Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

why is sex for physical gratification wrong?

Rate this topic


The Wrath

Recommended Posts

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.

I don't mean to say that it must, only that it should be valued the same way in all situations. In that, these situations should all involve the same caliber of person you require.

It does have a different value in both contexts, but both experiences impact the concept of sex in your mind, if you're integrated. If 99/100 times I use sex for physical gratification divorced of other values, then I will view sex primarily as a means of quelling a biological urge.

In my experience, people are creatures of habit, and when the pretend to be something long enough they become it. Have meaningless sex for 10 years and then try to still believe it is an act of exaltation. Psychologically I believe it would be extraordinarily difficult if not impossible.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 240
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

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.

But if I can shake hands in different ways and attach different value to them, can I not also do this with sex as well?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

I don't understand what you're saying.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

I disagree. Either you can be a caveman, acting on the caveman premise, or you can be a rational man, acting on the premise of rationality. You can't decide, "I will act on the caveman premise on weekends, and seek love and spiritual values during the week." If you steal (and think it right to do so) even once, then you are a thief. If you have animalistic, caveman sex even once (and think it right to do so), then you are a neanderthal.

A helpful lecture on this topic is: "Why Should One Act on Principle?" which is located on the registered user page of aynrand.org.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I disagree. Either you can be a caveman, acting on the caveman premise, or you can be a rational man, acting on the premise of rationality. You can't decide, "I will act on the caveman premise on weekends, and seek love and spiritual values during the week."

...

A helpful lecture on this topic is: "Why Should One Act on Principle?" which is located on the registered user page of aynrand.org.

But the value that can be gained by a certain action is not a principle, and the nature of a certain action can change in different contexts.

For example: a fire may symbolize something intense about the human spirit, but you can also use fire to get rid of waste. Is a person who uses something sacred who symbolizes the soul for burning garbage be acting not on principle? nonsense.

You say that the principle involved is the nature of sex? well I say that the principle involved is the nature of fire. How are they different? why must sex be just one thing and not two, while a fire can be many things?

Possibly, aequalsa might have an answer for this:

It does have a different value in both contexts, but both experiences impact the concept of sex in your mind, if you're integrated. If 99/100 times I use sex for physical gratification divorced of other values, then I will view sex primarily as a means of quelling a biological urge.

In my experience, people are creatures of habit, and when the pretend to be something long enough they become it. Have meaningless sex for 10 years and then try to still believe it is an act of exaltation. Psychologically I believe it would be extraordinarily difficult if not impossible.

So to summarize our conversation about this from this point:

I said that there are a lot of situations in which we feel a certain emotion, and then new knowledge can completely change the old emotion, even though we are used to having that certain situation with that certain emotion for years. As an example, I gave the following one:

Suppose I pass by the train station on my way to work every day and feel bored. I feel this way every time I go through that place. But one day I see an incredible man standing there, and then, despite the fact that for years I have been bored on that place, all of a sudden the situation is not boring at all, because the new knowledge is far more significant than the rest, and much more influential. So in the same way, I would say that even if someone did have sex which was devoid of intense emotions for years, once they have new knowledge of someone they admire and sleep with this knowledge would win out the old one that got associated with the situation (the body sensation and physical position).

So then you replied that it depends on the intensity of the associated emotion: for example, if I lost my beloved husband in the exact train station from my example, new emotions would be a lot more difficult to feel in that place, because the old association is very strong, and most likely that I would not even notice the gorgeous man standing there.

And then the next step was that sex (at the level of masturbation) involves strong physical sensation, and also strong emotions (this part is arguable though), and therefor the association of the physical aspects of sex with the emotions involved in it are much more powerful than the event of going though a train station every day. And this is why "If 99/100 times I use sex for physical gratification divorced of other values, then I will view sex primarily as a means of quelling a biological urge", and won't be able to feel intense sexual emotions when having sex with someone admired and loved.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is more than treating something one way, and then another. This is more than associating something with one emotion or another.

This is about believing something to be sacred. Something sacred cannot be treated casually; cannot be debased when it is convieniant. It either is, or it isn't. You ask, "why can't I treat sex as debased or animalistic, and then, when someone wonderful is available, change my mind?" (Like the Christian conversion on a deathbed)

The answer is: because if you ever do "change your mind," and come to think of sex as sacred, then you will be terribly ashamed of yourself for having debased the sacred.

The reason you cannot act as an animal in the moment, is because sooner or later, you must go back to being a man. And the man will be disgusted with the animal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Of course, I should add, that aequalsa's point is quite valid: long before you ever go out trolling for bimbos, you must first swallow and accept, psychologically, the caveman premise. Once you believe this premise, and until you are rid of it, that is all that sex will ever be for you. On this premise, you will never experience the joy of sex as a sacred act of love. And don't be so naive as to think that you will be easily rid of this premise. It's not like flipping a lightswitch. It will be entrenched deeply within your psyche, controlling your emotions. And it will take a lot of painful digging to be rid of it, if you are ever able to be rid of it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is about believing something to be sacred. Something sacred cannot be treated casually; cannot be debased when it is convenient. It either is, or it isn't.

Why stop at the concept of sex? let's go up a level and talk about all of one's actions (sex being one of them): Either it is sacred (all of it, including pissing and washing hands), or it isn't. You can't just say: let's treat our actions as sacred part of the time, and then treat is as something casual in other times.

My point is (which I already asked in my last post, in the example about the concept of fire, which you did not answer) that concepts can be broken down into further concepts: and I see no reason to stop at the concept of sex (which can be broken down into more little concepts) and say that we must treat it all the same way. Why would this apply for sex but not for the concept of fire or for the concept of actions?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why stop at the concept of sex? let's go up a level and talk about all of one's actions (sex being one of them): Either it is sacred (all of it, including pissing and washing hands), or it isn't. You can't just say: let's treat our actions as sacred part of the time, and then treat is as something casual in other times.

You can do that because some things are sacred and some things are casual. Your examples are a biological requirement and a sanitary benefit. Sex is neither of those things. Washing your hands does not yield exquisite physical pleasure, compounded by an intamacy closer then any other with someone who shares your highest values and sense of life.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My point is (which I already asked in my last post, in the example about the concept of fire, which you did not answer) that concepts can be broken down into further concepts: and I see no reason to stop at the concept of sex (which can be broken down into more little concepts) and say that we must treat it all the same way. Why would this apply for sex but not for the concept of fire or for the concept of actions?

Because fire isn't sacred. Unless you're Hank Hill, and it's from propane.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For me it is not just a matter of re-programming myself to feeling or not being able to feel certain emotions while having sex. To me it is more of a matter of my responses and actions having certain, specific meaning. It is tied to my sense of justice and my integrity.

My affection, both physical and mental, is a recognition of value in another. It is a prize, a reward for who they are. I also want the same to be true the other way around. I want man's affection towards me to be my achievement, to be related to my value, to be my reward. I want to know that no lesser woman than me could have had him and I want him to be certain of the same in reverse. If you sometimes treat sex as meaningless physical gestures - sex no longer IS the highest possible sign of regard between two people.

The notion that one can change the meaning of sex by thinking about it differently, while in love, yet practicing it as removed from any non-physical meaning, while not in love, smacks of the primacy of consciousness. Your actions ether have certain meaning or they don't.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

How could a "minimal consideration" be anything but an evasion? Doesn't "minimal consideration of nonphysical values" necessarily imply that the majority of the person's mind and character is not considered?

But you appear to be arguing in your positivist form again. ("You're doing it again") Step back for a second. Why do you insist on finding some "bare minimum" of spiritual values for what is essentially and primarily a spiritual act?

If you disagree that sex is essentially and primarily a spiritual act, then how are you not acting on the caveman premise, in the same way that Moose has argued for?

Edited by Inspector
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[sex] should be valued the same way in all situations. In that, these situations should all involve the same caliber of person you require.
I'm not sure what you mean by "require".

Suppose my consummate woman is a Dominique, and that I have yet to meet her. I do know some Catherine Halseys, and they meet some minimal sex standards for me (e.g. physical gratification, not homicidal, wants to have sex with me). I later meet a Dagny, and she is "close" to my consummate ideal, but I know she is not consummate.

In order to value sex the same way in all situations, which of the three women do I "require"?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How could a "minimal consideration" be anything but an evasion? Doesn't "minimal consideration of nonphysical values" necessarily imply that the majority of the person's mind and character is not considered?
I wouldn't think so. If I'm an employer who requires (from prospective employees) a high school diploma but prefers a college degree, hiring/considering some applicant who doesn't have a baccalaureate would only be an evasion in the light of another person having applied who has gone through university.

If you disagree that sex is essentially and primarily a spiritual act, then how are you not acting on the caveman premise, in the same way that Moose has argued for?
In Moose's defense, he is not arguing that sex is essentially or primarily a physical act. I'd agree that the best sex is essentially (if not primarily) a spiritual act, but disagree with the idea that all sex is (or ought to be) essentially and primarily a spiritual act.

I'm not exactly sure what the caveman premise is. I remember seeing it refered to earlier in the thread, and I'll look read up on it when I come back.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not sure what you mean by "require".

Suppose my consummate woman is a Dominique, and that I have yet to meet her. I do know some Catherine Halseys, and they meet some minimal sex standards for me (e.g. physical gratification, not homicidal, wants to have sex with me). I later meet a Dagny, and she is "close" to my consummate ideal, but I know she is not consummate.

In order to value sex the same way in all situations, which of the three women do I "require"?

By require, I meant, that minimum level of morality which a woman must possess in order to earn your affection. So from the statement above, the indication is that your standard of value with regard to women you sleep with, is that she be attractive, want to sleep with you, and not kill people. Personally, I consider that to be a very low standard. I would guess an integrated woman such as Dagny would as well, so realistically I doubt that while holding those standards you could actually pull a Dagny. I have no problem really with other people holding low standards, but I do not believe it is the best approach to romance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wouldn't think so. If I'm an employer who requires (from prospective employees) a high school diploma but prefers a college degree, hiring/considering some applicant who doesn't have a baccalaureate would only be an evasion in the light of another person having applied who has gone through university.

What you are leaving out in this scenario is what the employer is willing to pay. If he offers a starting salary of $175,000 he will have college grads lining his street looking for a job. If he is paying $6.50 and hour he probably has to settle for a a highschool grad or maybe less.

The same with romance. What are you willing to trade? Values disconnected from action? To allow her to have the 147th notch on your belt? See what I'm getting at?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

By require, I meant, that minimum level of morality which a woman must possess in order to earn your affection. So from the statement above, the indication is that your standard of value with regard to women you sleep with, is that she be attractive, want to sleep with you, and not kill people. Personally, I consider that to be a very low standard.
As do I, but how it is an immoral or disintegrated standard?

I doubt that while holding those standards you could actually pull a Dagny.
It would be statistically unlikely, sure.

What you are leaving out in this scenario is what the employer is willing to pay. If he offers a starting salary of $175,000 he will have college grads lining his street looking for a job... The same with romance.
I agree about the money part, but not the romance. A person can offer a high "romantic salary" and may not see her ideal appear for a long, long, long time. It could be tragic to sexually hold out indefinitely for the consummate candidate when someone who is a value (albeit less than consummate value) is available.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

As do I, but how it is an immoral or disintegrated standard?

It would be statistically unlikely, sure.

I agree about the money part, but not the romance. A person can offer a high "romantic salary" and may not see her ideal appear for a long, long, long time. It could be tragic to sexually hold out indefinitely for the consummate candidate when someone who is a value (albeit less than consummate value) is available.

What do you mean by consumate? I get the impression you mean it in the sense of a soul mate or a perfect platonic ideal. While technically there probably is someone who is "best" for you, I don't view that as a realistic approach to romance. I am fairly certain that my ideal is living in a hut in northern siberia. :) Seriously though, it is important to set your cut off line sufficiently high but realistically high as well. What values does she have to possess for you to be satisfied with her? The answer to this question is going to be mainly the result of what is available to you and what you value.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree about the money part, but not the romance. A person can offer a high "romantic salary" and may not see her ideal appear for a long, long, long time. It could be tragic to sexually hold out indefinitely for the consummate candidate when someone who is a value (albeit less than consummate value) is available.

You've now switched your argument from that of having very low standards and hedonistic sex to that of "but what if I only find people that are 80% up to my standards and not 100%?"

This is how these discussions end up going in circles.

I'll look read up on it when I come back.

Okay. Misterswig introduced the term (with a great post), and you'd do well to review that post and the ones I've used above talking about living by principles and the integrated man.

And also, Hunterrose, since my argument hinges on the Objectivist concepts of epistemological integrity, you might consider reading Objectivism before engaging in a discussion of this kind. I'm just saying...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is different only to a certain degree. Making the choice only on the basis you listed is to choose one's sex partner without any consideration for their mind or values (beyond whatever values gave rise to that appearance). This is precisely what Ayn Rand was condemning in the passages listed and what I have been arguing against here.

So, I disagree. There are quite a few things wrong with that. A physical appearance will only tell you so much about a person's character and values. It won't tell you enough to know whether it is a good idea to hop into bed with them.

As a reducto ad absurdum, I offer Christian Bale's character from American Psycho. Or any other well-groomed serial killer.

Honestly, I really doubt you mean your position the way you have written it. You don't see anything wrong with sex with a person who you can't stand their personality, their values, their convictions, etc, just so long as they're good-looking?

No, I didn't mean it that way. I was probably unclear. Refer to Sophia's post a few back for precisely how I feel. She has it right on the dot. If I learned I couldn't stand someone I couldn't be attracted to them.

Heck, something like that happened to me recently, where a had found a young woman I know really attractive, then learned after talking to her how she's a naive leftist with no understanding of economics or common sense. I wasn't thinking of sleeping with her, but that's an example where the air got let out of the balloon rather quickly upon further observation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Heck, something like that happened to me recently, where a had found a young woman I know really attractive, then learned after talking to her how she's a naive leftist with no understanding of economics or common sense. I wasn't thinking of sleeping with her, but that's an example where the air got let out of the balloon rather quickly upon further observation.

See, that's what I'm on about. That "air got let out of the balloon" or "cue the slide whistle on a downward glissando."

I get the impression that there are people here who would, intentionally or through a non-integrated psyche, blank out such things or not even seek to know them (which is a form of blanking out, since if they did know them... well, cue the slide whistle). Or some other means of separating sex from the spiritual* value of the person they mean to have sex with.

*again, I stress that I use this term in the sense that Ayn Rand did.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What do you mean by consumate? I get the impression you mean it in the sense of a soul mate or a perfect platonic ideal.
Yeah.

It is important to set your cut off line sufficiently high but realistically high as well. What values does she have to possess for you to be satisfied with her? The answer to this question is going to be mainly the result of what is available to you and what you value.
In terms of soul mates, I agree with the sufficiently (qua what I value) high part, but not so much with the realistically (qua available) high part.

But in terms of non-soul mates (people who are liked in the absense of a soul mate) and this thread, even people who have the same idea for a soul mate could IMO have different (yet moral?) cutoffs as to who is good enough to have sex with. In lieu of a soul mate, one person might choose to cut off at Dagny, another might choose to cut off at Catherine, and yet another might choose to cut off only at the soul mate herself.

You've now switched your argument from that of having very low standards and hedonistic sex to that of "but what if I only find people that are 80% up to my standards and not 100%?"
Better would be to phrase it "if my soul mate standard is 100% (of my fundamental values), what is the cut-off percentage for moral/integrated sex? 100%, 99.999999%, 80%, 50%, etc?" Even if you replace the abstract numbers with the Dom/Dag/Cath example, I still do not see the answer to the argument.

And it's not really a switch. The argument you and others are making (which is IMO interesting) is that there are sex standards that are so low as to be disintegrated from one's soul mate standards. Everyone seems to agree that sex for physical gratification in the absense of every other value is so low as to be disintegrated. But beyond that, what constitutes an integrated cutoff vs. a disintegrated cutoff?

Since my argument hinges on the Objectivist concepts of epistemological integrity, you might consider reading Objectivism before engaging in a discussion of this kind.
I shall reread anything on epistomological integrity you refer me to.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Better would be to phrase it "if my soul mate standard is 100% (of my fundamental values), what is the cut-off percentage for moral/integrated sex? 100%, 99.999999%, 80%, 50%, etc?" Even if you replace the abstract numbers with the Dom/Dag/Cath example, I still do not see the answer to the argument.

That's because, if you look at it that way, it's an impossible question.

You have to step back for a second. What is sex, to a rational man? What is his goal with sex? What does he get out of it, and for what purpose does he seek it?

A rational man looks at sex as a connection to another human being. He knows that the pleasure of sex is psychological and thus philosophical; i.e. based on values. His pleasure is dependant on his evaluation of the partner as a person. Being integrated, he will not desire to, or be able to, blank out characteristics in his partner that disgust him. This is why sex can never, to a rational, integrated man, be approached as masturbation.

(The “why” of that was covered earlier)

I think you (and others) are looking at this like: “Well, I want sex. Give me the permission of some bare minimum at which I may seek it.”

But that’s not how it works. What you’re looking for is love. A connection with a person who you are truly, deeply, passionately in love with. Sex is then the proper expression of that love.

So approaching it as: “An expression of values? Well, how many values? What percentage?” is entirely the wrong approach. Category error. Will not yield meaningful results.

I shall reread anything on epistomological integrity you refer me to.

Done some reading since we last spoke on the matter, have you? Have you read all of OPAR?

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...