Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

why is sex for physical gratification wrong?

Rate this topic


The Wrath

Recommended Posts

I'm not RationalBiker, but let me attempt to answer one of your questions anyway, Aequelsa. I agree with everything he has said on this topic.

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?
Could it not be the same thing which causes you to want to masturbate?

Also, why does a person who does not fulfill your highest values, but some lesser ones, necessarily have to be an animal?

And now, for my views on this matter. Here are some of the premises I have seen so far that are being used to argue that sex for physical gratification is wrong:

1) Sex is necessarily a moral sanction.

2) Sex necessarily has to involve your highest values.

3) It is necessarily immoral to ignore parts of a person when having sex.

Unfortunately, these premises are not self-evident, so the posters using these premises to argue that sex for physical gratification is wrong must start by proving these premises.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 240
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Could it not be the same thing which causes you to want to masturbate?

This is an interesting point that I don't think has been brought up yet. Masterbation has been treated as a good. But masterbation is usually accompanied by fantasy. The nature of the fantasy would probably qualify it as good or bad in the same way that the nature of the relationship with another person would qualify it as good or bad.

Also, why does a person who does not fulfill your highest values, but some lesser ones, necessarily have to be an animal?
They don't. Those questions were examples meant to illustrate that I am considering this primarily from an introspective position.

The point made in earlier posts with regard to animals was that if sex was good just because of the physical sensation of a vagina, then any would do, including animals'.

And now, for my views on this matter. Here are some of the premises I have seen so far that are being used to argue that sex for physical gratification is wrong:

1) Sex is necessarily a moral sanction.

2) Sex necessarily has to involve your highest values.

3) It is necessarily immoral to ignore parts of a person when having sex.

Unfortunately, these premises are not self-evident, so the posters using these premises to argue that sex for physical gratification is wrong must start by proving these premises.

I disagree with 1. It could also be a moral condemnation. I agree that morality is necessarily involved though.

Number 2. is not my position either. It doesn't have to involve your highest values but it neccessarily involves your values. Who you sleep with and why you sleep with them are choices that you make. These choices define an aspect of your character which is almost always(always in my personal experience) tied to many other values. This information allows you to make fairly accurate judgements about the person.

Number 3 I agree with. It is evasion and evading reality is always bad. I could evade some major character flaw in someone I do business with or I could take note of this flaw and depending on the risk associated with it, either continue to do business with them or not. I don't think sex is much different in this regard.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Inspector, I have come to one of the two the following opinions of you...can't decide which, but I lean heavily towards #2:

  1. You lack the mental capacity to comprehend the philosophical positions of others who disagree with you and you honestly believe that your views should be obviously correct to all thinking persons when, in fact, almost no one agrees with some of your views and others of your views find very muddled support amongst people who claim the same general philosophy of life as you. This is an indictment of your cognitive ability.
  2. You intentionally misrepresent the arguments of others (practically all of your responses to the arguments of others in this thread), set up straw men (see your most recent post), and demand that, unless they submit to your superior intelligence and morality, they would do better to avoid the topic altogether (see posts to HunterRose). This is an indictment of your character.

As I said, I think #2 is most probably correct and cannot decide if #1 has anything to do with it or not. This is a personal attack and I admit it freely. It is an opinion that I have come to hold by observing your posts on a number of topics, but which this topic has just served to drive home. I am convinced that you either lack the capacity for individual critical thought or that you do not wish to engage in it.

Ayn Rand was a great woman and I believe that, were she still alive, she might view you with the same disdain with which Jesus Christ might view Pat Robertson.

By the way, while I have no desire to get drawn into the debate on sex again, I will, if necessary, defend my characterization of you. However, I will be moving across the country this week and, therefore, my response to any rebuttal might be somewhat delayed. Just wanted to throw this disclaimer in here, lest anyone should think that I am wussing out.

Edited by Moose
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am convinced that you either lack the capacity for individual critical thought or that you do not wish to engage in it.

The only thing I "do not wish to" engage in, is suffering the kind of linguistic-analyis logical positivist crap that Hunterrose substitutes for thought and argument.

As for you, I don't see how you can stretch RB's statement to be even close to what you have advocated, either here or in other threads. I think that's either, as you basically put it, either stupid or dishonest of you to claim that your position is the same as his.

As for your accusation of me, you needn't bother trying to defend it. Your reaction to Dr. Peikoff's election statement revealed all I need to know about how you like to jump to conclusions about peoples' characters if you disagree with their statements.

Finally, your implication is that I have strawmanned your position. Care to prove this? Use only quotes of your previous statements.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Since RationalBiker doesn't particularly wish to involve himself in this imbroglio (he probably is wiser than us for it B):lol: ) I should note that while RationalBiker doesn't apparently wholly agree with Inspector's position, that isn't to necessarily say that he agrees with Moose's position either.

*resolves to be nice to Inspector*

Under the definition of "values" you propose... there can by definition be no such thing as "valueless" anything.
Anything that one acts to gain/keep is a value, so technically I suppose I'd agree with that statement.

Your proposed definition of "values" reduces everyone's statements, and this entire thread, to nonsense.
Nah, I can't agree with that. I think what you would mean is that sex for physical gratification is not a rational value or not valuable (in relation to a higher/ultimate value). I do think it'd be invalid to say that sex for the purpose of physical gratification is purposeless, but it is a valid question as to whether it is a purpose rational men would take up or a means to attaining man's ultimate value.

Wow, I really started a storm with this one, didn't I?
:twisted:

What would cause me to want a one night stand?

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... ostensibly due to not being sure what my values were or having values detrimental to my life.

I kinda understand what you're saying. I would agree that a person (whose values aren't detrimental) ought to want her associates to be a reflection of her fundamental values. But why would not caring whether the other person is a reflection of my values necessarily be a psychological problem?
[ignoring parts of a person when having sex] is evasion and evading reality is always bad. I could evade some major character flaw in someone I do business with or I could take note of this flaw and depending on the risk associated with it, either continue to do business with them or not. I don't think sex is much different in this regard.
I not sure what you mean here. Do you mean that ignoring parts of a business partner is always bad? Or that it is permissable to ignore nonmajor character flaws in someone when having sex? I do think there is an important difference between ignoring character flaws and evading character flaws, and that ignoring (nonmajor) character flaws isn't always bad, whether in business or sex.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

\

I kinda understand what you're saying. I would agree that a person (whose values aren't detrimental) ought to want her associates to be a reflection of her fundamental values.

Ignore, I understood to mean, not take into account. If someone you are involved with has a detrimental trait, you might be willing to put up with it, if it is in your best interests overall. But it would be unwise in the extreme to not remain cognizant of it.

But why would not caring whether the other person is a reflection of my values necessarily be a psychological problem?

I was referring to myself primarily in that statement. For example, if I avoided relationships of meaning preferring the company of prostitutes, there would have to be some cause for that choice. A desire to avoid rejection, or something of that nature. So statements such as 'I know a person who is rational and happy and loves life, but prefers drunk bar flies to women of value', don't sit right with me. He might be a great guyin a dozen ways, but whatever causes him to pursue trash, is at it's base, character flaw or psychological problem.

I not sure what you mean here. Do you mean that ignoring parts of a business partner is always bad? Or that it is permissable to ignore nonmajor character flaws in someone when having sex? I do think there is an important difference between ignoring character flaws and evading character flaws, and that ignoring (nonmajor) character flaws isn't always bad, whether in business or sex.

If your values are well integrated, I doubt you could ignore major flaws. The feeling of attraction stems from that which you conciously value. If someone has characteristics which repulse you, it should be difficult if not impossible to manifest any kind of desire. To be clear, the flaws I have in mind are volitional flaws. To ignore cellulite or an unattractive scar would probably be sensible. If that is what you mean by non-major flaws then I fully agree.

However, even non-major volitional errors should be considered as they likely represent more then what you see at the surface. They might be things which you would be willing to put up with or that you hope will change, but I would not ignore them. I wouldn't dwell on them either. If you do dwell on them, then they are in all probability, not so minor. I get the impression that this is what you have in mind. When you say ignore you mean, not focus on as it is not necessarily at issue during sex?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

*resolves to be nice to Inspector*

Although that is appreciated, it's not really what I'm on about. You're not overly mean (although you are misgevious), it's just that your method of analysis/approach to reading peoples' posts is driving me up the wall. Like you're too focused on the formalities of logic and definition, and aren't looking at the big picture of what people are actually saying. Like your goal isn't to understand a person's meaning, but rather to tear down their statements into syllogisms at the expense of the originally intended meaning. As I said, it's like you're just playing "word games." I think it is akin to what the Logical Positivist school (or Linguistic Analysis?) does.

I'm afraid it's not really my area of expertise, however. I just know that it is a flawed approach, and it annoys me. Perhaps someone else here can describe more accurately and completely what I'm driving at. (David Odden?) It's not that syllogism or analysis are wrong, as such, it's just the way that you sometimes (often) use them.

If I see you doing it again, I'll just say, "Hunterrose, you're doing it again."

*ahem*

Hunterrose, you're doing it again.

What... makes you say that this entails no values?

No values other than physical gratification. No consideration for character, romance, beauty, or anything else other than the texture of sexual organs.

The obvious use of "values" in the context of this thread is that it is being used as shorthand for "spiritual values." ("spiritual" in the sense Ayn Rand often used it)

observe:

A couple of recent threads have made me wonder why this is the stance of Objectivists. 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.

He says it right there: "that he doesn't value." Now how on earth would that statement make a lick of sense other than if meant with the definitions I have used above? Riddle me that.

Now re-read my last few posts, and read Moose's posts in this thread. Is there any other possible, logically consistant, explanation for what he is saying?

Moose clearly believes that sex is something people desire, not as an expression of value, but as akin to hunger. Something people "just need." They feel a physical and psychological desire for it, that has no source other than, presumably, their hormones or biology. It's not a desire for a woman of character, or even a woman of beauty. Hell, while Moose has trouble admitting this, his view of it boils down to it not even being a desire for a woman at all; just a desire for "sex."* Presumably, this means for the physical sensations involved, but it's hard to guess given that this whole idea is nonsense. People are not animals in heat.

I've answered, in his other thread on this, that he is erroneously conflating several different desires, specifically with the need for physical release which does not at all require sex and can quite handily be achieved by other means. (pun intended) That the other desires involved are spiritual in nature and will not be helped or fulfilled by a warm hole, and will only be made worse by the empty pursuit of it at their expense.

Anyhow, as to my preferred level of involvement in this topic, I'll quote myself:

But, anyway, if this is nothing new then feel free to just ignore me; I don't really want to get into another "thing," here.

*(that's why the introduction of examples involving animals is entirely appropriate to this thread, in my opinion)

[edit: added a lot]

Edited by Inspector
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<hat>Ahem. Periodically, I review the forum rules to see what code of conduct we have agreed to live by in posting here, which act reminds me that we "will not tolerate posts which contain personal insults or are otherwise devoid of intellectual content. Examples of personal insults include: ( a ) sarcastic comments directed at a particular person's character, and ( b ) accusations of irrationality or immorality." Recently, I've come to believe that this rule has been forgotten, so I thought I'd post a reminder.</hat>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is an interesting point that I don't think has been brought up yet. Masterbation has been treated as a good. But masterbation is usually accompanied by fantasy. The nature of the fantasy would probably qualify it as good or bad in the same way that the nature of the relationship with another person would qualify it as good or bad.

That seems like a pretty arbitrary distinction, though. I mean I don't see why masturbation is moral because it is based on a moral fantasy, while sex for physical gratification is immoral because it is not.

They don't. Those questions were examples meant to illustrate that I am considering this primarily from an introspective position.

The point made in earlier posts with regard to animals was that if sex was good just because of the physical sensation of a vagina, then any would do, including animals'.

Ok, that is fair. So moral sex requires more than just valuing a good physical sensation. That doesn't necessarily mean it has to involve your highest virtues, though. (reading below, I see this is not your position)

Number 2. is not my position either. It doesn't have to involve your highest values but it neccessarily involves your values. Who you sleep with and why you sleep with them are choices that you make. These choices define an aspect of your character which is almost always(always in my personal experience) tied to many other values. This information allows you to make fairly accurate judgements about the person.
Hmm...what are you implying here? What judgment would you make about a person who does not choose a sexual partner based on his highest values?

Number 3 I agree with. It is evasion and evading reality is always bad. I could evade some major character flaw in someone I do business with or I could take note of this flaw and depending on the risk associated with it, either continue to do business with them or not. I don't think sex is much different in this regard.

I phrased this premise poorly. I agree with you that in your example, if this character flaw is relevant to the deal you are discussing with the businessman, it is immoral to ignore it.

What I meant to imply in that premise by saying "ignore" is that if something has nothing to do with what you are trying to accomplish, then you should not let that influence you in this decision.

So if what you are trying to accomplish is having good sex, you should first seek what is most important for you to accomplish this. If the person you are considering is being immoral in one part of his life, but it isn't important for having good sex, then you should not be concerned about it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That seems like a pretty arbitrary distinction, though. I mean I don't see why masturbation is moral because it is based on a moral fantasy, while sex for physical gratification is immoral because it is not.

Moral means good for your life. If someone I knew fixated on having sex with anumals or children,, or only got off by fantasizing about skanks, I would say that something is amiss in his belief structure to elevate something of that sort to a sexual desire.

Ok, that is fair. So moral sex requires more than just valuing a good physical sensation. That doesn't necessarily mean it has to involve your highest virtues, though. (reading below, I see this is not your position)

Hmm...what are you implying here? What judgment would you make about a person who does not choose a sexual partner based on his highest values?

The judgement would be entirely context dependent. What they chose and why is critical to judging them.

I phrased this premise poorly. I agree with you that in your example, if this character flaw is relevant to the deal you are discussing with the businessman, it is immoral to ignore it.

What I meant to imply in that premise by saying "ignore" is that if something has nothing to do with what you are trying to accomplish, then you should not let that influence you in this decision.

So if what you are trying to accomplish is having good sex, you should first seek what is most important for you to accomplish this. If the person you are considering is being immoral in one part of his life, but it isn't important for having good sex, then you should not be concerned about it.

I tentatively agree. If the person is immoral in a significant way, it really should be a turn off. I take it though thaty this would be an issue of minor import that you hope she can work out rather then serious honesty issues or something on that scale?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When you say ignore you mean, not focus on as it is not necessarily at issue during sex?
Yes e.g. if I met a woman who absolutely hated Dostoevsky to the highest degree, this alone would mean that she wasn't my consummate woman. And while she would have to have some other redeeming qualities, an affinity for Dostoevsky is not a necessary trait (for me) in a sleeping mate. I agree that (for a Dostoevsky freak such as myself) not factoring in this information would be evasive/wrong, but even as a Dostoevsky freak, I might come to the (factored) conclusion that her dislike of Dostoevsky is not a deal breaker.

I think it is akin to what the Logical Positivist school (or Linguistic Analysis?) does.
I've never been told that. Offhand, it doesn't sound like something I'd agree with. I will look into it, though.

No values other than physical gratification. No consideration for character, romance, beauty, or anything else other than the texture of sexual organs.
I agree.

What about a minimal consideration for spiritual values in a sexual partner? E.g. I don't flat out despise Catherine Halsey and she consents to have sex. After making this minimal consideration of her spiritual values, is sex with Halsey for physical gratification wrong?

I actually think this is more what Moose meant, but if he didn't, then I agree that it is wrong to have sex for physical gratification with no consideration whatsoever for anything else.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I actually think this is more what Moose meant, but if he didn't, then I agree that it is wrong to have sex for physical gratification with no consideration whatsoever for anything else.

Given what he has said in other threads, I think he didn't mean it your way. Although I was being cruel with the "warm hole" comment, it is not in fact inaccurate. Not that he, personally, pursues life in that fashion, but he does not consider it immoral to do so.

Anyway, I've answered your question in the previous thread in which we were discussing this. That is the same thread where I think Moose's bent is made 100% clear.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Moral means good for your life. If someone I knew fixated on having sex with anumals or children,, or only got off by fantasizing about skanks, I would say that something is amiss in his belief structure to elevate something of that sort to a sexual desire.
I agree that in the case of animals it would indicate some immorality, but why so with one night stands? With animals, there only value you can achieve is the physical sensation; it is not so with one night stands. I don't think you can prove that desiring sex for physical gratification indicates an unhealthy psychology or irrationality.

The judgment would be entirely context dependent. What they chose and why is critical to judging them.
Well, I told you what they chose. They chose a sexual partner based on something other than their highest values. Lets say they chose it for the same reasons they would want to masturbate. What could you judge with certainty about the person with this information?

I tentatively agree. If the person is immoral in a significant way, it really should be a turn off. I take it though thaty this would be an issue of minor import that you hope she can work out rather then serious honesty issues or something on that scale?

I would rephrase this to "If your goal is good sex for a night, and the person is immoral in a way significant to sex, it really should be a turn off." Would you agree?

Though you do raise a good point. Lets take an extreme case. Lets say you meet the female version of Hitler. Even though usually, someones political philosophy is not important for you for good sex, when it is evil and repugnant to this degree, it becomes important. Much like how the condition of someones teeth is not usually that important for you, but if they fall between values A and B, if someones teeth are in an extremely foul, and disgusting condition, they could be a deal breaker.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Given what he has said in other threads, I think he didn't mean it your way. Although I was being cruel with the "warm hole" comment, it is not in fact inaccurate. Not that he, personally, pursues life in that fashion, but he does not consider it immoral to do so.

Anyway, I've answered your question in the previous thread in which we were discussing this. That is the same thread where I think Moose's bent is made 100% clear.

When Moose said "without values", I don't think he necessarily meant without any values. But even if he did, it isn't even possible, as someone pointed out, so it was better that we discussed sex without ones highest values. Edited by Viking
Link to comment
Share on other sites

it was better that we discussed sex without ones highest values.

No, that wasn't better since it has been done to death here. He made this thread, and talked heavily in this one about this topic, that is: sex as a value in and of itself, detached from all other values and all other evaluations of the partner. Pursuit of sex soley on the basis of the physical sensations that the partner's genetalia bring. Defending other topics, such as "sex without ones highest values" only muddles the issue.

Without that muddling, I think he would be quickly and universally condemned and these threads wouldn't go on for pages and pages.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, that wasn't better since it has been done to death here. He made this thread, and talked heavily in this one about this topic, that is: sex as a value in and of itself, detached from all other values and all other evaluations of the partner. Pursuit of sex soley on the basis of the physical sensations that the partner's genetalia bring. Defending other topics, such as "sex without ones highest values" only muddles the issue.

Without that muddling, I think he would be quickly and universally condemned and these threads wouldn't go on for pages and pages.

I wasn't aware of that thread. I take back that comment, then.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've never been told that. Offhand, it doesn't sound like something I'd agree with. I will look into it, though.
Very broadly, there is the method / doctrine "analytic philosophy", especially logical positivism but in general the whole practice of excess (in my opinion) interest in symbolic, deductive logic and the accompanying interest in arbitrary definitions as man's only means of cognition. What I think really typifies that kind of philosophy, which is a branch of "primacy of consciousness" philosophy, is that it does indeed elevate word games to a high art, takes definitions to be primary, and focuses on the deductive minutia of consequences of assumptions (it's probably really great training for law school). At the root of this philosophy is the rejection of metaphysics (the study of existence) as antithetical to the enterprise of philosophy. A "primacy of existence" philosophy by contrast eschews matters of definition and deduction and focuses on existents, identification and integration, i.e. puts metaphysics in first place.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with your characterization of analytic philosophy, but I disagree with the claim that "a 'primacy of existence' philosophy by contrast eschews matters of definition and deduction."

Wouldn't it be more accurate to say that a "primacy of existence" philosophy does not treet "matters of definition and deduction" as primaries, rather than it eschews them?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wouldn't it be more accurate to say that a "primacy of existence" philosophy does not treet "matters of definition and deduction" as primaries, rather than it eschews them?
Perhaps that was a bit too strong. It depends on how strongly the "avoidance" of eschewal is. That is, "eschew" doesn't mean "totally rejects", it means "avoids"; however, in fairness, I may have been projecting my own existo-centric perspective that puts deductions and definitions very low in the hierarchy.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

At the root of [logical positivism] is the rejection of metaphysics (the study of existence) as antithetical to the enterprise of philosophy.
Bleh!

I will direct you to the 12 existing threads on the matter. Good luck.
I shall take you up on that...

What about a minimal consideration for spiritual values in a sexual partner? E.g. I don't flat out despise Catherine Halsey and she consents to have sex. After making this minimal consideration of her spiritual values, is sex with Halsey for physical gratification wrong?
I've answered your question in the previous thread in which we were discussing this.
The value of sex cannot be separated from the value of the person one is having sex with. "Sex," apart from that, is not a value.

It was being argued that "sex" is, itself, a value that can and should (by at least some people) be pursued independent of any evaluation of the partner.

But your answer is to a question of no consideration of nonphysical values. I do agree with you on that point, but my question was regarding the moral status of a potentially minimal consideration of nonphysical values. The "minimal" consideration argument is not separated from the value of the person, doesn't consider sex an intrinsic value, and is dependent on the evaluation of the partner.

It was better that we discussed sex without ones highest values.
No, that wasn't better since it has been ... talked heavily in this one about this topic, that is: sex as a value in and of itself, detached from all other values and all other evaluations of the partner.
I just finished reading through that thread, and I didn't see anywhere where sex without one's highest values was mentioned. Sex as an intrinsic value and with no consideration of other values was brought up there, but I think there is a consensus that the "intrinsic/no consideration" argument is wrong (we can ask Moose when he reappears as well.) Of course, it goes without saying that sex without one's highest values is quite different from sex without any of one's spiritual values.

While the "Using" someone for sex thread is not one of The Twelve, I am still crossing it off my list of threads that may answer the moral question of sex on the basis of "light" consideration (i.e. as to opposed to no consideration) of spiritual/nonphysical values.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, that wasn't better since it has been ... talked heavily in this one about this topic, that is: sex as a value in and of itself, detached from all other values and all other evaluations of the partner.

Yes, I have since read that whole thread, and I came to that same conclusion, Inspector.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

my question was regarding the moral status of a potentially minimal consideration of nonphysical values.

My answer, but by no means my full argument, is in the post I had directed you to. (#110) It is a direct reply to Simon's question, so you'll have to read his post as well.

I do have a post that has a fairly complete look at my argument; it is a reply to Ifat. But I don't know where it is. There are so many threads on this that I have lost track.

I notice that some people have tried to say that I have no argument on this matter. It should be known that I haven't been arguing on this topic in quite some time. I've been clarifying my point. As for argument, I finished that a while ago and decided to let my previous posts on the matter stand. No sense in repeating myself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My answer, but by no means my full argument, is in the post I had directed you to. (#110) It is a direct reply to Simon's question, so you'll have to read his post as well.

I do have a post that has a fairly complete look at my argument; it is a reply to Ifat. But I don't know where it is. There are so many threads on this that I have lost track.

I notice that some people have tried to say that I have no argument on this matter. It should be known that I haven't been arguing on this topic in quite some time. I've been clarifying my point. As for argument, I finished that a while ago and decided to let my previous posts on the matter stand. No sense in repeating myself.

As for your reply to Ifat that contains your complete argument, if you do not know where it is, I certainly do not. This is your side of the argument; I can't responsible for finding your arguments for you.

Going back to that post you referred to, the parts of your post that most closely relate to sex with minimal consideration of nonphysical values seem to be these two parts, and even these parts aren't directly related:

2b: You have your conflicts that you do not expect her to change her mind about. This is a problem, because you are in this case deliberately evading the reality of the fact that you don't really value this person.

4. To assume that someone is worthy of your affections when you don't really know is either a big evasion or massive wishful thinking. Maybe you'll get lucky. But likely not. Do you like eating things you find in the street? Maybe it's tasty. Maybe it has a disease.

For the first one, that implies that someone has to embody all your values, and agree with you on everything for you to value her, and thus have sex with her. I don't think that is the result you wanted.

For the second one, I don't see how one has to "assume" anything. If you have sex with someone, obviously, you wanted to have sex with them. Knowing what you want is not very hard for most people. If they turn out to be someone you would not want to have sex with after you get to know them well, it would be an error of knowledge, not an immorality. It is not possible to know everything about a person, ever, even after knowing them for 10 years.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

The problem with this is that you are operating upon a caveman's understanding of sex, while you are clearly not a caveman. You are a modern, conceptual human being, and thus you will be evaluated as such by any good woman you should encounter in the future.

So, what happens when the woman you allegedly "love" finds out about your caveman view of sex and your proud history with a string of sluts? How will that make her feel? Will that confuse her? How is she to understand your concept of love and what she really means to you? And, why should she not fear you cheating on her, if it is okay to have sex with people you don't love?

Why should loveless sex be okay now, but not when you are with someone you "love"? Safe sex is just safe sex, right? It means nothing. When your lover is away for a week or two, or you are away on business, are you going to go to the local bar to satisfy your frequent, sexual urges while she is gone? After all, it is perfectly moral to do some random slut from a bar. Why should your girlfriend care?

Do you think your attitude toward sex is going to win you a good woman who will really love you? Or, do you plan to keep this view from her and live a lie? It seems to me that you are only setting yourself up for a lifetime of meaningless sex with barflies, because no woman worth a damn is going to love you.

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...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...