Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Morality of visiting Strip Clubs

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

I don't see why not. As long as it remains nothing but pleasure(that is: if there's no emotional involvement or addiction that could cause pain in the future), I can really not find a reasonable basis for considering it immoral. The same applies, as you said, to porn and strip clubs and whatever other stuff there may be.

What about sex with animals or with corpses? I say this not meaning to be flippant, but to ask where you draw the line.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 212
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

What about sex with animals or with corpses? I say this not meaning to be flippant, but to ask where you draw the line.

Hm. Good question. As far as I can see if one considers my argument bestiality and sex with corpses would be part of that "other stuff". I can't come up with a real reason why it would be any more harmful than watching a movie. All my feelings tell me that there's something wrong about it, but rationally I didn't find anything. With animals and corpses the question of consent comes into place, making this more complicated (depending on the nature of the animal, and I think one would need the consent of the person who is dead to, well, use it) But I doubt that this was where this question was aiming.

If anyone can come up with a reason why it's immoral, tell me. :D

Nice topic for Christmas time, btw. B)

:lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think sex with animals or corpses could only be possible through some serious evasion, on a fundamental level. I don´t know how to explain this in a good way... but think about it - what would it take for someone to be attracted to an animal or a corpse? And if it´s just pleasure, without any sort of attraction, one would have to ignore the fact of what they're actually having sex with. It´s like getting head from another guy, while closing your eyes and pretending its a woman - only that the evasion goes even further.

So I would say this kind of sexual behaviour is immoral and shows a very unhealthy mind.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hm. Good question. As far as I can see if one considers my argument bestiality and sex with corpses would be part of that "other stuff". I can't come up with a real reason why it would be any more harmful than watching a movie. All my feelings tell me that there's something wrong about it, but rationally I didn't find anything.

In addition to whatever other slew of moral reasons against the aforesaid acts, how about adding that these would also be grotesquely unsanitary. According to the lyrics of a GWAR song, one would be at risk for Legionnaire's Disease.

I find it incredibly amusing that I unsuspectingly browse a wholesome topic on the morality of visiting gentlemen's clubs only to stumble upon a discussion about necrophilia and bestiality. Well I never! ::: monocle drops onto floor and shatters :::

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In addition to whatever other slew of moral reasons against the aforesaid acts, how about adding that these would also be grotesquely unsanitary. According to the lyrics of a GWAR song, one would be at risk for Legionnaire's Disease.

I find it incredibly amusing that I unsuspectingly browse a wholesome topic on the morality of visiting gentlemen's clubs only to stumble upon a discussion about necrophilia and bestiality. Well I never! ::: monocle drops onto floor and shatters :::

Okay, I agree on the unsanitarity. I also consider this stuff gross and sick. But I can't come up with a real reason why. What's the "other slew"? I share the knee-jerk reaction. Not exactly sure why exactly I have it, though.

However, I'd like to postpone a possible discussion till after the holidays. Don't want to ruin my appetite. :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If anyone can come up with a reason why it's immoral, tell me. :lol:
Can anyone come up with a reason why saving sex is ever moral? (Well, no I don't mean anyone, I mean anyone who can't instantly answer Felix's question). I think that if you could answer that question, then you'd be about half-way to answering the question about necrophilia, bestiality, and tree-hugging, not to mention tons of other grotesque practices.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Can anyone come up with a reason why saving sex is ever moral?

What do you mean by "saving sex"?

It seems to me that who one has sex with, or is attracted to, or lusts after, is always a representation of his or her self esteem. On one level, a man might lust after a beautiful woman because she represents, physically, what is healthy and efficacious and well-designed. On another level, a man may love a woman because she is rational and intelligent and virtuous. In both cases, there is a reflection of his values in this attraction. In the cases of bestiality and necrophilia, one is demonstrating an attraction to something subhuman or degenerate. Such an action could never be in the moral right for a rational person, who recognizes his or her own worth and craves a partner of equal capacity.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What do you mean by "saving sex"?
Oh, well, some people pronounce it "having" and some say "saving". Let's pretend that I said "having", and I'll try to figure out wsat sappened wits my previous post.

Anyhow, just to make this explicit, there has to be a connection between reflection of values and morality. There also has to be a connection that is particular to the nature of sex, for example, walking a dog isn't immoral. I think the latter connection is the one that is particularly missed by people who adhere to the "no form of sex is immoral" credo.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It seems to me that who one has sex with, or is attracted to, or lusts after, is always a representation of his or her self esteem.

Not necessarily of their self-esteem, but always of their hierarchy of values. Think about... a gangster, who sees using force and stealing things as a virtue of masculinity. He doesn't lack self-esteem, but the woman he would choose will reflect his values...

For example, he will probably want a woman who fits his lifestyle, who holds the same values, who will think he's the man, like he does. He won't necessarily use her to fabricate self-esteem, but to celebrate his values with her (only those are fucked up values which he will pay for in other areas of his life).

On one level, a man might lust after a beautiful woman because she represents, physically, what is healthy and efficacious and well-designed. On another level, a man may love a woman because she is rational and intelligent and virtuous. In both cases, there is a reflection of his values in this attraction. In the cases of bestiality and necrophilia, one is demonstrating an attraction to something subhuman or degenerate.

Here is where I think you become a-synchronized with these guys' line of reasoning: I think that they think that one's choice of object to satisfy one's sexual needs is not necessarily a result of their values.

You start by saying "sex is a reflection of one's values", they start by saying "sex can be two distinct, separate things: physical and emotional. And the only question that one should be concerned with in regards to physical sex, is: what feels best on my body?".

Now, there are a few approaches here in answering this:

1) Sex with another human is necessarily a result of your hierarchy of values, whether you realize it or not.

2) Sex for an integrated man is necessarily a reflection of their hierarchy of values, and here is why having sex purely for physical gratification indicates that you are not integrated/rational/etc'... <insert explanation here>

Edited by ifatart
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not necessarily of their self-esteem, but always of their hierarchy of values. Think about... a gangster, who sees using force and stealing things as a virtue of masculinity. He doesn't lack self-esteem, but the woman he would choose will reflect his values...
Is it your position that, since the gangster allegedly sees using force as a virtue of masculinity, that it is actually is a virtue of masculinity? I ask this, because I can't see why you would say that such a person doesn't lack self-esteem, besides the arrogant claims he makes about himself--which might not be true, and which he might not even believe. I think there is strong evidence that this type of person suffers from some of the lowest self esteem around--and that, in fact, it's the desperation of the low self-esteem (which becomes a malevolent universe premise through psychological projection) that drives him to initiate force. I've read articles on this, long ago, which I can try and look up if you're interested.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is it your position that, since the gangster allegedly sees using force as a virtue of masculinity, that it is actually is a virtue of masculinity?

Yeah, I do. Smack me baby! :lol:

I ask this, because I can't see why you would say that such a person doesn't lack self-esteem, besides the arrogant claims he makes about himself--which might not be true, and which he might not even believe.

It comes down to whether you think that someone can truly believe a false idea to be true. I think so, and I have seen evidence for it. So I think that if someone truly believes that stealing and using force are virtues, that by doing this he will increase his self-esteem. By self-esteem I mean just that: one's evaluation of oneself according to their own standard. Not according to the correct, objective standard.

I think there is strong evidence that this type of person suffers from some of the lowest self esteem around--and that, in fact, it's the desperation of the low self-esteem (which becomes a malevolent universe premise through psychological projection) that drives him to initiate force. I've read articles on this, long ago, which I can try and look up if you're interested.

Well, a malevolent universe premise must exist somewhere, but I don't see how it necessarily relates to self-esteem.

As for the articles: boy you sure read a lot. But not interested in learning about gangsters, got enough stuff to read (the pile of books I have to read is frightening).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, I do. Smack me baby! :lol:
:pimp::lol:

It comes down to whether you think that someone can truly believe a false idea to be true. I think so, and I have seen evidence for it. So I think that if someone truly believes that stealing and using force are virtues, that by doing this he will increase his self-esteem.
I'm not sure if that is what it comes down to.. I think it's certainly possible for a person to truly believe a false idea to be true--but I don't think that's necessarily the case for someone suffering from a particular common type of delusion. Also, I'm sure there is a variety of psychological conditions that could lead a person to become a gangster--and they might vary somewhat from culture to culture. It's probably much more likely for a gangster living in a highly corrupt state to have genuine self esteem related to his occupation than in a capitalist country, because that may be his only option.

By self-esteem I mean just that: one's evaluation of oneself according to their own standard. Not according to the correct, objective standard.
I don't think genuine self-esteem is as subjective as that. This is one subject about which the early writings of Nathaniel Branden are quite insightful. I don't doubt that someone who lives up to his own standards will have higher self esteem than one who doesn't, even if the former man's standards contradict reality. But the self esteem of a man who's standards contradict reality is necessarily thereby limited. Every instance in which he is thwarted by reality is a severe blow to his self esteem. His only way to protect his self esteem in such a case (as far as he knows) is to blame reality, rather than himself and his standards--hence the formation of a malevolent universe premise.

As for the articles: boy you sure read a lot. But not interested in learning about gangsters, got enough stuff to read (the pile of books I have to read is frightening).
:lol: I read about topics that interest me--and those are the only ones I write about. I'm a little glad you didn't push for my references, because all I remember about the authors of the articles is that they were by psychologists who were students of or defending the position of Dr. Branden. But I don't remember where I came across them, and it was years ago, so that's not much to go on! Still, curiosity might compel me to look them up later anyway.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think it's certainly possible for a person to truly believe a false idea to be true--but I don't think that's necessarily the case for someone suffering from a particular common type of delusion.

I agree.

Also, I'm sure there is a variety of psychological conditions that could lead a person to become a gangster--and they might vary somewhat from culture to culture. It's probably much more likely for a gangster living in a highly corrupt state to have genuine self esteem related to his occupation than in a capitalist country, because that may be his only option.

Yeah, or because he bases his self esteem on what other people think of him. So if he is like the "king of thieves" of his neighborhood, he feels much more proud than if he is just an isolated thief living among people who see him as inferior.

I don't think genuine self-esteem is as subjective as that. This is one subject about which the early writings of Nathaniel Branden are quite insightful. I don't doubt that someone who lives up to his own standards will have higher self esteem than one who doesn't, even if the former man's standards contradict reality. But the self esteem of a man who's standards contradict reality is necessarily thereby limited.

This statement assumes two things: That the thief necessarily has an ability to judge objectively how well he is equipped to survive and achieve satisfaction, and that reality will necessarily avenge him for his bad morality. Most of the time that is true, but I think that there are cases where this could be bypassed. For example, if your life and surrounding is such that it is easy to succeed in your rotten way of making a living, reality, as it would be if you had lived in a rational society, might not "catch up with you".

Every instance in which he is thwarted by reality is a severe blow to his self esteem. His only way to protect his self esteem in such a case (as far as he knows) is to blame reality, rather than himself and his standards--hence the formation of a malevolent universe premise.

That's one heck of an interesting statement. Very insightful. It was also said in a slightly different form in Atlas Shrugged ("you condemned reality, you condemned man's nature... but you never dared to question your morality"... quoting from memory), but I didn't notice it so clearly until now.

Nathaniel Branden had his moment, didn't he? That article from the VoS ("The psychology of pleasure") was good.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It seems to me that who one has sex with, or is attracted to, or lusts after, is always a representation of his or her self esteem.

I used to believe that, too. But I wondered. Why would that be true? Do people of low self-esteem actually lust for sick stuff? Or are they (for example) attracted by health and beauty and don't think they are worth it and settle for less. I think the latter is the case and not the former.

I don't think the self esteem-sex-connection holds water. People can be attracted to pretty much anything without it having a relation to their self-esteem. What can happen is that it may be against custom. Given that people are actually attracted to animals and dead bodies (and who knows what else the human mind can come up with), I can't see a real limit here. Attraction, then, is merely a function of belief.

Based on this model, I could think of a person lusting for animals but not doing it out of low self-esteem.

You start with a belief structure part of which is sexual attraction. If that person considers his attraction as conflicting with the rest of his beliefs it will (like any incongruency) then lower his self-esteem.

David had a good question by turning mine upside down: Why is sex moral?

It pointed straight to the core of the issue. My basic premise of considering sexual pleasure as inherently good. It is -at its root- a hedonistic premise:

Sex is best if it is had in alignment with your beliefs. What these beliefs are, then, would change the sex, but not the pleasure. I still consider sex drive a natural thing that just finds its way to fulfillment in accordance to a person's beliefs and I still consider it better to do so since it's natural, no matter which attraction structure the rest of the belief system may give rise to.

So what one has to consider here from a moral point of view is not the sexual pleasure or its fulfillment, but the beliefs it would display. And this is what one can then consider immoral or not. The belief system the attraction reveals.

The question would then be: What should one consider attractive?

And it also answers the question of why (or better: when) sex is moral.

Given the nature of man as a rational animal, I'd say that considering health, beauty, intelligence and success in humans of the opposite sex as attractive is the right thing to do. Maybe there's even some bias towards that ideal, even though this can obviously be overcome by a sufficiently strong belief system. Even some animals are homosexual after all even though there's no biological reason for that.

But still, I could imagine a successful person who just happens to be attracted to animals. And the only problem he would have would be cultural taboo.

I don't see what effect attraction to something strange would have on the rest of the life of a human being. Maybe that's the problem. I don't see it as having an effect on happiness or survival. It would only make sense if one adds reproduction to the picture as far as I can see it now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But still, I could imagine a successful person who just happens to be attracted to animals. And the only problem he would have would be cultural taboo.

I don't see what effect attraction to something strange would have on the rest of the life of a human being. Maybe that's the problem. I don't see it as having an effect on happiness or survival. It would only make sense if one adds reproduction to the picture as far as I can see it now.

How does a person 'just happen to be attracted to animals'? And even if they are, why is that important? Aren't you taking someones feelings (here, attraction) as a primary when you treat their attraction as if it was a fact?

Besides, given the alternative you present at the beginning of your post, where you opt for the latter, I don't see how being attracted to animals can be anything but indicative of low (or rather, negligent) self-esteem. In essence it means that they don't think they are good enough for any kind of human being. When you think of how low some humans can go, I'd say that's pretty bad...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't see what effect attraction to something strange would have on the rest of the life of a human being. Maybe that's the problem. I don't see it as having an effect on happiness or survival. It would only make sense if one adds reproduction to the picture as far as I can see it now.

This statement indicates to me that you are looking at this backwards. Sex with an animal or corpse does not cause you to have poor self-esteem. Having poor self-esteem(might, but hopefully won't usually) cause you to have sex with a corpse or animal. Ayn Rand's view was that if you show her a woman that a man sleeps with, she can tell you his philosophy of life. In that she realized what was necessary for a man to be attracted to a second-hander or guttersnipe or prostitute or corpse.

Consider a case where you meet a woman with apparently good self-esteem. Rational, intelligent, attractive, capable...always seems happy....but you find out she is in an abusive relationship. You check your premises and realize that she must not possess the self-esteem you would otherwise have assumed. Her attraction to someone that does her physical harm tells you something about her view of herself, the world, and relationships. In this circumstance, the abuse doesn't cause poor self-esteem...poor self-esteem allows the abuse.(some feminists would disagree with me, I'm certain)

The same approach can be applied to the friends you keep or, really, any other value you possess or pursue. These facts are telling of your belief structure. They don't determine it.

I can imagine a situation where someone has excellent self-esteem and a perfect outlook philosophically and is only attracted to corpses or whores, who I just haven't met yet. It should be noted that I can also imagine a pig with wings that I just haven't met yet.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How does a person 'just happen to be attracted to animals'? And even if they are, why is that important? Aren't you taking someones feelings (here, attraction) as a primary when you treat their attraction as if it was a fact?

Besides, given the alternative you present at the beginning of your post, where you opt for the latter, I don't see how being attracted to animals can be anything but indicative of low (or rather, negligent) self-esteem. In essence it means that they don't think they are good enough for any kind of human being. When you think of how low some humans can go, I'd say that's pretty bad...

Well, there are also several sexual practices of which I can't understand how anyone could like to do them. I have no clue what makes someone be attracted to animals or corpses. It's way beyond my worldview and I think it's beyond the worldview of anyone on this forum. That's what makes these things very hard to discuss. It's a bit like blind people talking about colors.

It would be an indicator of low self esteem only if that person accepted our belief system to start with. That was my point. It's not necessarily a matter of thinking one wouldn't be good enough for any kind of human being. Besides I don't think self-esteem could fall that low. I also can't think one would pick animals then. Also, one wouldn't be attracted to animals, but the thought would be as repulsive to them as it would be to us.

I don't know what makes someone be sexually interested in animals or corpses. I've never met someone like that and I doubt I ever will. But I seriously doubt it's a self-esteem issue. Self-esteem doesn't change what you're attracted to. It merely changes what you aim for. That was the point I wanted to drive home.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't know what makes someone be sexually interested in animals or corpses. I've never met someone like that and I doubt I ever will. But I seriously doubt it's a self-esteem issue. Self-esteem doesn't change what you're attracted to. It merely changes what you aim for.
I added the bolding, so that you know what I'm focusing on. Now my question is, why do you doubt it? If you said "I could imagine a world where there is a person with rational self-esteem who is sexually attracted to dead cows, although I can't point to anything that supports the existence of such a person", then I wouldn't be hassling you. But you seriously doubt it. What I have a hard time with here is reconciling your lack of actual experience of dead cow sodomites and your serious doubts.

An important premise that you're accepting without seriously checking is that there are people who are actually, rationally attracted to the dead or the bovine. Now I would argue that such people as seek relief via such wierdities are not attracted to their objects of relief, they are simply acting out a flaw in their psyche in a particular way that, I suspect, helps them to live with their problem, namely that they find themselves disgusting and wish to express their opinion of themselves in a disgusting manner.

What facts are you thinking of that make you doubt that necrophilia and bestiality are not manifestations of a basic self-loathing? If you simply felt that you didn't know whether that's the case, okay, but why do you seriously doubt it? For example, do you have any concrete evidence that there exist humans who are actually attracted to the dead?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, there are also several sexual practices of which I can't understand how anyone could like to do them. I have no clue what makes someone be attracted to animals or corpses. It's way beyond my worldview and I think it's beyond the worldview of anyone on this forum. That's what makes these things very hard to discuss. It's a bit like blind people talking about colors

Felix: if someone just happen to like modern art (am talking about a bad smear of colors), would you say that it is almost impossible to trace down the reasons for it? (the ideas this person has).

Now, there are two ways to go: either you say that it is possible to pick one's sex partner according to physical considerations alone (the one that produces the best physical stimulation), and then having sex with them is not a reaction to values they have, or, necessarily a man's sex partner represents their values, and then sex with another human being (or animal) is a result of a sexual desire that arises from the values present in the object of desire.

Having sex with someone who is not grasped as attractive, and not for physical gratification is not a selfish act (though I can think of exceptions, but I rather leave them out for now).

So now, either you ask why must sex be tied to the partner's values (according to what person A considers as values), or you say that sex and the partner's virtues are not necessarily tied.

If they are tied, then any person will be attracted to those who embody the qualities they perceive as virtues, and will necessarily reflect their own values (and thus tell about who they are).

As for self esteem... I think that it is possible for people to try to acquire self esteem by having sex with someone who will help them create the image of themselves that they want to see. I don't think that sex is the only way to do this thing: some poeple buy expensive cars/clothes to make themselves feel important, or they try to be popular etc'. I don't think that one's sexual partner will always be an indication of their self esteem, but always of their values (though, like I said, I don't have a proof for that yet).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

An important premise that you're accepting without seriously checking is that there are people who are actually, rationally attracted to the dead or the bovine.

That's true. I have never met any sodomite or necrophile. But I've been talking to people who are into weird sex practices (SM for example). They lead happy lives and are reasonable people. This sort of sex just turns them on. They couldn't give me a reason except that they tried it and liked it. I would never have guessed they would do that.

They don't do it out of self-loathing or some other mental issues. For some the pain -they explained- gives them some sort of relief and relaxation and increases their sexual pleasure. Others just get a kick out of doing something "forbidden". The point is: They like it. And they are not nuts or unhappy.

So I just thought that necrophilia and sodomy are similar. A lot weirder, sure. But I just put it in the same category.

It could be that people do it out of self-loathing, as a way of self-punishment. That's not what I doubted.

And I also think there can be people who are into weird sex out of some strange sort of compulsion and mental problems even though this doesn't always have to be the reason.

What I seriously doubted was the idea that self-esteem changes what you're attracted to. As far as I know it doesn't. The way Maarten presented it, it didn't make sense to me. He made it look like people become attracted to animals or dead bodies because their self-esteem is low. That is what I challenged. It could be that they loathe it and do it for self-punishment. But they don't become attracted out of low self esteem. I don't become attracted to ugly mass-murderers when I have a bad day. My point was that attraction is unrelated to self-esteem. That people have weird sex to punish themselves certainly happens. But it's not the only reason one can think of. They can do it for pleasure. I have no direct proof that this goes as far as bestiality and necrophilia, but for less extreme sex it is certainly the case and therefore it could well be that people do these stranger things for pleasure, too.

I doubt I'll ever get further than this, because I don't think people would admit to these practices since they are a taboo in our culture.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's true. I have never met any sodomite or necrophile. But I've been talking to people who are into weird sex practices (SM for example). They lead happy lives and are reasonable people. This sort of sex just turns them on. They couldn't give me a reason except that they tried it and liked it.

This is why looking at people from the outside in, doesn't help with this subject. These are "reasonable" people who haven't put enough thought into understanding their motivations and desires in regard to this major part of life to even explain why they want what they want? You don't need to have other people who have unusaul sexual practices tell you. Think about it for yourself alone. What would you need to change mentally to view pain as a necessary component of sexual pleasure? A better outlook on life? Higher self esteem? High tolerance for pain? Or maybe a malevolent universe premise that every rose needs a thorn?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

These are "reasonable" people who haven't put enough thought into understanding their motivations and desires in regard to this major part of life to even explain why they want what they want... Think about it for yourself alone. What would you need to change mentally to view pain as a necessary component of sexual pleasure?
You can only go so far with that argument.

A couple tells me they are into S/M, that the results are enjoyable. I don't get it.

Another couple tells me they are into running ultramarathons through deserts in summertime, that the results are enjoyable. I don't get it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You can only go so far with that argument.

A couple tells me they are into S/M, that the results are enjoyable. I don't get it.

Another couple tells me they are into running ultramarathons through deserts in summertime, that the results are enjoyable. I don't get it.

The problem isn't that you don't understand why these folks like what they like. The problem is that they don't understand why they like it. People can like things that I don't care for, for perfectly rational reasons. And if you ask someone who runs why they like it, they usually give you an answer. (they've had a hundred and fifty miles to think it over). Not, 'I don't know, i just like it', which is what you tend to get when it is a subject which a person doesn't like to think about or has thought about but doesn't wish to share the answer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What I seriously doubted was the idea that self-esteem changes what you're attracted to. As far as I know it doesn't. The way Maarten presented it, it didn't make sense to me. He made it look like people become attracted to animals or dead bodies because their self-esteem is low.

That's not what I said, though. I said that being attracted to animals or the dead means they must have a very low self-esteem. I do think that they go hand in hand, but I don't know if the correlation is also a causal relationship.

When we are talking about people being attracted to other people, I think there is a clear relationship between a person's self-esteem and the type of person they choose to pursue. Why would this have to be different when we start talking about attraction towards the sub-human?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...