Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

why is sex for physical gratification wrong?

Rate this topic


The Wrath
 Share

Recommended Posts

Yeah.

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.

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?

A cut off line might not be the best way to look at it. It is not a quantitative decision. Also, it focuses on the bottom. The worst type of woman you would be willing to bring to your bed. The correct approach is to find the best woman that you can. That might be a prostitute. Though if someone told me that, I would suspect that they were lying to me or themselves or a very bad person.

The disintegration I had in mind, was between sex and values.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 240
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

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.

Here's what you wrote about the shaking hands 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.

First of all, I don't consider shaking hands and having sex to be comparable--morally. One is a very simple gesture of greeting, while the other is the most physically intimate act two people can share with one another. Besides, you generally don't shake hands with a family member or great friend. You hug them or kiss them on the cheek, or both. At least, that's the way it works in my family. I think the general rule is that you reserve a more intimate greeting (than a handshake) for those you love, such as family or close friends.

Second, we have already established that girlfriend sex is different from one-night-stand sex. I don't see how once again pointing out that simple fact is an argument against my position. I have pointed out that holding the caveman view of sex is not in your long-term interest, if your long-term interest is to find a good woman. I have also pointed out that the caveman view of sex is not consistent with the romantic view of sex. You are attempting to hold a conceptual contradiction, for the sake of immediate physical gratification. If you believe that one-night-stands are fine and dandy now, why should they be bad once you find a girlfriend?

If one day you find a great friend to shake hands with, would it then be wrong to continue shaking hands with new people that you meet at bars?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 we should only have sex with people we are deeply, passionately in love with???

Why not with people you like a whole lot, but don't love?

Have you read all of OPAR?
Natch.

This is the first "caveman sex" reference I found:

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?
Meaningless sex is necessarily wrong, one-night stands are not. Inspector, since I don't know which one constitutes "caveman sex", I really can't respond as to whether I'm acting on the caveman premise.

A cut off line might not be the best way to look at it. It is not a quantitative decision.
But don't all the "some sex is immoral" arguments rely on cutoff lines? Besides, as I see things, you have to approach sex with a standard of
  1. choose the best of the available persons
  2. choose the best of the worthy persons

The "best of worthy" standard is IMO superior to a "best of available" standard, but requires some additional standard (cutoff line?) as to whom is worthy (of sex) in the first place.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So we should only have sex with people we are deeply, passionately in love with???

Yes. That is, if you are a rational man.

Of course, since by "love," I'm referring to romantic love, the "deeply, passionately" is kind of redundant in the way that the "laissez-faire" is in "laissez-faire capitalism" or the "individual" in "individual rights."

Why not with people you like a whole lot, but don't love?
If you hold the caveman premise, then you are limited to living as a caveman. If you hold a lesser promiscuous premise, then you are limited to living as that muddled half-hedonist. Or whatever you want to call it. You can change your view, but this is not like a lightswitch, as I said.

And if you hold the view that sex is your highest expression of love, then you cannot pursue it as a momentary means to physical pleasure. Or as an expression of "like." You can only pursue it as an expression of full, romantic love. As I said, what you seek is not sex, but love; and sex is a consequence of that love, not a goal in and of itself.

This is the first "caveman sex" reference I found:

Actually, this is the first post where he mentions it:

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

(follow the link for the rest)

But don't all the "some sex is immoral" arguments rely on cutoff lines?

I can only repeat that you're looking at this incorrectly. Deeper than that level is the fact that I view sex as an expression of love. Now, you could reply by asking about cut-off lines for love, but interestingly enough I find that most people I speak with have a good handle on how to work this, that is if they are honest about whether they really love a person. In other words, they do not tend to be as promiscuous with love as they are sex.

But, I can say this: whatever the cut-off line is, it is certainly well north of "sex for physical gratification," promiscuous "one night stands," "physical-only sex," "sex as an expression of 'like,'" and every other example that is brought up in these threads. Because none of those is an expression of romantic love.

Meaningless sex is necessarily wrong, one-night stands are not.
Would you agree that sex considering only a physical evaluation of the partner is also wrong; that necessarily it must properly involve your total evaluation of them as a person? That would be a start, at least...

Natch.

Excellent. I will bear that in mind. (Would it be too much to ask that you re-read Chapter 9, subheading "Sex as Metaphysical?" I just did. It didn't take me long, and I don't really see how you can read and agree with that but disagree with me...)

Edited by Inspector
Link to comment
Share on other sites

But don't all the "some sex is immoral" arguments rely on cutoff lines? Besides, as I see things, you have to approach sex with a standard of
  1. choose the best of the available persons
  2. choose the best of the worthy persons

The "best of worthy" standard is IMO superior to a "best of available" standard, but requires some additional standard (cutoff line?) as to whom is worthy (of sex) in the first place.

I agree that the best of the worthy is a better standard. Which is why the cut off line, while it exists, is fairly useless. If you live in a city with even a couple hundred thousand people, there are likely, tens of thousands of available women in a 20 mile radius. Some percentage of these you should not be willing to enter into a romantice relationship with. But you are not actually choosing between all of them...you decide on a case by case issue whether or not someone is worth your time and deserving of your affection. It is an act of character judgement based on all of the women and men too actually, that you have known. How she stacks up against all of these people is what you decide. An if you decide she's in the bottom 20% but kinda hot and thats enough to make you want her, then we have a clear indication of what your value(s) are.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is the first "caveman sex" reference I found:Meaningless sex is necessarily wrong, one-night stands are not. Inspector, since I don't know which one constitutes "caveman sex", I really can't respond as to whether I'm acting on the caveman premise.

To clarify, my view of caveman sex includes both meaningless sex and one-night-stands, since the purpose of a one-night-stand is to have meaningless sex with a woman you intend to never see again.

Acting on the caveman sex premise means that you have sex purely for the purpose of physical gratification. Your purpose is not to express your budding love for a girlfriend or potential wife or lifelong mate. Your purpose is merely to achieve some kind of short-term sexual relief or conquest.

In my experience, those who operate upon the caveman sex premise generally have no interest in a serious relationship. They might claim to be searching for a good woman, while they engage in meaningless romp after meaningless romp, but deep down they really don't believe in the existence of good women. And since they don't believe in a good woman, they don't make a serious effort looking for one. They spend most of their time hooking up at bars and having one-night-stands with a series of cavewomen.

If such a man ever does find a good woman, he will usually end up losing her or breaking her heart, because he has no clue how to keep such an enormous value. After all, his whole life has been devoted to finding sluts and whores. He simply has not developed the skill to maintain a loving relationship. He has the romantic skills of a caveman. And so his mates are cavewomen.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Just now found this thread again and found this quote to be amusing, in light of the topic of that particular thread. If I remember correctly, it was Peikoff and his defenders (you among them) who jumped to conclusions about people based on their disagreement about which of the 2 major parties is currently more dangerous. And it was people like me who argued that this is totally inappropriate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't want to get involved too much in this thread as I haven't been reading it closely but I think it would be helpful if you guys came to an agreement about the nature of sex before you started debating the nature of sexual evaluation. For instance, you must find out if sex is "an expression of love" or "a mutual celebration of the capacity to experience pleasure" or "rubbing one's tackle against another's" or "a vile debasement of the higher spiritual sensibilites and an affront to God."

The two sides of the argument are operating on two or more different views on exactly what the act of sex means for man and are thus unable to even see the points of the other side in reference to the consequences of the choices in sexual partners.

For instance: to Inspector--- What about the sexual act and about man's nature makes it necessarily and exclusively an "expression of love"? What is the nature of "romantic love"? Are you operating on the definition that "love" is "an emotional response to values"? What about the nature of romantic love makes it impossible to only include the values of someone's physical traits, and disregard their mental and moral values? Does this imply a mind-body split? etc.

To the "other side": How do you see the role of sexual gratification in man's(rational being's) life? Must there be a dichotomy between the values you see in the body of another, and the values of their minds and personalities? Is the sexual act exclusive to just physical pleasure and not emotional pleasure? IF not, what is the root and cause of emotional pleasure for man? Is it possible and self-beneficial for a man to only regard the pleasure of his genitals, while disregarding the pleasure of his mind, i.e. the emotion of happiness? Is physical pleasure the only avenue to happiness, or must it involve, if it is going to be non-contradictory, a fully integrated view of and achievement of long range and productive goals? Can you achieve this sort of long range happiness by consciously concentrating on short term, physical pleasure at the expense of long term emotional and "spiritual" connection? Does the achievement of short term physical pleasure necessitate the sacrifice of long term happiness, and why, or why not?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To the "other side": How do you see the role of sexual gratification in man's (rational being's) life? Must there be a dichotomy between the values you see in the body of another, and the values of their minds and personalities? Is the sexual act exclusive to just physical pleasure and not emotional pleasure?

Say, what about massage? The type of pleasure one can get from a massage would be different depending who's doing it: if it's a professional, then it would be nothing but physical pleasure, if it is someone you love, then the knowledge of who is touching you adds an emotional pleasure.

This is one action with a different amount and nature of values gained depending on the partner.

So why don't you go around asking "Must there be a split between the values you see in the masseuse as a masseuse and between the values of their mind?". you don't ask this because you already assume that sex just HAS to have both types of values, without explaining why. (you didn't yet say it explicitly, but it's under your list of questions).

And welcome to the thread IAmMetaphysical: Happy non-Birthday to you (or Happy Birthday if it is) ;) .

AequalsA: we talked about the force of a habit to attach a conditioned emotion to a certain action (sex). But I thought of a very obvious flaw in your argument: masturbation. Masturbation is not emotional in the same way that sex can be, yet it doesn't damage the ability to feel sexual emotions (for lack of a better word). So the physical sensation is indeed strong, but does not have an affect on one's view of sex, even though physically speaking, there is a lot of resemblance between sex and masturbation. So there. Can't believe I didn't think of this right away.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

AequalsA: we talked about the force of a habit to attach a conditioned emotion to a certain action (sex). But I thought of a very obvious flaw in your argument: masturbation. Masturbation is not emotional in the same way that sex can be, yet it doesn't damage the ability to feel sexual emotions (for lack of a better word). So the physical sensation is indeed strong, but does not have an affect on one's view of sex, even though physically speaking, there is a lot of resemblance between sex and masturbation. So there. Can't believe I didn't think of this right away.

I don't think that you are correct in believing that masterbation has no affect on ones view of sex. As an experiment, (anyone easily offended, cover your eyes <_< ) You could try not masterbating for 3 weeks and then masterbate thrice daily for three weeks and compare your feelings about it.

Another factor is that masterbation tends to invlove fantasizing for most people. If, for example, I were to masterbate while fantasizing about billy goats, my feelings toward them would change over time. Since the fantasy is not real, I doubt the association formed will be as strong as it would were I actually intimately involved with the little bearded furry critter of my dreams.

Please, please, please believe that the goat example is not serious.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think that you are correct in believing that masterbation has no affect on ones view of sex. As an experiment, (anyone easily offended, cover your eyes ;) ) You could try not masterbating for 3 weeks and then masterbate thrice daily for three weeks and compare your feelings about it.

LOL!!! ok, nice joke, but changing my feelings, and changing my view on sex or my ability to experience "sexual emotions" (I mean romantic sexual emotions) are not related.

Another factor is that masterbation tends to involve fantasizing for most people. If, for example, I were to masterbate while fantasizing about billy goats, my feelings toward them would change over time. Since the fantasy is not real, I doubt the association formed will be as strong as it would were I actually intimately involved with the little bearded furry critter of my dreams.

Please, please, please believe that the goat example is not serious.

Too late. Here is something to make your day (or night :lol: ) : Candy, for you <_< .

Anyway, this is getting too personal for me. I cannot respond to what you said without getting into personal details, which I am not interested in doing (guess I've reached my limit, haha). So unfortunately, this is as far as it goes. I would just say that I consider your argument about conditioned emotion because of a habit invalid here.

Maybe you can take a shot at my masseuse example and explain how getting a professional massage each day does not subtract from one's ability to enjoy (emotionally) a massage by a loving wife? And why shouldn't we say that a massage must only have one meaning, like sex should, and therefor if an emotional pleasure is possible then we should only strive to get a massage from our one and only?

I myself does not allow anyone to give me a massage or to touch me unless I really like them. And sex for physical gratification? repulsive. But I am still looking for someone to explain why, in a way so damn good that it leaves me with nothing to say. No one has done that yet, in an integrated manner from what I have read.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

LOL!!! ok, nice joke, but changing my feelings, and changing my view on sex or my ability to experience "sexual emotions" (I mean romantic sexual emotions) are not related.

Too late. Here is something to make your day (or night :lol: ) : Candy, for you <_< .

Sylvia...I think it's love at first site...di

Anyway, this is getting too personal for me. I cannot respond to what you said without getting into personal details, which I am not interested in doing (guess I've reached my limit, haha). So unfortunately, this is as far as it goes. I would just say that I consider your argument about conditioned emotion because of a habit invalid here.

Maybe you can take a shot at my masseuse example and explain how getting a professional massage each day does not subtract from one's ability to enjoy (emotionally) a massage by a loving wife? And why shouldn't we say that a massage must only have one meaning, like sex should, and therefor if an emotional pleasure is possible then we should only strive to get a massage from our one and only?

I myself does not allow anyone to give me a massage or to touch me unless I really like them. And sex for physical gratification? repulsive. But I am still looking for someone to explain why, in a way so damn good that it leaves me with nothing to say. No one has done that yet, in an integrated manner from what I have read.

Fair enough. I'll say this, your not going to find a cut and dry answer like you are looking for. This is mainly a matter of psychology and induction and feelings and emotions are heavily involved in the answer. I suggest you inquire as to why sex for physical gratification with regard to yourself is so repulsive. Why you would not even let someone you do not value touch you for a massage, let alone sexually. What you would lose. What you would gain if you treat it as sacred. The answer, if you are a rational integrated person is going to be the same answer for any rational integrated person.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Would it be too much to ask that you re-read Chapter 9, subheading "Sex as Metaphysical?" I just did. It didn't take me long, and I don't really see how you can read and agree with that but disagree with me...
Not a problem.

...A pleasure which was once purely biological becomes, in the life of a conceptual being, largely spiritual.
Note that it doesn't say "essentially spiritual" but "largely spiritual". Nor can you use such to say that physical sex is valueless, but rather that physical sex is largely valueless (i.e. considerably less valuable than physical-spiritual sex). I agree with that.

To respect sex means to approach it objectively. The guiding principle should be: select a partner whom you love on the basis of values you can identify and defend.
I like how this gives a means of determining whether one really loves a person. Of course, this means love in terms of a person [whose values] you like a whole lot, doesn't it?

If you say that rational sex requires love qua values (e.g. moral standards, self-esteem, views on life) you can identify and defend, I can understand and do agree with that.

BUT if you say that rational sex requires love qua soulmate, I ask: with what basis is such a claim made?

And if rational sex requires love qua more than "like a whole lot", I don't understand the distinction being implied.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Note that it doesn't say "essentially spiritual" but "largely spiritual".

Not in that sentence, but it is clearly the jist of the entire article. You need to read things for the big picture, the overall intent of the author, instead of like a shady lawyer who tries to turn something into its opposite with a technicality. ("You're doing it again")

Also note the following:

Proper human sex, by contrast, requires men and women of stature, in regard both to moral character and metaphysical outlook.

(emphasis mine; he is saying that it properly requires the spiritual values of moral character and metaphysical outlook)

I like how this gives a means of determining whether one really loves a person. Of course, this means love in terms of a person [whose values] you like a whole lot, doesn't it?

That would be so much of an understatement that it is actually incorrect. "Love" (romantic love) is much more than just "like a whole lot."

Romantic love is the strongest positive emotion possible between two individuals.

You have to understand Dr. Peikoff's definition of love to understand the point he is making in that chapter about sex.

Here is an excerpt from Dr. Peikoff's lecture on love, sex, and romance:

“Q: What is the relationship between friendship and love?

A: I used to think, as most people do, that human relations are on a continuum of closeness and intimacy from strangers, acquaintances, and so on, all the way up to really good friends, and then lovers; and that it was a continuum all the way up, and love was just sort of, to human relations, what certainty is to cognition: it was [the jackpot], but there were all degrees of probability leading up to it… Ayn Rand was HORRIFIED at that view… her view is: that, if you put ‘friend’ and ‘lover’ in the same category, and make it an issue of degree you are uniting by non-essentials because closeness with another human being is so radically different when it is the closeness of a friend and the closeness of a lover, that it is basically an equivocation to make that the common genus and think that it is just a difference of degree. She said [that] the difference between a friend and a lover is so radical and so crucial in your life that it is a mistake to use the one term to cover the other.

A friend is a person who is a value, [someone] that you enjoy being with, that you spend time with, that you care about, and it comes, of course, in all degrees.

Love, however, according to Ayn Rand, is the person who:

1) Represents the sum of your TOP values

2) Is, as a result, irreplaceable, so that if they move away or die, you can’t find someone to take that position in your life.

3) Involves, as a consequence of these, a desperate need for a sexual connection.

If you know her view on the role of values and the role of sex, you can see why she would be outraged at the view that her husband was her ‘friend…’ She thought it was necessary to give the proper importance to love and romance in your life that you not adulterate terms and make it just a degree of something else. It was a unique, sui generis, absolute value that was completely cut off from ordinary relations.”

...

With all THAT in place as the context of what he and Ayn Rand mean when they say "love," I hope we can finally put an end to this nonsense about the Objectivist view being that sex is merely "a response to values." (are you listening, sideline-sitters?)

He said love, and he meant LOVE. As in the definition above, and exactly what I said before: someone you are truly, deeply, passionately in love with.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Offhand - I don't see a moral clash if it's two consenting adults, it's their bodies and the ones having meaninglelss sex, by their actions, consent to all risks involved. Depends on what you value, your safety or your need for gratification. In practice, I prefer to get to know someone, to see if they're a value worth having - if I can't stand to hear her open her mouth :) then she's not worth the hassle. Unfortunately, most of the time, it has usually meant more to me.

The correct approach is to find the best woman that you can. That might be a prostitute. Though if someone told me that, I would suspect that they were lying to me or themselves or a very bad person.
Perhaps they just work 60 hours a week and don't get out much? :lol:

If, for example, I were to masterbate while fantasizing about billy goats, my feelings toward them would change over time.
:lol::lol:

BTW, Hi everyone. Glad I found this forum.

Edited by [email protected]
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Offhand - I don't see a moral clash if it's two consenting adults, it's their bodies and the ones having meaninglelss sex, by their actions, consent to all risks involved. Depends on what you value, your safety or your need for gratification. In practice, I prefer to get to know someone, to see if they're a value worth having - if I can't stand to hear her open her mouth :) then she's not worth the hassle. Unfortunately, most of the time, it has usually meant more to me.

Perhaps they just work 60 hours a week and don't get out much? :lol:

:lol::lol:

BTW, Hi everyone. Glad I found this forum.

HI Dan, welcome to the forum.

The morality we are currently discussing is from the perspective of what is in a persons long-term, rational best interests. No one here would advocate making it illegal( I hope). The question is whether or not a rational person ought to pursue sex divorced from psychological meaning rather then if someone is harmed by it. If the pleasure of the physical act is worthy of pursuit as opposed to pursuing someone for more serious values they possess.

And it would need to be more then 60 hours a week for me to condone it. After all, that still leaves 108 hours a week for pursueing better women. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Offhand - I don't see a moral clash if it's two consenting adults, it's their bodies and the ones having meaninglelss sex, by their actions, consent to all risks involved.

I'd just like to note, not so much for you as for everyone in general, that while this might be your view, it is not the view of Objectivism, which as I have illustrated, holds that for rational men, sex is only proper on the basis of love (with the post above illustrating just what is meant by love).

While the task is far from done, I think, of convincing many here to accept that view, it is I think at this point indisputably the view of Objectivism.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think that, by my actions, I do ascribe to that. I don't care what other people do. As for me, there's got to be some connection. Come to think of it, the last time I dragged a random home was some years ago, and it didn't go all the way. Namely because she was really dumb - which was really unattractive. Not a value worth having.

The question is whether or not a rational person ought to pursue sex divorced from psychological meaning rather then if someone is harmed by it. If the pleasure of the physical act is worthy of pursuit as opposed to pursuing someone for more serious values they possess.
I don't think that I could, when it comes down to brass tax. But there's a time and a place for everything, and it's called 'high school'. :)

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.

How deep does the love relationship have to be, dating for a month? Two months? Engaged, Married? Some of Dagny Taggart's sexcapades weren't exactly Objectivist. How do you quantify passion?

Edited by [email protected]
Link to comment
Share on other sites

How deep does the love relationship have to be, dating for a month? Two months? Engaged, Married? Some of Dagny Taggart's sexcapades weren't exactly Objectivist. How do you quantify passion?

That is a context related question. Every individual is going to have to decide for themselves what level ofknowledge they need to be certain about the preson they are intereseted in.

It's not quantifiable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not in that sentence, but it is clearly the jist of the entire article... You're doing it again.
Hmm. I attempted to read the section for the big picture, but it wasn't clear to me that sex is essentially (as opposed to largely) spiritual. I will take back what I've said regarding Peikoff's stance on "essentially spiritual sex" if you show me what I missed in the section, however.

Here is an excerpt from Dr. Peikoff's lecture on love, sex, and romance:
Ah, I'd never read this. There are some things there that may need to be referred to.

Okay, so my question is whether sex is rational only if it is a response to love (as opposed to all less-than-love responses to values).

"Love, Sex, and Romance" and the "Sex as Metaphysical" section of OPAR (p.343-348) seems to imply in three (and only three brief???) passages that sex is a rational response only to love:

Sexual feeling is a sum; it presupposes all of a rational man's moral values and his love for them, including his love for the partner who embodies them.
When a man and woman do fall in love - assuming that each is romantically free and the context otherwise appropriate - sex is a necessary and proper expression of their feeling for each other.
[Loving a person] involves, as a consequence of [their representing your top values and being irreplaceable], a desperate need for a sexual connection.
For the sake of argument, I'm assuming the implication of the second and third quotes is that non-love sex is not proper (it is not clear that this is a valid assumption, however). At any rate, none of these quotes nor, as far as I can tell, anything else in the articles make a good argument along the lines of "sex is X, and sex is proper only in cases of love because of X".

You (Inspector) have said I'm missing the big picture; from what passages are you (or anyone else who "sees the big picture") getting the "why" that I am not?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hmm. I attempted to read the section for the big picture, but it wasn't clear to me that sex is essentially (as opposed to largely) spiritual. I will take back what I've said regarding Peikoff's stance on "essentially spiritual sex" if you show me what I missed in the section, however.

What does "dominant" mean to you in that context, and what other passages give clues as to if he might mean it the way I am saying?

Okay, so my question is whether sex is rational only if it is a response to love (as opposed to all less-than-love responses to values).

Leaving aside lifeboat scenarios and other extreme contexts, which I assume (but it does not say) would allow for differences, that is what the chapter is saying. My position is also heavily confirmed to be the same as Dr. Peikoff's in the lecture, which is quite inexpensive right now.

(and only three brief???) passages

In explicit words, yes, but the entire rest of the chapter; almost every paragraph, is shouting that very same thing. Your problem is that you are reading it in your disintegrated way. Also, I do believe he wrote with a certain level of assumption of his audience: that they were not hedonists and didn't need to be told in super-explicit terms not to be hedonistic.

At any rate, none of these quotes nor, as far as I can tell, anything else in the articles make a good argument along the lines of "sex is X, and sex is proper only in cases of love because of X".

That's because the chapter isn't going out of its way to prove that point. He cites a few passages from Rand about the nature of sex, but doesn't go into the level of detail that he does, say, with the analytic-synthetic dichotomy. Paragraphs 3-9 are about the nature of sex vis-a-vis the rational man.

You (Inspector) have said I'm missing the big picture; from what passages are you (or anyone else who "sees the big picture") getting the "why" that I am not?

You were missing the big picture in terms of the "what," not as much the "why." The "what" is that Dr. Peikoff, in that chapter as well as elsewhere, is definitely of the position that I have been espousing here.

Now, as to the "why," there is a lot to be consolidated on that subject. I think it has well been proven here, but I will admit that it is scattered to the four winds. Bear in mind, however, that bringing it together is an act of work and that this represents a very high-level integration. If you catch me in the mood to write an essay, then you might get something like that out of me, but right now I think it's all out there, accessable enough to anyone who wants to look.

Mostly, I am not terribly motivated to do so, because I just can't see how anyone could integrate Objectivism and not come to that viewpoint.

But, honestly, this is greatly off-topic. I have already proven, in this thread, how anything even remotely in the category of sex raised by this thread is an evasion and immoral.

Edited by Inspector
Link to comment
Share on other sites

What does "dominant" mean to you in that context, and what other passages give clues as to if he might mean it the way I am saying?
essential - absolutely necessary; indispensable, fundamental

dominant - main; most (but not indispensably or fundamentally) important

"Dominant" is quite different from "essential".

I did not see any other passages that support the "essential" argument (if you saw any, I'll look at them.) I did see passages that support spirtitual matters being most (as opposed to fundamentally) important which I can provide if you like.

My position is also heavily confirmed to be the same as Dr. Peikoff's in the lecture, which is quite inexpensive right now.
Where can I obtain this lecture?

In explicit words, yes, but the entire rest of the chapter; almost every paragraph, is shouting that very same thing. Your problem is that you are reading it in your disintegrated way.
If it is not saying in explicit words that sex is proper only in the case of deep and passionate love... how are you knowing that your stance is integrated with the section of OPAR? (If your assurance is coming from the lecture, I'll will check that out as soon as I can.)

Also, I do believe he wrote with a certain level of assumption of his audience: that they were not hedonists and didn't need to be told in super-explicit terms not to be hedonistic.
To be fair, you haven't given any reason to think that sex with someone you like very much (but not love) is necessarily hedonistic, and little (if any?) to think that it is contrary to Objectivist ethics.

I think [why sex is proper only with someone you love] has well been proven here
:confused: :confused: :confused: :confused:

  • In terms of sex without any consideration of a person's spiritual values, we have agreed that this is immoral.
  • In terms of sex with a minimal consideration of a person's spiritual values, we agree on a (very) few things.
  • In terms of sex with a person who is liked very much (i.e. "largely" holds your spiritual values??), I have seen arguments (in the literature) that sex with someone who is valued is proper, but not seen any argument that sex is proper if and only if it is a case of love (as opposed to valuing short of outright love).

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

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...
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

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