few quotes, since there have been several questions on "valueless sex."

The original poster didn't originally use the term "valueless" sex, but meaningless sex, which is an entirely different thing. Frankly, I would say that nothing in your life of any kind whatsoever can be meaningless unless you're intentionally shutting your brain off. Even this pen here on my desk means something: it means that there's a pen on my frickin' desk. If you want to follow it further, it also implies all kinds of other meaning: that there's gravity holding it on my desk, that objects exist, that I'm conscious . . . "meaning" without specific context (meaning what? to whom?) is a vague and blurry term that conveys nothing.

On "valueless" sex I've said nothing: it should be pretty obvious that such a thing is both possible and undesirable, just like a valueless anything that you've invested time, effort, and money in. It'd be like buying a Pet Rock: the only comment I have on THAT is: are you out of your mind?!

On the subject of what the minimum requirements are for a partner that is worthy of love (love being a requirement for rational, life-affirming sex), I will only say that the above quotes make it indisputably clear that there is a minimum below which, no matter how desparate, it would be a vice. To engage in sex with such a person would, in fact, be a disgusting corruption of sex, an insult to one's self-esteem, and an act of self-defacement. A rational man would rather have no sex at all than engage in such an act.

Did I not say that you should love someone before you sleep with them? I just said that it's possible to love different people different amounts, and the specific amount you consider a requirement is largely optional. When I say that I love someone (and I'm not being "cute", a character flaw I haven't eradicated yet), this means "I'd sleep with you, if such were an option", it does NOT mean "I consider you a good friend". Do you use one of the over-sentimental archaic uses where it means "you're my bud, but if you insult me I have no compunctions about challenging you to a duel and shooting you in cold blood"?

It is self-abasement to have sex with someone you don't love. It is not, if you choose to sleep with someone you do love, even if you can tell that you could possibly love someone else more. (If you do meet someone else that you love more, it would be irrational to settle for the lesser person.) Like everything in life, you have to pursue actual values, not hang around waiting for theoretical ones to come into existence.

A rational man neither pursues impossible goals, nor decides too easily what is impossible.

Edited by JMeganSnow
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Human beings, precisely to the extent that they have attained human stature, gain comparatively little enjoyment from the mere sensation of satisfying these needs. Their pleasure comes mostly from the accompanying emotions. It comes from the constellation of conceptually formulated values that define the needs' human satisfaction.
It is self-abasement to have sex with someone you don't love. It is not, if you choose to sleep with someone you do love, even if you can tell that you could possibly love someone else more. (If you do meet someone else that you love more, it would be irrational to settle for the lesser person.) Like everything in life, you have to pursue actual values, not hang around waiting for theoretical ones to come into existence.

A rational man neither pursues impossible goals, nor decides too easily what is impossible.

So sex hits its highest potential when you engage in it with someone of the greatest total value that you can find. I agree.

However, none of your quotes, Inspector, or Jennifer, have explained why I must reach that highest potential for sex to be moral. Why can't I say, "You look damn good, you're good in bed, that is value enough for me right now."? Masturbating is a good time and there is nothing wrong with that, why can't sex be a slightly different good time when romance and love is not involved? What is immoral about that?

From my own experience, I have found it impossible to divorce a person's mind from their body in the way I just described. I have experienced not enjoying sex. But I know people who can eliminate a person's mind to have sex with basically a body, or at least it seems like they can, and I honestly can't find grounds on which to condemn them other than, "It didn't work for me." So where are those grounds?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...
I can not think of any objective standard by which I could celebrate my values, including my own value with someone who does not reflect them. For example, me sleeping with very very very hot nihillist. You can certainly masturbate with another's body but I would argue that it would not be a celebration of values - just getting off.

That is exactly what Rand advocated. You should know what you value and why - especially when it comes to romantic love.

Note: this is lonestoic. I had to re-register. Password info for some sites are on a computer that is packed away for moving.

So, sorry about the delayed response. I participate in many forums. Much more sporadically these days.

In retrospect I should have chosen my words more carefully. "valueless sex" is impossible, just as meaningless sex. What I should have said was one sided, or self indulgent sex. The motivation for the action (sex) can only be based on a persons value system. Therefore, like any action, there is a value choice. When confronted with the lack of a potential partner, I do not think being a monk is a good solution.

Sleeping with someone who is not of value is certainly not ideal either. That said, human contact ... sex ... is as one of the Rand quotes posted, an end in itself. To that end it is rational to want to feel and celebrate life. When a rational person accomplishes something, and or takes a moment to reflect on the beauty of it all, it is hard to abstain. So I would submit that if it can only be motivated by your joy, then so be it. It becomes a transaction of sorts (being with the sex partner).

There is absolutely no argument that a value match is ideal.

Just do not forget that loving yourself enough to live life to it's fullest, does not mean privation.

Also note: this is in no way to be confused with those who seek sexual conquest to create an image.

Edited by stoatian
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just do not forget that loving yourself enough to live life to it's fullest, does not mean privation.

Do you think that refusing to sleep with people who you do not love is self-deprivation? I'd call that honesty.

There are other things to do to service the needs of the body, that are not sex. Nobody is saying that one must be a monk.

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...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

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