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

[Lathanar]

Sex is a celebration of one's values - that is metaphysical.

The meaning of it being metaphysical is that man's sexuality will always be triggered by his values presented in another person (usually of the opposite sex). Metaphysical means that man has no choice about it, meaning that our brain is built this way to connect between those two things: sex (the desire for the physical act), and our values presented in another human being (of the opposite sex).

Is it metaphysical fact? I don't offhand remember it being defined that way and I have no materials on hand to look. This sounds a bit like the determinists arguments against or for homosexuality and other 'abnormal' sexuality on the basis of we have no choice.

[Ifat Glassman]

Is it metaphysical fact? I don't offhand remember it being defined that way and I have no materials on hand to look. This sounds a bit like the determinists arguments against or for homosexuality and other 'abnormal' sexuality on the basis of we have no choice.

Have no idea what you were talking about with that "defined that way" business... You cannot make something metaphysical by defining it as such, you can identify it as having a certain nature.

I've claimed that 2 aspects of sex are metaphysical: (1) That the object of desire is determined metaphysically (=The same reason why animals don't sexually desire trees). (2) That sexual desire is metaphysically triggered by values in the object of desire.

As for determining that certain aspects of sex are metaphysical: If you're looking for a proof that they are metaphysical, I don't have one. Getting a proof for this would be very difficult.

However, I base the statement that those aspects of sex are metaphysical on observation:

People cannot want something that they don't value. Sexual desire can only be triggered by something a man subconsciously values. Pleasure cannot be attained by doing something a man truly (subconsciously) holds as repulsive.

Of course people can value things that are destructive and then get pleasure from having those things, but still, pleasure is only enabled because they value those things first.

The more bold statement I've made though, is that human beings necessarily react sexually to their values in the opposite sex, and that they have no choice about that being the criterion for their sexual desire. Reality could also have been that some values trigger sexual desire but the rest just trigger other emotions ("I only want this woman sexually because she is good looking, her intelligence just makes me respect her").

The more I think about it though, the more I realize that this is more complex... Sexual desire is also triggered in some by a partner that allows them to see themselves the way they want to be.

So conclusion is: Will think about this further...

[softwareNerd]

Ifat, You're right about the link between pleasure and values. However, it isn't entirely clear that it addresses the question that David posed. (It might be the answer, but -- if so -- there are intermediate steps of reasoning.)

Why does sex require love? ...What about the physical act of sex requires love? ... We can pursue both short term pleasure and long term happiness as long as they do not conflict with each other.

I doubt anyone would question that pleasurable sex does require that one value the object of one's desire. Somewhere on YouTube, there's a comedy spoof of the TV program "Blind Date". The guy is sent on a date with a "crack whore" -- clearly portrayed as ugly and disgusting. The episode is funny because it takes the "sex is just physical" to its logical extreme by removing values from the situation, saying "Oh yeah! try this."

However, I read David's question as being a bit different, not questioning the need for valuing. Rather, I think he's asking why the degree of value has to rise to the point of love. From that question, I would derive a more realistic example as follows: suppose one likes the way another person looks and likes many things about them, but aren't really in love with them, would casual sex between them be rationally pleasurable (assuming that both people know is not for the long-term)? If not, why not?

Aside: Strikes me that there is a slight parallel between this question and the one in another thread that asks: "why does one need a central purpose and all encompassing career to be happy?"

[Ifat Glassman]

Why does sex require love? Most of you have argued so on the basis of what it can be. But why must it? Intrinsically assuming that it does is a bit like Christians who tell me “you just can’t be happy without Jesus in your heart – regardless of whether you think you are.” What about the physical act of sex requires love? What about the people who rationally enjoy both kinds as different things?

By the way, hedonism is the pursuit of pleasure regardless of consequence. There is nothing wrong with rationality pursuing pleasure as an end in itself. We can pursue both short term pleasure and long term happiness as long as they do not conflict with each other.

GreedyCapitalist, what do you mean by "require" in "sex requires love"?

Obviously, sex as a physical act, can be done without love. "Can" as in "physically possible".

I understand your question as "Why does enjoyment from sex require love?". Now the next question is what do you mean by "love"? Or rather what is enough to trigger this emotion for another person?

Can love only be felt for someone who is perfect according to one's standards? Or can one love someone who has most of one's values, some specific ones? or just for any value?

If one's sexual desire is metaphysically triggered by values in the person in question, then sex becomes like an X-ray for a person's true values. The amount of pleasure that can be gained from sex with that person metaphysically depend on one's appreciation for that person.

When will the potentially-gained pleasure be enough for a rational man to decide to go ahead and consummate? I turn now to softwareNerd's post:

Ifat, You're right about the link between pleasure and values. However, it isn't entirely clear that it addresses the question that David posed.

I read David's question as being a bit different, not questioning the need for valuing. Rather, I think he's asking why the degree of value has to rise to the point of love. From that question, I would derive a more realistic example as follows: suppose one likes the way another person looks and likes many things about them, but aren't really in love with them, would casual sex between them be rationally pleasurable (assuming that both people know is not for the long-term)? If not, why not?

I don't see how it is possible to want sex in the first-place with someone who is not a representation of one's highest values. What I have claimed is that a man can only want sex when their highest values are met in someone else. Therefor if one desires to have sex with someone because they look good and are honest, and doesn't care for any other traits, that means that those things are the highest values for that person. Otherwise, I claim, it would not be possible for them to want sex in the first-place.

If one merely wants physical pleasure, stay home and masturbate. I bet you can get great results with various devices (or whatever). But when someone wants sex with another person it is necessarily because they hold their highest values.

Now, there might be a giant hole in this assumption of mine of what is metaphysical about sex, but this is what I have been saying so far.

So to go back to the question: At what point will the potentially-gained pleasure be "good enough" for a rational man to decide to consummate? (Gosh this subject is difficult )

Is there even such a threshold for a "rational man"? I think there is. Suppose someone does hold a rational set of values. And one knows person X who is independent, and does their job terrificly, but one doesn't know anything more about that person. One can get X amount of pleasure from sex with that person, but sex won't allow them to celebrate everything that they are.

--I'm a bit stuck at this point, so I'll go back to it later--

[Inspector]

Now, there might be a giant hole in this assumption of mine of what is metaphysical about sex, but this is what I have been saying so far.

How about projection or evasion?

When an available man sees a good-looking woman this is often enough to get his interest or attention. A rational man will find out if her character matches this beauty. An irrational man will tell himself he doesn't care (but he does; it is impossible not to I think) and will just want to hop into bed before the nagging questions in his brain surface. Some will actually pretend or project a character that the woman does not have (or they do not know if she has or not) in order to go through with the act.

Your assumption is that something (biology? psychology?) makes some men consider less in their partner than others. What I am saying, Ifat, is that full values are a metaphysical consideration for every man, not just some. It is only that some choose to evade/blank it out.

Casual sex is sex without consideration of a relationship. This means, without consideration of a person's values or character, but rather only for the physical pleasure of the act. This is why I consider it to be inherantly an act of evasion of reality.

[Ifat Glassman]

How about projection or evasion?

When an available man sees a good-looking woman this is often enough to get his interest or attention. A rational man will find out if her character matches this beauty. An irrational man will tell himself he doesn't care (but he does; it is impossible not to I think) and will just want to hop into bed before the nagging questions in his brain surface. Some will actually pretend or project a character that the woman does not have (or they do not know if she has or not) in order to go through with the act.

Your assumption is that something (biology? psychology?) makes some men consider less in their partner than others. What I am saying, Ifat, is that full values are a metaphysical consideration for every man, not just some. It is only that some choose to evade/blank it out.

Just to make myself clear, I did not say that some people are born with the tendency to not examine other human beings in depth but to project an ideal image on them (lol!), in case that is what you were asking me.

We are saying very similar things about what is metaphysical in sex. I said that metaphysically, sexual desire can only be triggered by one's values presented in another person. You say, that not only that, but also a man must have all of his values presented in someone else to trigger their sexual desire.

But you need to understand that those statements are very bold. We can't just say "this is metaphysical" and then proceed. Such a claim has to be at least reviewed somehow (because a proof for something being metaphysical involves brain research), we need to present some evidence that suggests it and to think of possible evidence that contradicts it, to make sure that we are not making a mistake.

Assuming that we are not making a mistake, your answer to why casual sex cannot bring pleasure to a rational man, goes like this:

1. Man (any man) has no choice about the need to have ALL their values presented in a woman (I'm making the sexes fixed to make this discussion easier)
   
2. A rational man would make sure that his requirements are met in reality: which cannot be achieved by having sex with someone outside the context of a relationship in which you know the woman in depth. (= casual sex necessarily involves projecting one's image of the ideal partner without verifying it).
   

(I love it when arguments in philosophy start to look like proofs in mathematics)

Let me know if I didn't present your arguments correctly.

I agree with your observation that subconsciously, people tend to project their image of the ideal on someone else that has some of the traits.

But, I do think that the assumptions about what is metaphysical need further consideration.

[Lathanar]

Have no idea what you were talking about with that "defined that way" business... You cannot make something metaphysical by defining it as such, you can identify it as having a certain nature.

Perhaps defined wasn't the best term to use in that instance but ya'lls following posts were what I was hoping to trigger anyways, so I'll take it. I can accept your metaphysical aspects of sex

(1) That the object of desire is determined metaphysically (=The same reason why animals don't sexually desire trees).

(2) That sexual desire is metaphysically triggered by values in the object of desire.

But I have a hard time translating that to

Man (any man) has no choice about the need to have ALL their values presented in a woman (I'm making the sexes fixed to make this discussion easier)

Responding to values, fine. Responding only to all values is taking that a lot further without intermediate steps of how you get there. There would be a lot of virgins walking around, I've been a very immoral person if that's a requirement for sex. I view that idea sort of as a moral standard for sex qua man, the ideal sex.

[Inspector]

I don't know if this is a correction, qualification, or just a re-statement, but here goes:

Rather than say a man must have all his values presented, I would put it this way:

1) A man (any man) cannot maintain a sexual desire (or sexual pleasure) in the presence of things which are of dis-value to him. (apart from heavily evading them)

2) A rational man values integrity and never evades reality. He does not seek to gain any value through ignorance or evasion of reality. This includes not knowing a sexual partner and ignoring, projecting, or making unreasonable assumptions about their value. He will want to be certain of his partner's value.

3) Casual sex can only be had while ignoring, projecting, or making irrational assumptions about one's partner's value. If one is certain of one's parter's value, it is not casual.

4) Therefore no rational man would want to engage in casual sex.

[Ifat Glassman]

Inspector, you are missing a step though. If people have the option of responsing sexually to just some of their values in other people, and suppose they are certain that those values are present in the person in question, but not about the rest of their values - then why won't a rational man be able to enjoy sex based on just those values? Why must ALL values be present for him to enjoy sex?

If love is one's response to someone else having ALL of one's values then this translates the question into

"why must a rational man love a woman in order to enjoy sex with her?"

[Lathanar]

3) Casual sex can only be had while ignoring, projecting, or making irrational assumptions about one's partner's value. If one is certain of one's parter's value, it is not casual.

Can we try and put a better definition to what constitutes casual sex? For example in SN's post he brought up

However, I read David's question as being a bit different, not questioning the need for valuing. Rather, I think he's asking why the degree of value has to rise to the point of love. From that question, I would derive a more realistic example as follows: suppose one likes the way another person looks and likes many things about them, but aren't really in love with them, would casual sex between them be rationally pleasurable (assuming that both people know is not for the long-term)? If not, why not?

I would not consider sex for someone who "likes the way another person looks and likes many things about them, but aren't really in love with them" to exactly be called casual sex. I'd consider casual to be along the lines of sex with someone you really don't know anything about, but not necessarily that you aren't certain of their value.

[Inspector]

I'd consider casual to be along the lines of sex with someone you really don't know anything about, but not necessarily that you aren't certain of their value.

How can you be certain of their value if you don't really know anything about them? How can you have the latter part of your statement with the former?

Can we try and put a better definition to what constitutes casual sex?

This is what I have so far:

Casual sex is sex without consideration of a relationship. This means, without consideration of a person's values or character, but rather only for the physical pleasure of the act. (which only stands to be any good by dint of the evasion of that person's character and values)

----------------------------------------

Ifat,

I don't understand your statement that I am missing a step. Could you respond specifically to something in my post? I only hear you speaking of your statement ("all values"); not mine ("no disvalue may be present").

Edited September 16, 2006 by Inspector

[Lathanar]

How can you be certain of their value if you don't really know anything about them? How can you have the latter part of your statement with the former?

I think you misunderstood what I was asying. I said

I'd consider casual to be along the lines of sex with someone you really don't know anything about,

This does not say they are certain of their value, and I think it coincides with the boundaries of your definition. The last part of my statement

but not necessarily that you aren't certain of their value.

You can be certain that someone has value to you, but you may not be certain of their value, they may not be a represntation of ALL your values. I would not lump those into casual.

Casual sex is sex without consideration of a relationship. This means, without consideration of a person's values or character, but rather only for the physical pleasure of the act. (which only stands to be any good by dint of the evasion of that person's character and values)

I like this.

[Atlashrug9]

Interesting topic.

My first sexual encounter was "date" rape. I was 13 and I continued to date the man though never sleeping with him again for 8 months. I think in a search for some value, to make it ok with me. In the end I left him, and he was devastated. I never understood why.

Since then I have had numerous sexual partners, I am a 30 year old woman, and each partner has added value to my life. (OK ...except one). Love for me is a concrete term that is lifelong, but I think you can value a person and enjoy a sexual relationship with them because of the things you value, without making it all the way to love. I have loved many people, to a point. But until I find Mr. Galt, I enjoy my time with Mr. Reardon.

[DavidV]

Casual sex is sex without consideration of a relationship. This means, without consideration of a person's values or character, but rather only for the physical pleasure of the act. (which only stands to be any good by dint of the evasion of that person's character and values)

Why must you evade their character? What about sex with someone whom one found attractive (which always entails both physical and mental attributes, unless you are a necrophiliac) but with whom for various rational reasons one did not intend to have a relationship? (And vise versa.) Where is the evasion in that?

Here is a hypothetical situation: Suppose you meet a beautiful woman on a business trip or vacation. You spend the day with her, like everything about her, and want to make love to her. However, your trip ends tomorrow, and you live across the country. Would it be wrong to sleep with her?

[Ifat Glassman]

Ifat,

I don't understand your statement that I am missing a step. Could you respond specifically to something in my post? I only hear you speaking of your statement ("all values"); not mine ("no disvalue may be present").

You are mixing things up: You are the one who said that to enjoy sex all of one's values should be met:

What I am saying, Ifat, is that full values are a metaphysical consideration for every man, not just some

I was only saying that a sexual response can only be to values. Apparently, we are both saying the same thing. In the post where I presented your position I was relying on the "all values must be present is metaphysical" claim which you now make clear that you do not support. So just Never-mind that whole post (fsheew).

I said that you are missing a step because I treated casual sex as being sex with someone who does not hold all of one's values, which was rather silly of me to do. Like lathanar said:

I would not consider sex for someone who "likes the way another person looks and likes many things about them, but aren't really in love with them" to exactly be called casual sex. I'd consider casual to be along the lines of sex with someone you really don't know anything about, but not necessarily that you aren't certain of their value.

I like this description for casual sex and I am going to stick with this as being casual sex from now on, However, I think a more percise description is needed for what constitutes "casual sex".

until I find Mr. Galt, I enjoy my time with Mr. Reardon.

This just emphasizes that we are discussing several questions that tend to collapse into one another: Casual sex is one question, sex with someone one knows but that does not share all of their values is the other one, and relation between sex and emotions (love, affection, admiration): "is sex without love immoral?".

Here is a hypothetical situation: Suppose you meet a beautiful woman on a business trip or vacation. You spend the day with her, like everything about her, and want to make love to her. However, your trip ends tomorrow, and you live across the country. Would it be wrong to sleep with her?

David, would you agree with claim #1 of Inspector?

"1) A man (any man) cannot maintain a sexual desire (or sexual pleasure) in the presence of things which are of dis-value to him"?

If so, would you agree that you need to make sure that this woman doesn't have those dis-values before you sleep with her, since "a rational man does not seek to gain any value through ignorance or evasion of reality"? (which is claim #2 of Inspector), and not knowing this woman in depth would mean that you are ignorant of her value?

Casual sex would be like downloading music for free from a site that does not clearly proves to be legal. How can you enjoy the music when thinking that it has a good chance of being stolen?

Edited September 17, 2006 by ifatart

[Inspector]

David, would you agree with claim #1 of Inspector?

"1) A man (any man) cannot maintain a sexual desire (or sexual pleasure) in the presence of things which are of dis-value to him"?

If so, would you agree that you need to make sure that this woman doesn't have those dis-values before you sleep with her, since "a rational man does not seek to gain any value through ignorance or evasion of reality"? (which is claim #2 of Inspector), and not knowing this woman in depth would mean that you are ignorant of her value?

Casual sex would be like downloading music for free from a site that does not clearly proves to be legal. How can you enjoy the music when thinking that it has a good chance of being stolen?

David, Ifat's question/summary here is a good representation of how I would answer your question. You may take the quoted passage above to be my response.

[Inspector]

In the post where I presented your position I was relying on the "all values must be present is metaphysical" claim which you now make clear that you do not support.

There is a difference between what you said, and what I said earlier. "Are a consideration" is different from "all values must be present." It isn't always necessary for all of one's values to be reflected in one's partner (for instance, they don't have to have all of your hobbies); only that they not be hostile to them. Of course, a great sharing of values is necessary but that's a long story. For now, I think you understand my position (well enough to reply to David with it, apparantly!)

[Ifat Glassman]

There is a difference between what you said, and what I said earlier. "Are a consideration" is different from "all values must be present." It isn't always necessary for all of one's values to be reflected in one's partner (for instance, they don't have to have all of your hobbies); only that they not be hostile to them. Of course, a great sharing of values is necessary but that's a long story.

What I meant by "all of one's values" as I was asking questions about what I thought was your position (I just realized now how misleading that statement "all of one's values" is) is just values of character (independence, integrity, honesty, innocence etc', and beauty and intelligence).

I need more time to think this subject through. Will post when have new conclusions.

For now, I think you understand my position (well enough to reply to David with it, apparently!)

Hehehe...

[hunterrose]

Casual sex is sex without consideration of a relationship. This means, without consideration of a person's values or character, but rather only for the physical pleasure of the act. (which only stands to be any good by dint of the evasion of that person's character and values)

Sex without consideration of a relationship can be, without evasion, more than a physical act.

Suppose you meet a beautiful woman on a business trip or vacation. You spend the day with her, like everything about her, and want to make love to her. However, your trip ends tomorrow, and you live across the country. Would it be wrong to sleep with her?

"1) A man (any man) cannot maintain a sexual desire (or sexual pleasure) in the presence of things which are of dis-value to him"?

Would you agree that you need to make sure that this woman doesn't have dis-values before you sleep with her, since "a rational man does not seek to gain any value through ignorance or evasion of reality", and not knowing this woman in depth would mean that you are ignorant of her value?

You may take the quoted passage above to be my response.

I'm not sure what "dis-value" means, but I would think that being a serial ax-murderer or a compulsive liar or incessantly spending oneself into greater debt would be dis-valuable qualities. If so, then sex ought not occur without a thorough investigation of the other's character.

I can't just observe that she seems kind, honest, and thrifty. If I don't pull her criminal record, hook her to a polygraph, and check her FICO, I'm evading reality? You'd better move fast, GC, this could take a while

And on a sidenote, flies in the face of every sexual interaction Rand portrayed in her literature.