"Using" someone for sex

[DavidOdden]

Yeah he definitely meant 4. Btw, thanks for your reply to my question earlier it was very helpful.

That's fine: but if one is gonna declare that one is done for real, and then a couple of days later take it back (again), then you have to ask, why say "I'm done with this thread!" in the first place.

[aequalsa]

Is physical attractiveness/fitness a value?

If you wish. I'll restate it then.Are you saying that all sex based on physical preferences is "detached from meaning"? Prove it.

If not, then what sex is "detached from meaning"? You're accusing Moose of refusing to pass judgement on something that

1. has nothing to do with the thread (your "meaningless sex" vs. Moose's sex based on physical preferences)
   
2. is undefined and thus unknowable if it is even true (if all sex based on physical preferences is not meaningless... then, given that you know Moose refused to pass judgement on "meaningless sex", what constitutes "meaningless sex"?
   

There is no advocation of moral relativism because there isn't even an argument that sex based on physical preferences is either meaningless or immoral.

Do I even have to waste three more paragraphs saying why that doesn't make sense? It's essentially the same thing as above, though I can elaborate if I must.

Thank you

So are you acknowledging that Roark's sex was immoral, or agreeing that a 5 can be moral?

Of course fitness is a value. But that was not the claim. The discussion, as inspector has pointed out is regarding a particular body part. But since you bring it up, if an individual would choose someone to sleep with based on that one factor alone, then I will judge him accordingly. (though not has harshly as someone who chooses a goat because it is softer then his hand)

No. Sex based on physical appearance is attached to meaning. Not much, but some. The moral relativism that I refer to is that sex with someone for the sole purpose of "getting off"(which doesn't mention anything about attractiveness) is just as OK as sex with someone who causes an emotional response based on your highest values. The idea that it is not good for him, but it might be good for others to have detached meaningless sex, is the moral relativism I refer to. These and any gradation between are of different value. To deny that, is to deny the mind and to deny values. It's actually materialism with a heaping of moral relativism on top.

Can someone have sex with a woman they dont care about and enjoy it? Sure. They can probably also have sex with a goat and enjoy it. Just don't believe that it's better or as good for your life as sex connected to the values which both individuals possess and admire.

I did mean 4 by the way. And yes, Roarks sex was less moral then it would have been with someone he new and valued. It turned out well in the end, but that girl had serious issues, and he suffered for his mistake.

[Inspector]

Can someone have sex with a woman they dont care about and enjoy it? Sure. They can probably also have sex with a goat and enjoy it.

...nobody said that hedonism couldn't be enjoyed in the moment...

Just don't believe that it's better or as good for your life as sex connected to the values which both individuals possess and admire.

I'd amend that: just don't believe that it's better or as good for your life as no sex at all. Sex, as such, is not a value, apart from the person you are having sex with. It won't provide the slightest advantage over "the alternative" if you don't like the girl and/or think she's ugly... you'll only have to wake up next to her, and forever live with the fact that you lowered yourself to sleeping with that [insert unkind name here].

Simon,

"Experience" is overrated. The one you love will want you to learn on her, not on other people. Love is posessive, that way. Plus, when you don't like the other person, you tend to not actually learn anything.

Don't waste your time with losers. Go read some books on technique. And do lots of sit-ups and push-ups. It helps to be able to have strength and endurance in certain muscles...

[hunterrose]

I think it would be immoral of me to abstain sexually; I want to be an experienced lover, sending my future wife to high places.

I have to agree with Inspector here that this may not be the kind of idea you want to run with. Personally, I wouldn't want my future wife becoming "experienced" just so she can show me some new tricks someday.

Roarks sex was less moral then it would have been with someone he knew and valued.

Would it have been "more moral" to not have had sex at all?

[aequalsa]

Would it have been "more moral" to not have had sex at all?

Under the circumstances, I believe so, but probably would make for poor drama that way. He made a somewhat impetuous value judgement based on a small amount of information. Whether his choice which led ultimately to success was achieved by good character judgement or luck, I really can't say.

[hunterrose]

That I don't understand. Why would no sex necessarily be more moral than sex with someone who is valued (albeit to a very slight extent)?

[aequalsa]

That I don't understand. Why would no sex necessarily be more moral than sex with someone who is valued (albeit to a very slight extent)?

That's not an accurate alternative. A person doesn't have to choose between no sex and sex with someone they don't like unless they are stranded on a desert island with an fugly communist. In reality they have many more choices. Rather then wasting his time and energy on an individual he does not like, he could spend it looking for someone that he does value.

[hunterrose]

A person doesn't have to choose between no sex and sex with someone they don't like unless they are stranded on a desert island with an fugly communist. In reality they have many more choices.

You're using the phrase "sex with someone who isn't liked", whereas I'm asking about sex with someone who is valued (albeit to a very slight extent).

In terms of sex with the fugly communist vs. no sex, I'd agree with you.

But in terms of sex with a woman who is liked/valued to a less-than-ultimate degree vs. no sex, my two disagreements with what you say would be that

• this person is liked/valued
  
• having sex with a less-than-ultimate doesn't preclude one from looking for a highestmostsacred
  

I don't see any reason why it would necessarily be less moral to have sex in such a situation.

[Antonio]

Thank you to those folks who characterized my prior sexual relationship situation as one where I found value - her company, her appearance, her beauty - even if we mutually saw no desire to make it a permanent romantic relationship. I always viewed it that way, even if under conventional thinking a lot of folks wouldn't argue that I found value in her.

I had brought it up because when I saw the name of the thread, my relationship with her instantly came to mind as an example where we used each other for sex. In fact, I recently got back in touch with a mutual friend of mine and that girl's, and she characterized my relationship with her as one where the two of us just used each other for sex. That's pretty much what it was, and the only reason that we stayed in touch with each other sparsely for the course of about three years.

So to twist this thread a little. Did we use each other? I think we did, and that there was nothing wrong with it because it was mutual. Is the issue here that "using" someone has a negative connotation because of society's puritanical double standards? Or is it that using someone is neither right nor wrong, but wrong only if one of the parties was misled into the sex on a false pretense, such as lying that one loves the other? In such a case, is it not more accurate to characterize it as "misleading" someone into sex?

Edited December 17, 2006 by Antonio

[aequalsa]

You're using the phrase "sex with someone who isn't liked", whereas I'm asking about sex with someone who is valued (albeit to a very slight extent).

In terms of sex with the fugly communist vs. no sex, I'd agree with you.

But in terms of sex with a woman who is liked/valued to a less-than-ultimate degree vs. no sex, my two disagreements with what you say would be that

• this person is liked/valued
  
• having sex with a less-than-ultimate doesn't preclude one from looking for a highestmostsacred
  

I don't see any reason why it would necessarily be less moral to have sex in such a situation.

Oh...I see. I would say that this is somewhat contextual. How much is enough with regard to liking someone? My oppinion, if someone has a core sense of life which you find very agreeable then a lot of minor problems with thier philosophy will probably work themselves out over time. I suspect that was the case with Dominique.

If you don't like someone at all or even don't like them very much, I doubt it's worth the time. If you like them a lot or a great deal or with a purple passion, it probably is. If it's somewhere in the middle, I would suggest avoiding it, as you are looking at a relationship which at best, will be mediocratic. I don't care for mediocrity, myself...I guess it's good for other people.

You certainly can pursue others while involved with someone, but it usually isn't a good idea. Assuming you are honest with yourself and the person you are with about the relationship, you would have to tell them, essentially..."I don't think much of you...but your pretty so I'll sleep woth you until I find someone better, which Ill be looking for. Please don't mind the oggling." I doubt the sex would be very good after explaining where they stood, but you could do it if a masturbatory agent were that necessry for you. Beats a goat...that's what I always say.