why is sex for physical gratification wrong?

[Alfa]

I once met this amazing girl. She was good looking, confident, intelligent and it seemed like we shared alot of the same values. Yes, Alfa was maybe falling in love. Most of all I think it was her incredible confidence. Atleast that´s how it appeared. I learned later that I was very much mistaken. She had not the confidence you would gain from your own virtue and achievment, it was rather a false confidence from ignoring the lack thereof. All attraction was gone like someone had blown out a candle. Even if she would have been the hottest girl on the planet I would not have touched her.

I think having sex with a beautiful bimbo would be very much the same thing. I cannot appreciate such things.

For those of you who just think about the physical act, imagine getting naked with a hot girl(or man) just to find out her personal hygiene is so bad it turns your stomach. Sure, you could ignore the smell and have sex with someone who atleast looks good, but I doubt anyone would want that.

When someones mind stinks it should be an equal, or worse, turn-off.

[ExtremelyAmerican]

I see that Bold Standard has already posted a wise disclaimer, but I thought I would add my own as well.

I think everyone should be mindful of the fact that values are not intrinsic, they are personal to each individual (as in) - to whom and for what purpose. I would be very weary of any claim that physical-only sex is universally bad or a disvalue.

This post is addressed to anyone interested in what I have to say, but RationalBiker provided me with a starting point.

Values are not intrinsic. Values are contingent on one's nature and one's purpose--why and for what. The issue, as I see it, is whether or not physical/spiritual sex is good, and whether or not "physical only" sex is bad. So if we ask, "Is physical-only sex good?" we must continue with: Good to whom, why and for what purpose?

Let's take a hypothetical situation. There's a man. He has a rational mind and a life under his control. Now let's assume he knows this, and understands the metaphysical and epistemelogical implications of him being a man. He knows he must think--to find how to survive, produce, and enjoy. Now let's say he's gotten the first two down. He's developed a philosophy to guide him; he's made plans, in relation to his philosophy, on how to produce in order to survive; he wants to reap the rewards of dealing with reality effectively, he wants to be happy. He reaches a point where reality itself has proven that his life is good, his way of living has worked, and a world full of potential and pleasure is his for the taking.

The man, of course, seeks additional devices to accomplish his goals and to find fulfillment. He can increase his productivity, further his understanding and knowledge, and he can cooperate with other men (ie, human beings). He knows that he had to choose the right path, and that other men can choose a different path, or a path antithetical to his own, so he chooses like-minded men to cooperate with; he chooses men with the same motivations and goals so that there is no conflict of interests and the division of labor is effective.

This long chain of accomplishment is very fulfilling for the man, and it is accompanied by consequental rewards. He has plentiful resources, better resources; he has more of his life under control and thus more time devoted to what he desires and needs most; he has relationships with men of the same character and derives direct spiritual and metaphysical fulfillment from their existence--metaphysically, they make his life easier and better; spiritually, they provide him with a concretization of that for which his life stands.

Now let's assume that this man, at some point during his difficult journey, decides to take a woman and reduce her, psychologically and metaphysically, to a mere sensation; he decides that another human being--despite all he knows of men, despite all the effort he has put into being a man in every sense of the word--is just something simply for his "physical benefit." In other words: assume that a man--whose mind and body were in constant cooperation--suddenly decides that severing his values from his actions for the sake of an orgasm is a life-affirming action.

This would be a contradiction. This would be evil. In other words, a man such as this wouldn't do such a thing.

Edited December 27, 2006 by ExtremelyAmerican

[BaseballGenius]

BaseballGenius,

I understand the claim, which is all I recognize it to be so far, I just don't see that it has been proven.

Its been proven with definitions and applying words such as 'happiness' and 'values' to life situations.

[RationalBiker]

This post is addressed to anyone interested in what I have to say, but RationalBiker provided me with a starting point.

Thank you for providing one particular context that may apply to many people. It does nothing to counter my position.

Its been proven with definitions and applying words such as 'happiness' and 'values' to life situations.

No, it has not.

[BaseballGenius]

On the same logic I can say that eating ice cream is abandonment of rational values, unless it also comes with a talking device to ask you questions as you eat, to add some spiritual values to the experience. Ice cream gives you pleasure, not necessarily happiness. And there is nothing wrong with it.

Humans need to eat food to survive. Ice cream is a food, so ice cream supports your life if eaten in the right doses. Theres no way eating ice cream(in the right doses) is abandonment of rational values.

(And I think the nature of the sexual experience depends on the context: masturbation is physical, sex is primarily spiritual because it involves another human being, with a spiritual nature).

Masturbation isnt necessarily purely physical. When masturbating, you are having sex with yourself, someone who shares your same values(the exact same values).

[RationalBiker]

I realize I'm one of the few on this board with an unpopular (from an Objectivist perspective) view on sex. It may even be opposed to any "official" Objectivist position on the matter (if there is one), so that's why I generally stay out of the fray. It is for that reason that I should probably refrain from posting on the subject just so that as a moderator I will be adhering to the rules of the forum like everyone else. Still, from time to time I give in and have to throw a couple of cents in when I see claims that I think have not been proven.

I've known happy, rational people in my life who at various times and stages in their life engaged in sexual activity that folks on here would consider immoral because they would claim there is no way that the person could possibly be happy or rational, no matter how happy or rational they appeared to be. Whether it's because they were gay, because they had one night stands, physical sex, or whatever, it's highly unlikely anyone on here is going to convince me to ignore my senses and my knowledge of these people and their lives and my capacity for reason and logic.

So once and for all, I'm letting everyone know (if anyone even cares) that I will refrain from any and all threads relating to sexual morality for the duration of my participation on this board unless;

1) I have sufficient reason to significantly change my view

or

2) I do so in my capacity as a moderator.

At any rate, I will state that I do appreciate everyone taking the time to present their arguments (and those who will continue to do so), even those with whom I disagree. It is my assumption that each of you, like me, is trying to get the right handle on reality such that we may make proper judgments for ourselves and of other people in the interests of being objective and just.

[BaseballGenius]

Suppose I were to have sex with "beautiful bimbo" Mariah Carey. Why would this necessarily be:

I dont think Mariah Carey is the best example. Although not very intellectual, she is quite talented. She believes in productive work, and has worked very hard to get to the top of the music industry. What I had in mind was a bimbo who had no work ethic, and therefore had no meaningful talents, as well as no intellect. We can also use, as an example, someone the other person does not know, but still decides on having sex with her.

whimsical

an act of degradation

an abandonment of rational values

a faking of happiness based on Rand's definition of happiness

One is degrading himself because it is weakening his character. It is weakening his character because he is choosing not to act on rational values(he is now using pleasure as the standard, not facts of reality). It is not acting on rational values because it is contradicting what should be the purpose of his life, which is happiness. The "pleasure person" would not gain any happiness from these acts because 'happiness' is the achievement of ones rational values. It may be an attempt at happiness but its a wrong attempt. I'll let Ayn Rand take it from here:

"mindless kicks(like with this topic being discussed), his alleged happiness is the measure of his success in the service of his own destruction. It must be added that the emotional state of all those irrationalists cannot be properly designated as happiness or even pleasure; it is merely a moments relief from their chronic state of terror."

If you value "pleasurable" acts so much, why dont you just change your whole philosophy to hedonism? Why do you make the exception with sex? Is it because you want that to be the truth?

[hunterrose]

"Well, what sort of mentality would it take to be attracted to a bimbo?" What kind of mind can look at a bimbo, knowing how vile and hated and spiritually worthless she is, still maintain a state of attraction long enough to go through with the sexual act?

What is the objective definition of "spiritually worthless"? If there is none, then how can you definitively say that sex for physical gratification is wrong?

In response to the question, I'd agree that any person A should not deal with another person B who is worthless to A.

This man decides to take a woman and reduce her, psychologically and metaphysically, to a mere sensation... This would be evil.

Is every instance of "reducing a person" evil (e.g. an employer who "reduces" his employees to cogs in an industrial machine)? Or are only reductions that are sexual considered evil (why?)

*welcomes ExtremelyAmerican to the forum*

Its been proven with definitions and applying words such as 'happiness' and 'values' to life situations.

No, it has not because

[sex with a bimbo] is not acting on rational values because it is contradicting what should be the purpose of his life, which is happiness. The "pleasure person" would not gain any happiness from these acts because 'happiness' is the achievement of ones rational values.

...isn't that circular?

[Inspector]

What is the objective definition of...

Again with the word games with you. I'll let my statement stand until such a time as you choose to actually think about it.

[ExtremelyAmerican]

hunterrose:

Is every instance of "reducing a person" evil (e.g. an employer who "reduces" his employees to cogs in an industrial machine)? Or are only reductions that are sexual considered evil (why?)

*welcomes ExtremelyAmerican to the forum*

Thank's for welcoming me.

Sex is, directly and immediately, for physical gratification. Physical gratification is wonderful. But sex is directly related to another human being. To live your life with extreme dedication to the life-centered and productive and rational, and then ignore the significance of these aspects in another human being for the sake of sexual pleasure--this would be whim worship and a self-contradiction. To seek the intense sexual gratification of physically dominating a woman who is my equal--this is rational, consistent and good; it is also something I have done and something I will do in the future.

The idea of employees being reduced to cogs is a typical communist or anti-productivity argument, so I'll assume you're just adopting that for the sake of making a point.

If an employer hires people who are unimportant to him besides their purely physical functioning, how will he determine if they can even perform the tasks he wants done? If he literally views the people he employs as mindless cogs meant to do his bidding and fit into his "machine", he is making a mistake similar to that of a person who has sex for "purely physical" pleasure. It would be expressly harmful for the businessman to view other men as entities whose minds and bodies can be disconnected at whim. Similarly, it would be harmful for one lover to look at the other as an entity whose mind and body can be disconnected at whim.

If you reduce (or elevate) a person to something other than what he is, you are evading reality and replacing it with a fantasy. In both the cases we have been talking about, one omits the mind of the person (reduces him) and pretends he is a pizza or a cigarette or a machine (as in the case of the "cogs"). I suppose some people have a hard time understanding that a HUMAN has a body and a mind. The two are inseperable.

[miseleigh]

I'd like a clarification here before I try to add my own views to this thread:

Is the topic about 'sex without rationally valuing your partner' or 'sex without being in love with your partner'? I think 'purely physical' sex, devoid of all values, would fall under the first, and as far as I can tell absolutely no one is advocating that. (Especially since the fact that your partner is of the same species is a value in itself.) However, I do think that those who think the second can be good are being taken as saying the first can be good. They are two entirely different things; which are we talking about?

There's also the equivocation between 'discriminate' and 'indiscrimate' sex vs. casual sex. I would put indiscrimate in the 'sex without rationally valuing your partner' category and both discriminate and casual sex in the second - does that make sense?

I'd like to propose some terms here to help with this discussion:

Love&sex = Sex with your boyfriend/girlfriend/fiance(e)/spouse, whom you are in love with

Caring&sex = Sex with a person you could fall in love with at some point in the future but aren't in love with now

Casualsex = Sex with a friend/acquaintance whom you value but cannot love for some reason

Attractionsex = Sex with someone you don't know (the typical 'one night stand') but find attractive

Hedonistsex = 'Purely physical' sex, sex with super-ugly people with duct tape over their mouths so you can't know anything about them and therefore cannot value them in any way more profound than their humanity and gender.

That's more categories then I expected it to be, but since they've all been mentioned as separate concepts, I think they're needed. I thought about putting sex with animals in there as a category too, but we can just call that 'sex with animals' or 'sex with trees'.

So, using these terms, as far as I've understood it the two stances are that a) sex is only a rational value if it's love&sex, and sex can be a rational value if it's attractionsex or better. Do people mind using these terms so the equivocation stops, and so that we'll all hopefully be discussing the same things?

*Edit: spelling

Edited December 28, 2006 by miseleigh

[Ifat Glassman]

If an employer hires people who are unimportant to him besides their purely physical functioning, how will he determine if they can even perform the tasks he wants done? If he literally views the people he employs as mindless cogs meant to do his bidding and fit into his "machine", he is making a mistake similar to that of a person who has sex for "purely physical" pleasure. It would be expressly harmful for the businessman to view other men as entities whose minds and bodies can be disconnected at whim.

But, a human also has emotions, personality, dreams, ect'. Should an employer consider all of these things when he considers to hire someone, and make it his business? Wouldn't he be ignoring the nature of his employee by not concerning himself with his employee's dreams and feelings?

Obviously, the answer is that one should care about the aspects of another human being that are relevant for the value one seeks from that person.

An employer should care about an employee's ability to perform the job, and not concern himself with his employee's dream to learn knitting.

A person seeking a romantic partner should concern themselves with all of their partner's aspects. The amount depends on the nature of the deal (the value sought in it).

So by hiring someone who can do the job while not concerning myself with his emotions I am not reducing him or ignoring his nature, but simply deal selectively with the aspects that are important to me.

It remains to be shown how the value that can be gained by sex necessarily requires a man to make the whole of the partner's character their business.

[Inspector]

I'd like a clarification here before I try to add my own views to this thread:

Is the topic about 'sex without rationally valuing your partner' or 'sex without being in love with your partner'?

Read the opening post. This thread is about the former. Anyone attempting to define or defend the latter is threadjacking and OT. We have enough problems with these threads without muddying the issue.

[hunterrose]

Again with the word games with you. I'll let my statement stand until such a time as you choose to actually think about it.

In other words, you don't wish to explain yourself and will intercede when I say something wrong. Okay.

Reading the opening post wouldn't answer miseleigh's question - the opening post asks several divergent questions.

Why is it that Objectivism considers it immoral for a man to have sex with a woman that he doesn't value?

1. moral status of sex with a person who is not valued

If a man cannot find a woman whom he can truly love, what is immoral about having safe sex with women he meets at bars, to fulfill his physical and psychological needs?

2. moral status of sex with a person who is not "truly" loved

Why is it immoral to buy sexual gratification from a woman you don't love?

3. moral status of buying sex? (I'm not sure it's supposed to matter whether you love a person from whom sex is being bought :P )

The first question is moot in virtually all circumstances - e.g. sex for physical gratification requires a partner who is valued for their capacity to provide physically gratifying sex and it's immoral to sacrifice in paying for something that isn't valued.

The second question is nebulous because it ignores whether the bar woman is valued in any degree and plays those pesky "word games" with phrases such as "cannot find a woman whom he can truly love".

If the thread is about rationally valuing your sexual partner, the thread has nothing to do with sex for physical gratification unless it's shown that valuing a partner for physically gratifying sex is not a rational valuation of one's partner. "Word games" aside, it has not been shown.

[Inspector]

In other words, you don't wish to explain yourself and will intercede when I say something wrong. Okay.

No, in other words, you need no explanation for that post (unless I've severely overestimated your intelligence) and your line of questioning seems dishonest. Use some common sense for once instead of reducing everything to word games. I will explain below...

the opening post asks several divergent questions...

There, you're doing it again. At least I can take some solace in the fact that you don't just do it with me.

If you actually read the opening post, and consider each sentence in the context of the others, and in the context of the title, instead of picking them each out and dropping context, ("word games") then you will see the following is obvious:

1. moral status of sex with a person who is not valued

2. the status of #1, in the context of not being able to find any from someone who is valued

3. the status of paying for #1

Please note the following: That these are not three separate questions, but the same question asked three times, with small bits of context added.

When I say "word games," it is because I consider your approach to reading post #1 (and my post) to be one which will not yeild meaningful comprehension of the post-writer's questions. I consider it common sense that reading things in that way will only distort their meaning. I have thus concluded that you either are deliberately attempting to distort things (both my post and post #1, and the countless other posts on this forum where you have done this), or you have a serious problem with how you think.

My suggestion is that you either cease this dishonest method, or, if you are genuine, correct your methods of thinking and reading. Either way, I have decided not to deal with you when you act in this manner. That is what I mean by "I'll let my statement stand until such a time as you choose to actually think about it."

[ExtremelyAmerican]

Ifat,

You haven't responded to anything I've said, yet it seems like you're talking to me.

[miseleigh]

Well, I did read the first post, and actually the rest of the thread as well, before I posted. I have since read it again a few times quite thoroughly, and am still lost. In his first paragraph, Moose mentions a relationship with someone who is not valued; in the second, there is no mention of disvaluing the person, and instead I understood him to mean a relationship that does not involve love but still has some value between the two people; the last paragraph discusses prostitution, a separate type of relationship from the first two. The first response says 'outside of a love relationship' rather than 'without valuing your partner,' an apparent confirmation of my interpretation.

Moose's mention of the psychological aspect of sex contributes a great deal to my confusion, because several people have tried to claim he was talking about sex without a psychological component. In his third post, Moose tried to clarify: "I'm talking about the idea that sex has to be an expression of love and value for the person you're having sex with," but this can be taken in more than one way, because you can value someone without loving them, and he made no distinction there. It could be "an expression of love and value" versus either "an expression of value without love" or "without either love or value." Perhaps people disagree with this interpretation, but since they're working from interpretations of their own, they also might be threadjacking. That's up to the original poster, and he hasn't been around lately.

In addition, this thread was merged with an earlier one. Personally, not being a moderator or a long-term member of this forum, I have no idea what happens when threads are merged. Are the last three pages a separate thread that was appended to the first three? Is there a thread out there that includes this one, but I can't see the first if I start here? Who is the original poster? What happens to the two different titles in such a case? Even if the title is still entirely relevant, 'sex for physical gratification' doesn't imply sex without valuing your partner. It is entirely possible to have sex with someone you love and/or value but want it because you're horny.

I'm sorry that this post is so off-topic, but the topic is unclear. Also, I do not like insinuations that claim I haven't read a post thoroughly just because there are differing interpretations of statements. I don't think I am muddying the issue; it was muddy long before I asked. That is, after all, why I asked. As far as I can tell, those who think it is immoral think the topic is sex with someone you do not value at all, and those who think it can be moral think the topic is sex with someone you value but do not love.

[Inspector]

Well, I did read the first post, and actually the rest of the thread as well, before I posted. I have since read it again a few times quite thoroughly, and am still lost.

You shouldn't be. As I said in my previous post, Moose's meaning is clear. He does not at any time switch questions. He is asking the same question, three times, from slightly different angles.

Moose's mention of the psychological aspect of sex contributes a great deal to my confusion, because several people have tried to claim he was talking about sex without a psychological component.

Moose thinks that sex, as such, is psychologically fulfilling. He thinks that "some people" have a psychological need for sex; sex, as such... sex, with no necessary ties to values.

It's clear enough to me just from reading his posts here. But when I take into account what he has said in his most recent sex thread, it is crystal clear.

but this can be taken in more than one way

Not really, no. He never changes his topic.

In addition, this thread was merged with an earlier one.

Antonio was asking a different question, I agree. What, then, is the topic of this thread? IMO, it should be the original one, as that is more in keeping with the title. That is simply my opinion, though.

But on the question of Moose's post, I don't think there is room for interpretation.

[hunterrose]

Those who think it is immoral think the topic is sex with someone you do not value at all, and those who think it can be moral think the topic is sex with someone you value but do not love.

Agreed. And odd, as neither Moose nor anyone else has argued that "valueless sex" is moral in the first place.

[Inspector]

Agreed. And odd, as neither Moose nor anyone else has argued that "valueless sex" is moral in the first place.

You're completely wrong. Moose does so in his very first post.

[hunterrose]

Title: Why is sex for physical gratification wrong

What illogic makes you say that this entails no values?

Opening post:

Why is it that Objectivism considers it immoral for a man to have sex with a woman that he doesn't value?

Sex is a physical desire and, in most people, a psychological need. If a man cannot find a woman whom he can truly love, what is immoral about having safe sex with women he meets at bars, to fulfill his physical and psychological needs? As long as she has no delusions that he is in love with her mind, I see no reason that this should be immoral.

The same applies to prostitutes, in my opinion. No one would claim it is immoral to buy food from a woman that you don't love. Why, then, is it immoral to buy sexual gratification from a woman you don't love? In both cases, money is exchanged for something that fulfills the physical and psychological needs of the customer.

What'd you do, read the first sentence and then blank out the rest?

If you actually read the opening post, and consider each sentence in the context of the others, and in the context of the title, instead of picking them each out and dropping context, then you will see the following:

• Moose justifies sex with a woman "that he doesn't value" with reasons he values said woman
  
• physical gratification and "psychological needs" are values. They may be trivial, they may be not valuable enough (to you) for sex, but they (especially physical gratification) are values nonetheless
  
• there is a distinction made between 'love' and 'value'. If you didn't realize it originally, you should now that miseleigh has mentioned it. I value my grocer for her capacity to produce and trade food - I do not love my grocer. Moose was arguing from the same premise
  
• no one, not even you, took up arguing against this "valueless sex" idea until the last day or two. Originally, you argued (#13) that Moose was proposing hedonism (acting on short-term values) and (#22) that sex for physical values ignores spiritual values. Those are fine arguments, but don't apply to a question of doing something for the sake of no values, (nihilism?) - a question that neither Moose nor anyone else has argued for in the first place
  

Anyway, let's say you won in proving that sex for the sake of no values at all is wrong and that you've proven somebody wrong. Congratulations.

Now, is there any evidence to say that sex for the sake of physical values is immoral? Or do you wish to repaste post #109 in reply?

[Inspector]

If you actually read the opening post, and consider each sentence in the context of the others, and in the context of the title, instead of picking them each out and dropping context, then you will see the following:

Not amusing.

Under the definition of "values" you propose, sex itself is a "value" and therefore there can by definition be no such thing as "valueless" anything.

Your proposed definition of "values" reduces everyone's statements, and this entire thread, to nonsense. Therefore, it is utterly rediculous to assume that that is what was meant by anyone.

Again, you play word games. One more post with this kind of nonsense, and I will completely ignore you.

[The Wrath]

Wow, I really started a storm with this one, didn't I? This topic is becoming more and more amusing, and it's good to see that RationalBiker explicitly stated that he agrees with my side. On the other hand, I see that Inspector's reading comprehension skills have not improved, but that his knack for telling other people "you just don't get it and, until you agree with me, I suggest that you leave this thread" has grown by leaps and bounds.

[aequalsa]

I've known happy, rational people in my life who at various times and stages in their life engaged in sexual activity that folks on here would consider immoral because they would claim there is no way that the person could possibly be happy or rational, no matter how happy or rational they appeared to be. Whether it's because they were gay, because they had one night stands, physical sex, or whatever, it's highly unlikely anyone on here is going to convince me to ignore my senses and my knowledge of these people and their lives and my capacity for reason and logic.

Hi RationalBiker,

I realize and respect your desire to not be involved in the discussion and do not mean to engage you in the debate, but do have a factual question regarding the situations you mention above.

My experience has been that it is hard to really know someone through and through with regard to their psychological motivations since outward appearences and behaviours can be very deceiving. So most of my thoughts on this subject are based on introspection. What would cause me to want a one night stand? What would cause me to sleep with an animal?

In every circumstance like this, I usually see a psychological problem I would need to have not yet dealt with. If for example I sought sex with a stranger without any mental connection, I would need to not want to see the reflection of my values in another person. At least at that time. Ostensibly due to not being sure what my values were or having values detrimental to my life.

You mentioned that these behaviours manifested themselves at certain times and stages of the lives for the individuals you refer to. So finally, my question is, do you believe, suspect or know if it is the case that these folks had things either wrong or not worked out which led to these behaviours?

[Inspector]

it's good to see that RationalBiker explicitly stated that he agrees with my side.

He has done nothing of the sort, Mr. Happiness-is-a-warm-hole.

Edited January 1, 2007 by Inspector