Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

why is sex for physical gratification wrong?

Rate this topic


The Wrath

Recommended Posts

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.

Well, call me lazy if you like, but I'm not terribly motivated at this point to dredge this up for (what is for me) the 1,000,000th time. If you really want to know what I think, go look. If it's not worth it to you, then don't. No skin off my back.

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.

See, this is the characterization of my position which I see a lot, but it's really looking at things from the wrong angle. Nowhere do I (I think) use the term "embodiment of ALL your values." I think this is a misunderstanding of the nature of my position.

Here, I had a stroke of inspiration of what key words to look for, and found the post I was referring to. I respond to the "ALL values" thing here.

Knowing what you want is not very hard for most people.
Heh, that's not what I find. Many people I know are very confused about what they want. Especially when it comes to relationships.

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.

First, read the post I was replying to. The example given is "4 Or can you not know what her ideas and values are (because you haven't talked about them), but have sex based on her physical appearance alone?"

This is different, it seems, than what you seem to think I was talking about.

In any case, there is a distinction here that you're missing: If you invest in a company without having the first clue what they are, or how they are run, and you lose all your money when they go bankrupt, is this an error of knowledge? You didn't know that they were a bad company. But you didn't make a reasonable investigation, either. Your decision to invest in the company, despite your ignorance of the matter, is the moral failing. The issue isn't the ignorance, but the risk-taking.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 240
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

The problem with this is that you are operating upon a caveman's understanding of sex, while you are clearly not a caveman.

Thank you MisterSwig, that was a good post. I get misrepresented a lot here on this subject*, but what I'm really advocating is the kind of integrated character that is illustrated by its lack in that example. Living by principle, and all that.

*Do I deserve it? Am I unclear? Inarticulate? Get roped into rationalistic exercises and bad examples? Are my arguments inacessably spread to the four corners of the forum? .....perhaps a little.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I get misrepresented a lot here on this subject*, but what I'm really advocating is the kind of integrated character that is illustrated by its lack in that example. Living by principle, and all that.

This problem can also be clearly observed from an evolutionary, survival perspective. Having sex with someone puts a man in a very vulnerable position. He is naked, physically and emotionally distracted, unarmed, etc. If he barely knows the person with whom he is having sex, then he is basically playing with fire. She could be anything from a petty thief to a serial murderer. Maybe she cases homes for her boyfriend who is a professional robber.

How much time did the man take getting her into bed? An hour or two of chit-chat and drinks at a bar? C'mon. Such a man obviously doesn't give much thought to possibly losing his property and maybe even his life. Even if his nameless barfly isn't a criminal, she might give him AIDS or some other disease. He's simply kidding himself if he thinks wearing a condom is going to protect him from everything.

Evolution smiles upon those who do a better job getting to know their sex partners.

Edited by MisterSwig
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This problem can also be clearly observed from an evolutionary, survival perspective.

Sure, I suppose. It is an inherently vulnerable position. Women tend to understand this more, given their role. But anyway let's not let anyone get the wrong idea; it's not all about the esoteric dangers. It's about principle, integration of character, integrity, self-esteem, etc.

Oy, I can already sense the questions coming along from this...

Edited by Inspector
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.
I think the main disagreement here is the idea that you don't really value such a person.

Even if I don't expect the sex partner to change her mind, I can value her for those things that I do like about her. And if I do so value her, then I don't know of any reason why it is an evasive/improper valuation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

See, this is the characterization of my position which I see a lot, but it's really looking at things from the wrong angle. Nowhere do I (I think) use the term "embodiment of ALL your values." I think this is a misunderstanding of the nature of my position.

Here, I had a stroke of inspiration of what key words to look for, and found the post I was referring to. I respond to the "ALL values" thing here.

I got this impression of your position when you jumped from "you have conflicts with the woman" to "you don't value the woman." (2b)

In response to your link, I do not agree with 2):

"A rational man values integrity and never evades reality. He does not seek to gain any value through ignorance or evasion of reality. This includes not knowing a sexual partner and ignoring, projecting, or making unreasonable assumptions about their value. He will want to be certain of his partner's value."
Take Roark for example. Was he was acting immorally when he first had sex with Dominique? If not, then how could he have known that Dominique did not have a dis-value to him? They didn't even speak, before then, if I remember. (or, if they did, it was very limited)

In any case, there is a distinction here that you're missing: If you invest in a company without having the first clue what they are, or how they are run, and you lose all your money when they go bankrupt, is this an error of knowledge? You didn't know that they were a bad company. But you didn't make a reasonable investigation, either. Your decision to invest in the company, despite your ignorance of the matter, is the moral failing. The issue isn't the ignorance, but the risk-taking.
But what is a "reasonable investigation?" If we are to judge by Roark's example, it doesn't require much.

Also, I would argue that investing in a company requires an investigation before you invest, because you could loose something. But we are not agreed that this is so when you sleep with someone. What would you say one looses if one has slept with someone before one knows everything about them, and they turn out to be someone one wouldn't want to sleep with? I cannot think of anything.

Edited by Viking
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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?
First of all, it wouldn't neccessarily be sluts. That has been a popular term to use on your side of the issue, but it hasn't been the type of woman people have been proposing.

But yes, it is true that this would mean that that sex from you would not necessarily be an expression of great value. But if that were really the goal, to keep sex from loosing value as an expression of love due to easy access, I don't think it necessarily has the implications you want it to have.

For example, this could be an argument for

1) saving sex for marriage

2) having few sexual partners

3) having very high standards (even just physical ones)

and other things

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?
Well, for one, why would one be interested in loveless sex when one could get sex with love, which is better, as we have all agreed in the other thread? Edited by Viking
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This problem can also be clearly observed from an evolutionary, survival perspective. Having sex with someone puts a man in a very vulnerable position. He is naked, physically and emotionally distracted, unarmed, etc. If he barely knows the person with whom he is having sex, then he is basically playing with fire. She could be anything from a petty thief to a serial murderer. Maybe she cases homes for her boyfriend who is a professional robber.

How much time did the man take getting her into bed? An hour or two of chit-chat and drinks at a bar? C'mon. Such a man obviously doesn't give much thought to possibly losing his property and maybe even his life. Even if his nameless barfly isn't a criminal, she might give him AIDS or some other disease. He's simply kidding himself if he thinks wearing a condom is going to protect him from everything.

Evolution smiles upon those who do a better job getting to know their sex partners.

But this is an argument against inviting a stranger into your home, not against casual sex. (And for getting a STD checkup before engaging in casual sex, in the second case.)

Edited by Viking
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the main disagreement here is the idea that you don't really value such a person.

Even if I don't expect the sex partner to change her mind, I can value her for those things that I do like about her. And if I do so value her, then I don't know of any reason why it is an evasive/improper valuation.

Recognizing that we are discussing "2b" of my example, we are waaay off topic for this thread. And that post was off-topic for the thread it was in, for that matter; I was replying to Simon's question. I'm not really keen on going into this in this way...

I have already answered this, however:

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

2) A rational man values integrity and never evades reality. He does not seek to gain any value through ignorance or evasion of reality.

Note that in the example the "conflicts" are essential to the man, and this is not the side of the "gray area" where these things are inessential to him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But what is a "reasonable investigation?" If we are to judge by Roark's example, it doesn't require much.

Okay, bear in mind that your precise question has been asked almost every time this topic has come up...

*ahem*

THE FOUNTAINHEAD IS ROMANTIC FICTION, NOT AN INSTRUCTION MANUAL TO LIFE!

So let's please not take Roark, for example. If you think you are a good enough judge of character to act on miniscule evidence like that, then by all means go ahead. I said it was taking a risk. So risk away; but don't come crying to me when you run into trouble...

What would you say one looses if one has slept with someone before one knows everything about them, and they turn out to be someone one wouldn't want to sleep with? I cannot think of anything.

Well, for starters, the entire basis on which you slept with them in the first place. Your value gained from the relationship, your pleasure, the emotions you experience, everything would have been an illusion. You would experience pleasure (both physical and emotional) in the moment, only to have it rather unpleasantly pulled out from under you. Have you ever made a friend that you later discovered was actually a scumbag? (Naturally, a romantic relationship is a much more profound connection) If you haven't, it's hard to describe how... ugly... that feels. Like doing heroin*... fun for a while, but real ugly when the "low" sets in.

Listen, your emotions aren't exempt from the laws of causality. If you experience joy or pleasure on a false premise, there is a reckoning coming when you find out that the premise was false.

Not to mention the distraction of this possibility nagging at you in the back of your head as you are proceeding with this lady.

Anyway, as an aside…

Honestly, "What would you say one [loses]"

...I don't mean this in a demeaning way, but you have a lot to learn about life and love.

*...I would imagine. I haven't ever done heroin.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But yes, it is true that this would mean that that sex from you would not necessarily be an expression of great value. But if that were really the goal, to keep sex from loosing value as an expression of love due to easy access, I don't think it necessarily has the implications you want it to have.

For example, this could be an argument for

1) saving sex for marriage

2) having few sexual partners

3) having very high standards (even just physical ones)

and other things

Um.... I don't know quite how to put this, but... YES, I do mean to imply those things. What on earth did you think I was advocating? Low standards and lots of sexual partners? IMO, ideally speaking you would get it right the first time and just have the one.

(Although I will qualify that by saying I don't agree with waiting until after you are married to have sex. I mean, there are just certain things that you need to know before you go and get married...)

[edited so that I am speaking for myself]

Edited by Inspector
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Also, I would argue that investing in a company requires an investigation before you invest, because you could loose something. But we are not agreed that this is so when you sleep with someone. What would you say one looses if one has slept with someone before one knows everything about them, and they turn out to be someone one wouldn't want to sleep with? I cannot think of anything.

What one looses is entirely dependent on what one values and the extent to which he values it. If he views sex as a biological urge disconnected from emotional or spiritual values, then he will lose almost nothing. If he views it as an act of reverence; As something sacred and of great import, then he will lose a great deal. On the flip side of that, what is gained by someone who views sex as an urge to be fulfilled? What is gained by someone who views sex as an act of exaltation?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What one looses is entirely dependent on what one values and the extent to which he values it. If he views sex as a biological urge disconnected from emotional or spiritual values, then he will lose almost nothing. If he views it as an act of reverence; As something sacred and of great import, then he will lose a great deal. On the flip side of that, what is gained by someone who views sex as an urge to be fulfilled? What is gained by someone who views sex as an act of exaltation?

Yes, exactly!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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?

The context that is necessary is what are they choosing between and why? Are they choosing someone they don't care for because no one else is available? Are they picking up easy women because good women don't like them? Do they prefer one night stands because they lack an ability to commit? Is someone better available to them who they are not sexually attracted to for some reason they cant understand? They are not snapping their fingers and having a vagina appear. They are choosing to go out and look for and pursue it.

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.

Yes to the first question. You're on the right track, although it's not necessary to go to the extreme of bedding hitler to find someone who is so repugnant to an integrated, moral man, that he is uninterested sexually. For the same reason he or a woman of his character would be unattractive, so would someone of far less attrocious behaviour. The extent to which they are unattractive would depend on the extent to which they were immoral. And vice versa, of course

Link to comment
Share on other sites

First of all, it wouldn't neccessarily be sluts. That has been a popular term to use on your side of the issue, but it hasn't been the type of woman people have been proposing.

Well, it is the type of woman that was proposed in the first post of this thread.

... 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 ... 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.

There you go. Sluts and whores. That's who we are talking about. Look the terms up in your dictionary.

But yes, it is true that this would mean that that sex from you would not necessarily be an expression of great value.

Correction: It would not necessarily be an expression of any value except a source of sexual relief. If the woman was of great value then it would be an expression of love, right?

Why would one be interested in loveless sex when one could get sex with love, which is better, as we have all agreed in the other thread?

My point was that no woman worth a damn is going to love such a man with a caveman view of sex. Therefore, you won't be getting sex with love--at least not for very long, unless you lie to your girlfriend about your real view of sex.

Look at this situation another way: Would you love a woman who believes that there's nothing wrong with having caveman sex and who runs into one of her ex-caveman studs at every shopping mall you go to? Will you have confidence that she isn't capable of running around behind your back while you are away? If she says that you shouldn't care about her one-night stands because caveman sex is meaningless, it's you she really loves, what are you going to say in reply? That she should understand that sex is reserved for those you love? C'mon. You're caught in a fantasy.

You will ultimately get the kind of woman you deserve.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Recognizing that we are discussing "2b" of my example, we are waaay off topic for this thread.
I'm not so sure of that. A common thread of all these sex topics (including this one) seems to be that a person who has some form of "inappropriate" sex does not value her partner and/or is guilty of evading the nature of her partner. And although IMO it has not been warranted, this seems to be the rationale against sex for physical gratification with/without a minimal consideration of spiritual values.

I have already answered this, however... Note that in the example the "conflicts" are essential to the man, and this is not the side of the "gray area" where these things are inessential to him.
But the quote doesn't say which conflicts are essential to a rational man, and thus how a minimal consideration of nonphysical values is wrong or evades essentials.

I'm not really keen on going into this in this way...
Understood, I'm just replying.

THE FOUNTAINHEAD IS ROMANTIC FICTION, NOT AN INSTRUCTION MANUAL TO LIFE!
True, but it is a very good example. I don't think Roark's choice should/can be regarded as immoral, though calling Roark's actions "risky" (apart from "immoral") seems fine.

What one looses is entirely dependent on what one values and the extent to which he values it... If he views it as an act of reverence; As something sacred and of great import, then he will lose a great deal.
But what is the "great deal?" Time wasted? Self-esteem? His values? Confidence in his judgement? If someone actually sleeps with someone whom he in no way values, I would agree, but the only thing I see lost in a case of sleeping with someone who is slightly valued or misjudged as valued is the time spent. A risk, but not an immoral one.

On the flip side of that, what is gained by someone who views sex as an urge to be fulfilled? What is gained by someone who views sex as an act of exaltation?
Presumably, fulfillment of an urge and exaltation, respectively.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

But what is the "great deal?" Time wasted? Self-esteem? His values? Confidence in his judgement? If someone actually sleeps with someone whom he in no way values, I would agree, but the only thing I see lost in a case of sleeping with someone who is slightly valued or misjudged as valued is the time spent. A risk, but not an immoral one.

Presumably, fulfillment of an urge and exaltation, respectively.

If someone who values sex a great deal were to start treating it casually, he would begin to value it casually. He would have to, in order to reconcile his actions with his thoughts. His sense of his own integrity would be lost otherwise. The otherwise is that it would cease to become an act of exaltation for him. Sex as exaltation becomes impossible when he views it as a biological requirement. So the two possible losses are sex as a spiritual act or his integrity.

Imagine meeting someone who says sex is a spiritual act. Something of great meaning to him. Then imagine him going to a bar to bag a new babe two nights a week...It's really no different from someone who considers himself to be an honest person, lying. If he faked reality all of the time, something would have to give first. His self-esteem or his view of honesty. Eventually both, but he will change his view of honesty's virtuosity first. Even faking reality once would be a cause for great concern for a rational man. If an honest person is given too much change by a cashier, they return it because the 10 bucks or whatever isnt worth having to think yourself usually honest rather then honest. "I'm not a thief, I only steal sometimes" right?

By that same token, if he valued sex highly and had always treated it that way, then had a one night stand with someone he didn't esteem, the act would stand out as a degradation of a value that he held very high in his value structure. The fulfillment of a biological urge would not be worth the change in his valuation of sex.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

THE FOUNTAINHEAD IS ROMANTIC FICTION, NOT AN INSTRUCTION MANUAL TO LIFE!
Why the double standard? Don't say something is immoral when people do it, but claim it is only risky when Roark does it.

Well, for starters, the entire basis on which you slept with them in the first place. Your value gained from the relationship, your pleasure, the emotions you experience, everything would have been an illusion. You would experience pleasure (both physical and emotional) in the moment, only to have it rather unpleasantly pulled out from under you. Have you ever made a friend that you later discovered was actually a scumbag? (Naturally, a romantic relationship is a much more profound connection) If you haven't, it's hard to describe how... ugly... that feels. Like doing heroin*... fun for a while, but real ugly when the "low" sets in.
Of course it could have an emotional toll, but we are not agreed on if these emotions have a rational basis. Why not simply feel that you shouldn't have sex with said person again?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Um.... I don't know quite how to put this, but... YES, I do mean to imply those things. What on earth did you think I was advocating? Low standards and lots of sexual partners? IMO, ideally speaking you would get it right the first time and just have the one.

(Although I will qualify that by saying I don't agree with waiting until after you are married to have sex. I mean, there are just certain things that you need to know before you go and get married...)

[edited so that I am speaking for myself]

You don't agree with 1. Is that not enough to disqualify this goal?

Also, it seems like you have failed to realize how having few sexual partners (2), does not necessarily mean you must select these partners based on your highest values.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What one looses is entirely dependent on what one values and the extent to which he values it. If he views sex as a biological urge disconnected from emotional or spiritual values, then he will lose almost nothing. If he views it as an act of reverence; As something sacred and of great import, then he will lose a great deal. On the flip side of that, what is gained by someone who views sex as an urge to be fulfilled? What is gained by someone who views sex as an act of exaltation?
Right, and when one is looking for a one night stand, I'd say it is more likely that the person views it more as an urge. So he would loose nothing. Therefore, one cannot say that you must make an investigation of the person before you have sex with them, just as you would investigate a company before investing in it, because with one night stands, its very unlikely that you can loose something, even if the person you are sleeping with turns out to be very immoral.

In your first question, I'd say he gains the same thing he would gain by masturbating, except to a higher degree, since it feels better, as we have agreed in the other thread. (Even Inspector agreed that it feels a little better.)

In the second case, the person gains what the first person gains, and more.

But this seems to be another thing we disagree on. Why cannot a person view sex as either case, in different circumstances? Here is a personal example: When I shake hands with people I just met, it means something completely different from when I shake hands with a family member, or a great friend.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The context that is necessary is what are they choosing between and why? Are they choosing someone they don't care for because no one else is available? Are they picking up easy women because good women don't like them? Do they prefer one night stands because they lack an ability to commit? Is someone better available to them who they are not sexually attracted to for some reason they cant understand? They are not snapping their fingers and having a vagina appear. They are choosing to go out and look for and pursue it.
I see what you are getting at. Many of those cases would indicate some immorality. But what about the first case, where they would prefer to spend time with someone they valued completely, but they have not yet been able to find one where they live?

Yes to the first question. You're on the right track, although it's not necessary to go to the extreme of bedding hitler to find someone who is so repugnant to an integrated, moral man, that he is uninterested sexually. For the same reason he or a woman of his character would be unattractive, so would someone of far less attrocious behaviour. The extent to which they are unattractive would depend on the extent to which they were immoral. And vice versa, of course
I agree.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Right, and when one is looking for a one night stand, I'd say it is more likely that the person views it more as an urge. So he would loose nothing. Therefore, one cannot say that you must make an investigation of the person before you have sex with them, just as you would investigate a company before investing in it, because with one night stands, its very unlikely that you can loose something, even if the person you are sleeping with turns out to be very immoral.

There isn't a direct cost like you're thinking. It's more of an oppurtunity cost. Concepts form by repeated exposure to the thing. For example, I have a concept of what a woman is. I couldn't sit down and decide that my concept of woman shall include a tail and 4 arms. It's the same with sex. By cheapening it with one night stands, I would change what the concept is in my mind and how I react to it emotionally. Without an act of compartmentalization or evasion, concepts represent the reality of the concretes precisely. And sleeping with people indiscriminantly does in fact, lesson it's value.

To reverse it, if I met a woman who informed me she had slept with hundreds of men, I would know that either she was a poor judge of character(extemely poor!) or she did not associate the sharing of her body as being meaningful in anyway. I would not wish to have sex with her, if the sex meant nothing more then scratching an itch. And it would in fact have to mean nothing for her to be that indescriminite.

In your first question, I'd say he gains the same thing he would gain by masturbating, except to a higher degree, since it feels better, as we have agreed in the other thread. (Even Inspector agreed that it feels a little better.)

In the second case, the person gains what the first person gains, and more.

But this seems to be another thing we disagree on. Why cannot a person view sex as either case, in different circumstances? Here is a personal example: When I shake hands with people I just met, it means something completely different from when I shake hands with a family member, or a great friend.

He can. But it's compartmentalization. Which is another way of saying, not integrated. The handshake example is a bit different as well, in that it is not an act of exaltation. Also, my guess is that the handshake is performed differently in both of those circumstances because they are meant to convey different things. If you shook hands in thye same personal way with a stranger that you do with people close to you, it would probably come across as a bit odd.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

MisterSwig, you are right, that is the type of women Moose first brought up. It is just that the discussion has since steered away from that since then.

Correction: It would not necessarily be an expression of any value except a source of sexual relief. If the woman was of great value then it would be an expression of love, right?
I think this depends on what one requires in order to perform this act. I think most people would find it hard to do it with someone who had no physical value whatsoever, for example.

My point was that no woman worth a damn is going to love such a man with a caveman view of sex. Therefore, you won't be getting sex with love--at least not for very long, unless you lie to your girlfriend about your real view of sex.
But what if I think sex with my girlfriend is different from one-night-stand sex? I just brought this up responding to someone else, with my hand shaking example.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I see what you are getting at. Many of those cases would indicate some immorality. But what about the first case, where they would prefer to spend time with someone they valued completely, but they have not yet been able to find one where they live?

That's kind of a life boat issue. It isn't often that someone you value literally can't be found unless you are stuck in northern alaska or on a small south pacific atoll. My experience has been that when someone says "I can't find someone" they usually mean to say, "I haven't been found by someone." Usually they wonder why this is while sitting at home alone in their apartment on saturday watching TV.

Another possibility is that they want a value which they have not earned. In which case the "lesser" person they are settling for is exactly what they deserve. It is the highest sort of woman they can get. They just might not be ready to admit it to themselves.

I would recommend as an alternative approach, that the first person use all of that pent up energy in need of release and focus it on the pursuit of finding someone they do value. For the second person, they would be best off putting that energy into improving themselves to the point of deserving someone better.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If someone who values sex a great deal were to start treating it casually, he would begin to value it casually. He would have to, in order to reconcile his actions with his thoughts. His sense of his own integrity would be lost otherwise. The otherwise is that it would cease to become an act of exaltation for him. Sex as exaltation becomes impossible when he views it as a biological requirement.

Arbitrary alternative: Something can have a different value in different contexts: So sex can be a spiritual experience when it's with someone one loves or admires, and a physical value when it's with someone one does not know (regardless of the evading involved). I don't see a reason why it must be the same value in all situations.

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...