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

[JASKN]

You mean with someone who you don't love? Wouldn't that be self-deception? Pretending to love them for the duration of the act?

Well, you love them insofar as they can perform the act and provide their body. I understand that a lot of people have a really good time having sex with people they otherwise know or care to know almost nothing about, personality-wise. What's wrong with that? (...If) Nobody pretends to love anything beyond the sex, and everyone has a good time. Isn't the argument against this kind of sex that it is psychologically damaging? So if it's not, what's wrong with it?

[Inspector]

Well, you love them insofar as they can perform the act and provide their body.

That's not love.

I understand that a lot of people have a really good time having sex with people they otherwise know or care to know almost nothing about, personality-wise. What's wrong with that?

What's wrong with that is that it is the complete sundering of mind and body, and a total evasion of the nature of what they are doing.

(...If) Nobody pretends to love anything beyond the sex, and everyone has a good time. Isn't the argument against this kind of sex that it is psychologically damaging? So if it's not, what's wrong with it?

The argument against this is that it is psychologically damaging because it is a total perversion of what sex can and should be. Sex is primarily a mental/spiritual act; to cut this off completely and evade the mental/spiritual value of one's partner - to treat them as meat - is (beyond being a massive evasion) to treat oneself as a piece of meat.

Note that the people who claim to "have fun" with this perverted promiscuity (i.e. the "MTV crowd") are practicing the philosophy of hedonism. As with all hedonists, if you dig deep enough you will find that these people are in fact miserably unhappy; the pursuit of pleasure without concern for its source (genuine values) is always doomed to failure.

For details, you should read the quotes I provided earlier in this thread.

[hunterrose]

Let's tear down those kissing booths at the county fair, while we're at it. How dare they attempt to separate the physical act from its necessary mental/spiritual component?

Kissing is primarily a mental/spiritual act; to cut this off completely and evade the mental/spiritual value of one's partner - to treat them as meat - is (beyond being a massive evasion) to treat oneself as a piece of meat.

We'll be doing those miserably unhappy and evading hedonists a favor in preventing them from inflicting more psychological damage upon themselves.

[Inspector]

Let's tear down those kissing booths at the county fair, while we're at it. How dare they attempt to separate the physical act from its necessary mental/spiritual component?

Morally necessary. And why do you think you stand on solid ground by supporting kissing booths?

[Inspector]

Furthermore, who is advocating the forcible "tearing down" of businesses on the "for your own good" argument? That is a straw man and, along with the tone of the rest of your post, is not acceptable discourse for this forum.

[hunterrose]

Oh, come on, you're acting like you have no sense of humor

But if my point must be in a form of your "acceptable discourse" ...

You didn't comment on the most poignant part of prior post:

Kissing is primarily a mental/spiritual act; to cut this off completely and evade the mental/spiritual value of one's partner - to treat them as meat - is (beyond being a massive evasion) to treat oneself as a piece of meat.

While this seems a bit ludicrous to me, do you agree with it? There are a lot of people of various cultures that kiss as a matter of greeting, and not as an act that is supposed to be "primarily mental/spiritual."

Are people who accordingly treat kissing as a casual, insignificant affair "evading the mental/spiritual value of one's partner" and "treating themselves as a piece of meat"???

There are Muslim who would apply your argument in even more farcical ways - covering up women in public:

Viewing a woman is primarily a mental/spiritual act; to cut this off completely and evade the mental/spiritual value of one's partner - to treat them as meat - is (beyond being a massive evasion) to treat oneself as a piece of meat.

How could you criticize their view as not being objective when you hold an equally questionable stance?

[Inspector]

How could you criticize their view as not being objective when you hold an equally questionable stance?

Are you saying that the Objectivist view of sex, as outlined in the quotes I gave earlier in this thread, is as questionable as the Muslim edict demanding that women go about in burquas or be stoned to death? That the two views are on the same level?

Why am I even talking to you?

[Maarten]

I don't think you can just equate the significance of viewing a woman's face and that of sex. The objections raised here against treating sex casually are not based on social agreement. It's been shown quite thoroughly why sex deserves to be treated non-casually; if you want other things to be seen in the same way you should make a case for it, rather than simply saying they are similar without argument.

[hunterrose]

Why am I even talking to you?

Pschaw, stop grandstanding. In the context that neither your standards nor burquafication has been objectively evidenced to be morally applicable to all men, they are on the same level and equally questionable.

Earlier, you said that, to be morally validated in having sex, a partner has to meet some objective minimum requirements - that below some objective level, a person's subjective requirements do not morally validate having sex.

What you and your quotes don't tell is what is the validation of this standard. Given that, it's hardly upfront to subsequently dish out moral condemnation for violating the unstated, "objective" standard for sex.

It's been shown quite thoroughly why sex deserves to be treated non-casually.

Where?

If sleeping with any willing person who is friendly, healthy, and looks good is a "casual" treatment, can you give just one moral argument (that isn't based on an intrinsic premise) against this treatment?

I don't think you can just equate the significance of viewing a woman's face and that of sex... If you want other things to be seen in the same way [as sex]you should make a case for it, rather than simply saying they are similar without argument.

To the contrary, I don't want anything to be seen in the same intrinsic way sex is being seen here. I think they are similarly without valid cases, not similarly valid.

[JASKN]

Inspector, as with hunterrose, I also do not think you have provided any evidence why, with two willing participants, casual sex is immoral. You can proclaim that for most people, it appears that sex in a mutually loving relationship is better than casual sex, for a myriad of good reasons, but to deem the latter immoral, I don't buy it.

Morality is based off of reality, right? Well, I observe sex in a loving, romantic relationship as fantastic, on a different level than sex outside of such a relationship. But, I also observe the more casual sex, in certain circumstances, to be of value to certain people also.

I have a hard time imagining casual sex to be of value, since in my experience, I have never enjoyed it. But I know enough people who enjoy themselves very much engaging in that kind of sex. If they have weighed all of the elements, if they enjoy casual sex for rational reasons, where is the basis of your condemnation?

By the way, I reread your previous quotes of Rand, and nowhere is it stated why sex must be so important. She places it in high moral esteem, but I see no reason why it must be held in such high esteem.

[Maarten]

I think the reason why casual sex is immoral is that it hurts you in the longer term. It may give certain benefits at the moment you participate in it, but if that is outweighed by certain disadvantages 5, 10 or even 25 years down the line it's still bad for your life, and hence immoral.

The reason why it hurts you in the longer term is that such a relationship still requires a certain investment of your time and effort that cannot go to other things that are valuable to you. A human being only has so much time to spend in one day. Unlike time you spend on your productive work or on improving your own value this happiness you create here does not help you much down the line. By the nature of a casual relationship it is not meant to last, and any time you spend on it does not stay with you.

Perhaps a good analogy would be that it's like using your company's money to go on vacations instead of investing it in your company. The second alternative will improve the ability of your company to generate more profits down the line; the money you spend on recreation does not bring such a benefit.

While recreation is certainly important for a human being, and it serves a purpose in your life, this is not a good way to recreate for certain reasons. Apoint to consider is that while you are engaged in a casual relationship you will be far less likely to actively look for your ideal partner. Nor is it likely that the woman in question will appreciate the fact that you're currently in a relationship. If your relationship right now damages your ability to get a better one in the future, I think you are also engaged in behaviour that damages your life.

Besides that, I think the value of the act decreases the more casually you treat it. Or in other words, the more important something is to a person, the more closely they will guard it. Someone who treats sex casually cannot value the act as much as someone who does not do this. At least, they can say they value sex a lot but their behaviour is directly contradicting their words in that case. I think in this sense, by casually engaging in sex, you are making the act less meaningful when you do enter an ideal, loving relationship in the future.

These points are all consequences of having casual sex that I think far outweigh any benefits you might gain on the short term. This is why I think one can say that casual sex is immoral.

I am assuming that everyone here agrees a romantic relationship built on mutual love is objectively much better for a person than casual relationships*. And hence, because it serves such an essential part of any human's life, if an act that brings short-term gains damages the ability to gain this value down the road then it is not worth it. Obviously this depends on whether the long-term benefits outweigh the long-term consequences or not, but I think in this case they do not in any situation I can think of.

*If this is contested, please say so, as the rest of my argument is based on this assumption. I can try and expand upon this if necessary.

[Lathanar]

I think the reason why casual sex is immoral is that it hurts you in the longer term. It may give certain benefits at the moment you participate in it, but if that is outweighed by certain disadvantages 5, 10 or even 25 years down the line it's still bad for your life, and hence immoral.

I thought it was simply because it's hedonistic, seeking out pleasure for pleasures sake, not through rational values.

[Lathanar]

By the way, I reread your previous quotes of Rand, and nowhere is it stated why sex must be so important. She places it in high moral esteem, but I see no reason why it must be held in such high esteem.

I suggest checking out her Playboy interview. Some of the passages might help such as

I would say that a selective and discriminate sex life is not an indulgence. The term indulgence implies that it is an action taken lightly and casually. I say that sex is one of the most important aspects of man's life and, therefore, must never be approached lightly or casually. A sexual relationship is proper only on the ground of the highest values one can find in a human being. Sex must not be anything other than a response to values. And that is why I consider promiscuity immoral. Not because sex is evil, but because sex is too good and too important.

[~Sophia~]

In light of the facts that:

1) casual sex is not illegal

2) since we are all assuming both parties gave consent and thus since by engaging in it - you are only harming yourself by:

a) exposing yourself to multiple partners which increases the chance of you catching a disease

b)risking that if you meet "the one" he or she may not be impressed with your choices and thus not interested in a relationship with you

c) disvaluing sex in your life - treating it as a physical act of two bodies rubbing against each other for mutual physical satisfaction - if you do this often enough - that is what sex will become for you and that is the only thing you will condition yourself to be able to experience in the act.

Since you are not harming anybody else by doing so - if those risks are not considerable for you as their importance vary from person to person - nothing is stopping you. It is the same way you are free to take drugs (I think you should be legally free to do so).

As with anything you have to consider risk vs reward and make your choice. If it is not violating other's rights - and you think you can afford it - nothing is stopping you from doing so.

[JASKN]

Sophia:

Well of course nothing is stopping you from doing so. My point is that there is nothing inherently immoral about doing so.

Maarten:

The reason why it hurts you in the longer term is that such a relationship still requires a certain investment of your time and effort that cannot go to other things that are valuable to you. A human being only has so much time to spend in one day. Unlike time you spend on your productive work or on improving your own value this happiness you create here does not help you much down the line. By the nature of a casual relationship it is not meant to last, and any time you spend on it does not stay with you.

Perhaps a good analogy would be that it's like using your company's money to go on vacations instead of investing it in your company. The second alternative will improve the ability of your company to generate more profits down the line; the money you spend on recreation does not bring such a benefit.

But sex is an end in itself. You are not investing in anything when you engage in sex, unless you are already in a romantic relationship. Then you are investing in the well being of that relationship. And what if someone is simply not looking to be in a romantic relationship, so the "better" alternative isn't even in the equation?

Apoint to consider is that while you are engaged in a casual relationship you will be far less likely to actively look for your ideal partner. Nor is it likely that the woman in question will appreciate the fact that you're currently in a relationship. If your relationship right now damages your ability to get a better one in the future, I think you are also engaged in behaviour that damages your life.

What makes you think casual sex will hinder someone from searching for a romantic partner, if he so wishes? Also, if he doesn't view casual sex as immoral, why would he care to engage in a romantic relationship with someone who has such a problem with it enough to be a hindrance to the relationship?

Someone who treats sex casually cannot value the act as much as someone who does not do this.

I disagree. It does not follow that enjoying casual sex will devalue sex in a romantic relationship.

I am assuming that everyone here agrees a romantic relationship built on mutual love is objectively much better for a person than casual relationships*.

That may be so, but what about those times when one is not in a romantic relationship?

Lathanar:

I thought it was simply because it's hedonistic, seeking out pleasure for pleasures sake, not through rational values.

It's a rational value if someone weighs the variables and decides the sex is in his favor. What about roller-coasters? I love them solely for the sake of their effect on my senses, and I ride them because I think they are safe enough to trust my life to.

[Lathanar]

Lathanar:

It's a rational value if someone weighs the variables and decides the sex is in his favor. What about roller-coasters? I love them solely for the sake of their effect on my senses, and I ride them because I think they are safe enough to trust my life to.

Riding roller coasters is not an activity that should be a celebration of one's values. The two can not be equated.

[JASKN]

Riding roller coasters is not an activity that should be a celebration of one's values. The two can not be equated.

Well, why should sex be a celebration of one's values? Edited August 24, 2006 by JASKN

[Inspector]

Morality is based off of reality, right?

Right. And you need to be more careful about what you accept as your reality. Allow me to explain

I have never enjoyed it.

Here is an observation which is yours, and thus you have full access to it.

But I know enough people who enjoy themselves very much engaging in that kind of sex.

Here, on the other hand, is an observation of what people tell you. But observe what I said earlier: they "enjoyment" obtained by a life of hedonistic promiscuity is obtained only through evasion. If my premise is true, then people engaging in that lifestyle would have a powerful psychological imperative to lie about the fact that their lifestyle is not a happy one. They must first lie to themselves and second lie to anyone who asks.

So no, I am not moved by testimony of promiscuous hedonists that their lifestyle "works."

If they have weighed all of the elements, if they enjoy casual sex for rational reasons, where is the basis of your condemnation?

Because if you have indeed weighed all of the elements, it is impossible to enjoy casual sex for rational reasons. It is only possible to "enjoy" it by irrational evasion.

[Maarten]

I'm not sure how to explain why sex is a celebration of values. If I think of what sex means, or what the identity of sex is that's the closest way I can find of defining it. Your question is kind of like asking: Why should man be the rational animal? I think the only answer you can give to that is because man IS the rational animal, and I think the same holds here. Sex has just as much a certain identity as humans have.

I would say that the way to find out what this identity is is to study the act by looking at reality. I know this isn't a very satisfying answer, and I'll try to think of a better way to describe it.

JASKN, would you agree that if sex is a celebration of values that it would only make sense to do so with someone who actually means something significant to you? Any type of celebration is meaningless with strangers, and the same would then hold for sex.

[Lathanar]

Well, why should sex be a celebration of one's values?

There are many long discourses over the definition and values and such associated with sex, in OPAR, Love Sex and Romance, Rand's Playboy interview, etc. and several threads on this forum have gone through it.

Instead of questioning sex right now, lets look at casual sex, the basis of it's immorality. What values do you get from having casual sex other than physical pleasure? What part of that value is derived from physical pleasure and what part from your cognative faculty other than as you said "You look damn good, you're good in bed, that is value enough for me right now"?

[Inspector]

The reason why it hurts you in the longer term is that such a relationship still requires a certain investment of your time and effort that cannot go to other things that are valuable to you.

While technically true, this is not a very compelling argument, IMO. Any activity one does comes at the expense of other activities. By itself, this is nowhere near enough to show what is truly wrong with promiscuity.

Besides that, I think the value of the act decreases the more casually you treat it. Or in other words, the more important something is to a person, the more closely they will guard it. Someone who treats sex casually cannot value the act as much as someone who does not do this. At least, they can say they value sex a lot but their behaviour is directly contradicting their words in that case. I think in this sense, by casually engaging in sex, you are making the act less meaningful when you do enter an ideal, loving relationship in the future.

Now there you have it.

To understand this subject, one must first understand the question "Why should I live on principle?"

Seeing the true value of sex, but asking why it cannot be treated casually on occasion is like saying you understand what rights are, but asking why one cannot steal on occasion. One cannot treat sex casually and then later expect it to be the highest celebration of one's values. One cannot switch one's principles with convienience. There are consequences to one's psychology and to one's overall happiness.

Of course, one can come up with wacky lifeboat situations where one could steal. And one could come up with wacky lifeboat situations where one could treat sex casually. This isn't intrinsicism.

But being horny or young is not such a lifeboat.

[Inspector]

There are many long discourses over the definition and values and such associated with sex, in OPAR, Love Sex and Romance, Rand's Playboy interview, etc. and several threads on this forum have gone through it.

Yes, I agree. For that question, it would be best to go to the source.

[stoatian]

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

Not at all (I have spent most of my life in a state of celibacy).

That said: In lieu of a proper match, and with proper (self) motivation, I do not see any harm to oneself. This means being honest with the other person too.

Instead of questioning sex right now, lets look at casual sex, the basis of it's immorality. What values do you get from having casual sex other than physical pleasure? What part of that value is derived from physical pleasure and what part from your cognative faculty other than as you said "You look damn good, you're good in bed, that is value enough for me right now"?

What makes you think that sex with someone, who does not meet your value standards, is casual?

You are what you are - objectively. The most important part of the act of sex is your motivation. Are you seeking the pleasure as a celebration of your life? Or are you seeking to nail the chick, so that you come off as impressive to mindless dolts?

[stoatian]

I thought it was simply because it's hedonistic, seeking out pleasure for pleasures sake, not through rational values.

Be careful with the "hedonist" argument. Ayn Rand sought the pleasure of a nicotine high for the sake of it. What one seeks a pleasure must be put in context of the person overall. More important is the motivation, as well as and the reward or consequence, of the pleasure sought. Is the pleasure in question self destructive, or beneficial. By who's standards?

I would never inhale something destructive, nor seek to get high, for any reason. That is me.

Would I indulge in casual sex, in certain, specific circumstance ... yes. Again; that s me.

The person who mention the time spent, made a valid point. It is why, most of my life, I have been celibate.

Someone mentioned that casual sex might be damaging when one finally meets the right person.

That is a good thought; to wait for the right person. Think about that on a sliding scale. I will use Rands fictional characters to make my point. I never understood how the John Galt character would have found Dagney attractive. She was in no way his equal. I thought Reardon was a closer match. (I am assuming that this is what the Inspector was referring to about engaging with someone, of close, but of not equal value). Everyone is where they are. Some will continue to grow. Others will not. What a person decides and when, is up to them. The fact is that you can not remove, that which is reality based, from a person. In other words: Proper knowledge.

[~Sophia~]

Be careful with the "hedonist" argument. Ayn Rand sought the pleasure of a nicotine high for the sake of it. What one seeks a pleasure must be put in context of the person overall. More important is the motivation, as well as and the reward or consequence, of the pleasure sought.

It is you who should be careful. As soon as Miss Rand learned the truth about the danger of nicotine - she quit smoking in an instant. Quiet impressive I may add.

Ayn Rand was profoundly opposed to the philosophy of hedonism.

Objectivism holds that the good must be defined by a rational standard of value, that pleasure is not a first cause, but only a consequence, that only the pleasure which proceeds from a rational value judgment can be regarded as moral, that pleasure as such, is not a guide to action nor a standard of morality. (Playboy interview)

Happiness is the purpose of ethics - but not the standard.

Edited August 24, 2006 by ~Sophia~