Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

why is sex for physical gratification wrong?

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

Where can I obtain this lecture?

The Ayn Rand Bookstore website.

If it is not saying in explicit words that sex is proper only in the case of deep and passionate love...

I'm going to throw the " :confused: :confused: :confused: " back at you here. You said yourself that it does make that explicit, but only in three quotes. Your problem was that it wasn't belaboring the point explicitly. I said that it was belaboring the point implicitly.

(If your assurance is coming from the lecture, I'll will check that out as soon as I can.)
The lecture does help, yes, but OPAR is clear enough to me.

To be fair, you haven't given any reason to think that sex with someone you like very much (but not love) is necessarily hedonistic, and little (if any?) to think that it is contrary to Objectivist ethics.

That's not fair. I've given plenty of reasons throughout the 12 threads here, you just aren't satisfied. There's a difference.

In this last case, I am not sure what you are referring to as proof, since nothing has shown that sex is proper only if it is with someone who is loved (as opposed to all less-than-love valuings).

Well, I'm not really inclined to add anything more to what I've already said on the matter. (it has been 12 threads, after all) Whether you agree or not, that is the position of Objectivism. It is stated explicitly both in that chapter in OPAR and by Ayn Rand in many passages that have been quoted in the other threads. I consider that to be a closed matter.

Edited by Inspector
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 240
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

"Dominant" is quite different from "essential".

My point is that it can be different, if used in some ways, but if used in other ways it can be used as a synonym. Given the rest of what he says in that chapter, it is a stretch to think that he is not using it in the way that makes them synonyms.

I mean, just read each paragraph, rather than as individual sentences. Then do that for the section as a whole. Do what your english teacher said and look for the "main idea." The document, when taken as a whole is absolutely, completely in support of my position. So picking individual words out and finding definitions where there could be loopholes that might be construed to mean something else is kind of futile. This is what I mean by you and logical positivism and your disintegrated method of reading.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I too think many of the objectivists on this board are on the wrong track concerning sex. I think this is a result of two things.

1.) Objectivists' reluctance to admit the strongly physical and instinctual nature of sex.

2.) Ayn Rands rather odd personal view of sex which is woven into her novels as well as her non-fiction.

I think that everything has to do with Rand's self-centered ethics where sex is regarded as something that is as natural of eating and drinking and should be indulged in for as long as it makes you happy since it is natural for man to desire to have sex. The morality of sex revolves around this self-centered ethical norm. The same could be said probably of masturbation, pornography, prostitution, homosexuality (which Rand initially despised), same-sex marriage, abortion, incest, polygamy etc. for as long as it is mutual and it makes those involved in it happy, self-fulfilled, and feeling like one who has attained his/her purpose in life. This selfishness makes the hero who gives up his life for another, such as the soldier who dies for his country or the doctor who dies while on a mission to save others from sickness, a fool. This is the result of a life that removes the center from God and focuses it on man who then becomes the God of his own life and purpose.

Link to post
Share on other sites
You said yourself that it does make that explicit, but only in three quotes.
The problem is that they are very questionable quotes, though.
When a man and woman do fall in love - assuming that each is romantically free and the context otherwise appropriate - sex is a necessary and proper expression of their feeling for each other.
This says that sex is necessary and proper if the relationship is one of romance/"love". It does not say that sex is necessary/proper only if the relationship is one of romance/"love".
[Loving a person] involves, as a consequence of [their representing your top values and being irreplaceable], a desperate need for a sexual connection.
This says that sex is a "desperate need" in a loving relationship. It does not say that sex is necessary/proper only if the relationship is one of romance/"love".
Sexual feeling is a sum; it presupposes all of a rational man's moral values and his love for them, including his love for the partner who embodies them.
This is the only thing left: one sentence out of multiple pages of text. I'm not going to express my objections to its meaning (you'd consider it "positivist" to do so?), but I will say that this one sentence is different from the meaning of everything else (in the articles) regarding when sex is proper. Everywhere else in the articles, it says that sex is proper when you value (i.e. not necessarily love) the other person. How can you say that one sentence is the big picture when the hundreds of other sentences in the articles say something quite different? More importantly, neither you nor the articles have said why sex is proper only in cases of deep and passionate love.

That's not fair. I've given plenty of reasons throughout the 12 threads here.
Very well, I will read through all 12 threads for an argument (any argument) as to why sex is proper only in the case of love and post my findings.

Whether you agree or not, [sex is proper only in cases of deep and passionate love] is the position of Objectivism. It is stated explicitly both in that chapter in OPAR and by Ayn Rand in many passages that have been quoted in the other threads.
I shall find out.
Link to post
Share on other sites
I will say that this one sentence is different from the meaning of everything else (in the articles) regarding when sex is proper. Everywhere else in the articles, it says that sex is proper when you value (i.e. not necessarily love) the other person.

That is an inaccurate characterization of the article. The "i.e. not necessarily love" part is wishful thinking on your part. When he says "value," he is referring to a specific kind and level of value: love. It is part of the nature of explaining it: first you must describe that it is an expression of value, then you narrow it down to say what specific kind.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Saying that you find a certain woman attractive enough to have sex with her will involve attributing some value to her on your part. Perhaps she is well groomed , with a good figure and attractive so you conclude she values taking care of herself and you appreciate that about her. What if during your conversation over drinks she mentions her charity work and how she thinks we should give more schlorships for Ivy league schools to those students who are poor, don't have the grades, but she feels sorry for them. Now what?

And...what kind of woman has sex with a man knowing he just wants to relieve himself (other than a for hire situation) She values being a sponge.

I could only have sex with a man I respect and admire. My boyfriend values everything about me, that I value about myself.

Link to post
Share on other sites
How deep does the love relationship have to be, dating for a month? Two months? Engaged, Married?

As soon as you know you are in love, go for it. You might know on the second date. Or, it might take a month or two. But if you are getting engaged and you haven't had sex yet, then I think there is a serious problem.

Love is already your highest emotional response to values. You shouldn't wait for some specific intensity of love before you have sex. If you love your girlfriend only a little, then only have a little sex with her. And if you love her a lot, then have a lot of sex.

Link to post
Share on other sites
As soon as you know you are in love, go for it. You might know on the second date. Or, it might take a month or two. But if you are getting engaged and you haven't had sex yet, then I think there is a serious problem.

Love is already your highest emotional response to values. You shouldn't wait for some specific intensity of love before you have sex. If you love your girlfriend only a little, then only have a little sex with her. And if you love her a lot, then have a lot of sex.

Haha, good answer. The question, of course, is flawed. A definition of love was given earlier. If you can say that about someone then I don't think you'd be asking anyone here if it is "okay" to have sex. The very fact of asking such a question is very suspicious to me; it suggests that someone is looking at sex as something they can "get away with" if they value someone "enough." Like you're looking for some kind of bare minimum. Notice how sex is still seen as the goal and end in itself, and not as the consequence of love.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 3 weeks later...
This might sound like a strange question, but I pose it in an attempt to answer your question/statment by analogy:

What is wrong with having sex with a corpse or an animal?

"Nothing is wright or wrong but thinking makes it so"-shakespear

Whatever turns you on and anyway the way some people have sex youd think they were a corpse,and some other are just animals

Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm sure this has already been addressed within these twelve pages, but how is love defined?

From the playboy interview,

"...love is an expression of self-esteem, of the deepest values in a man's or a woman's character. One falls in love with the person who shares these values. If a man has no clearly defined values, and no moral character, he is not able to appreciate another person..."

Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm sure this has already been addressed within these twelve pages, but how is love defined?

from the same,

What sex should involve is a very serious relationship. Whether that relationship should or should not become a marriage is a question which depends on the circumstances and the context of the two persons' lives. I consider marriage a very important institution, but it is important when and if two people have found the person with whom they wish to spend the rest of their lives -- a question of which no man or woman can be automatically certain. When one is certain that one's choice is final, then marriage is, of course, a desirable state. But this does not mean that any relationship based on less than total certainty is improper. I think the question of an affair or a marriage depends on the knowledge and the position of the two persons involved and should be left up to them. Either is moral, provided only that both parties take the relationship seriously and that it is based on values.
Link to post
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...