Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

"Using" someone for sex

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 134
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I was eating pizza when I watched Passion of the Christ and suffered no less enjoyment from the pizza because of it.

Then you've an odd disposition. My point remains.

Now my example:
Your example doesn't change a thing. I never said that all non-physical differences could overcome all physical ones in every situation. I merely proved that it is possible for two situtions to provide a different physical experience without any physical differences present.

If sex felt better only because of non-physical reasons, then horny college guys would be content to sit in their rooms and masturbate, rather than going out and getting some sorority girl drunk enough to lose her inhibitions...not to mention her consciousness.

Horny college guys are never wrong, so their judgement is absolutely sacrosanct.

I've never seen someone do a reducto ad absurdum on himself before, but you've come pretty close.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Then you've an odd disposition. My point remains.

There's nothing odd about the fact that I can separate my physical enjoyment (i.e. pizza) from psychological revulsion (i.e. watching a 2-hour torture scene).

I merely proved...
That's awfully presumptuous of you.

Horny college guys are never wrong, so their judgement is absolutely sacrosanct.

Whether or not they understand the psychology and morality of sex is irrelevant. They are human beings and, as such, are every bit as capable as you and I of knowing what physical pleasure feels like.

I've never seen someone do a reducto ad absurdum on himself before, but you've come pretty close.

I fail to see how anything I've said can be called reductio ad absurdum.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Whether or not they understand the psychology and morality of sex is irrelevant. They are human beings and, as such, are every bit as capable as you and I of knowing what physical pleasure feels like.

Now for the FIFTH time, it isn't a matter of the PHYSICAL PLEASURE. I am not disputing that the physical pleasure may be greater. I have only said that this difference in physical pleasure is not caused by the minute difference in physical stimulation, but rather the NON-PHYSICAL differences between sex and masturbation. You continue to attack a straw man.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Now for the FIFTH time, it isn't a matter of the PHYSICAL PLEASURE.

For the umpteenth time, this has been what I've been talking about since before you joined the conversation.

I am not disputing that the physical pleasure may be greater. I have only said that this difference in physical pleasure is not caused by the minute difference in physical stimulation, but rather the NON-PHYSICAL differences between sex and masturbation. You continue to attack a straw man.

Differences in physical pleasure are, by definition, caused by physical reasons. Watching Passion doesn't make pizza taste like broccoli and eating broccoli in the presence of my fiancee doesn't make it taste like pizza.

I don't know whether or not you have ever had sex. It's really none of my business. But I don't see how anyone can experience it and not be able to tell that there is an enormous difference in the physical stimulation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For the umpteenth time, this has been what I've been talking about since before you joined the conversation.

You misunderstand. That statement was meant to say that the point of argument isn't the physical pleasure.

Differences in physical pleasure are, by definition, caused by physical reasons.
Incorrect.

Watching Passion doesn't make pizza taste like broccoli

Nobody said it did. But I did say that it would prevent one from experiencing the physical pleasure that the pizza would normally cause.

My argument is that non-physical factors can change the amount of physical pleasure experienced in activities.

I don't know whether or not you have ever had sex. It's really none of my business. But I don't see how anyone can experience it and not be able to tell that there is an enormous difference in the physical stimulation.

You already know that I am married. Please give a little more thought before blurting things like that out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And my argument is that, while non-physical factors can enhance the whole experience, they do not affect the purely physical experience.

And, no, I didn't know you were married, so my bad. I've probably read a post of yours in the past that says something about your wife, but I don't know anyone on this board in real life, so it's easy to get confused as to who is who.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And my argument is that, while non-physical factors can enhance the whole experience, they do not affect the purely physical experience.

This is a strikingly easy thing for me to know, I think because of my strong sense of taste. If something doesn't taste the same, I notice it right away. I will sometimes close my eyes when eating something particularly good, because I can get even more flavor out of it. If you haven't experienced a clear example of this like I have, then I can understand that you might not know this fact off the bat. But it is a fact: physical pleasure can be altered by non-physical factors.

By non-physical factors, I mean anything that is not directly a part of the tactile stimulation of the genitals.

If we have to agree to disagree on that, then fine. But it is a key and critical point of what you need to know to understand this. Sex is better than masturbation only because of non physical factors. Factors that are not present in the kind of sex partner of your example. These factors are based on spiritual value-judgments, and a spiritually empty partner would contribute nothing. Anything you would gain from such an experience over masturbation would necessarily be a product of evasion.

In fact, the kind of partner given in your example would impart a number of negative non-physical factors... the experience would add awkwardness (at the least; really lots of other bad stuff) to the equation and make it worse than masturbation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have only said that this difference in physical pleasure is not caused by the minute difference in physical stimulation, but rather the NON-PHYSICAL differences between sex and masturbation.

Nobody is saying that there is any difference whatsoever FOR YOU. But for others, the physical stimulation is different, they are capable of recognizing such difference. Just because you do not experience any significant physical difference, does not establish that other people do not.

Sex is better than masturbation only because of non physical factors.

For you, you keep leaving that off. You have no credibility to speak for what other people physically experience any more than I (or they) have for speaking to what you physically experience.

A cold dry hand versus a warm wet vagina may make absolutely no physically stimulatory difference to you and that's fine, nobody is intending to threaten what you find enjoyable about sex. But I can tell the difference, apparently Moose can tell the difference, and it's quite reasonable to assume that other people can feel the difference.

Aside from the cold/dry slash warm/wet distinction, the vagina attached to another person makes the physical stimulation different because it's unpredictable. A man knows his hand is moving and he knows the rhythm, etc. etc. Depending on the size of one's hand (or penis for that matter), the vagina offers more complete physical coverage.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nobody is saying that there is any difference whatsoever FOR YOU. But for others, the physical stimulation is different

It is no accident that I leave that off. I am not speaking merely for myself.

I do not mean to say that there is nothing different physically in the stimulus. Obviously, there is. The point is that there is nothing significantly different, and certainly nothing different enough to account for the dramatic difference between the two in terms of experience.

As one example, press your upper lip against your lower lip. You can feel your own lips. Now compare this to a kiss. Your lover's lips aren't composed of anything different from your own. The physical stimulus is no different. But the pleasure you feel is significantly different. This is for non-physical reasons!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As one example, press your upper lip against your lower lip. You can feel your own lips. Now compare this to a kiss. Your lover's lips aren't composed of anything different from your own. The physical stimulus is no different. But the pleasure you feel is significantly different. This is for non-physical reasons!

You honestly think that the difference between 2 sets of lips is analogous to the difference between a bony, naturally dry hand and a fleshy, naturally wet vagina?

For you, you keep leaving that off. You have no credibility to speak for what other people physically experience any more than I (or they) have for speaking to what you physically experience.

I suppose that, to be fair, I should admit that not everyone may view it my way. I think, however, that the vast majority of people (read: practically everyone but Inspector) will agree that sex feels better than masturbation and that there are some purely reaosns for this, even if there are also emotional/psychological reasons. The idea that someone cannot recognize the tactile difference between a vagina and a hand is truly incomprehensible to me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You continue to strawman my position.

How is that a strawman? You've been saying all along that something other than physical sensation is what makes sex better than masturbation. If you admit that they they are tactile-y (don't know the proper word for that) different, then your position is even more indefensible than it was in the first place.

Feel free to not believe me;
I don't think anyone ever did in the first place.

I really don't care anymore.

Good.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you admit that they they are tactile-y (don't know the proper word for that) different,...
I don't think anyone claimed in this thread claimed that one cannot tell the difference between masturbation and real sex in terms of sensations.
..., then your position is even more indefensible than it was in the first place.
I think I understand why you say that such a position becomes more indefensible if one grants that the sensations are different. I think it's because you think Inspector is saying: the physical sensation is different, but that is not what makes one more physically pleasurable than the other. However, my understanding of Inspector's position is that he's saying: the physical sensation is different, but that is not what makes one more pleasurable than the other. Or, his position may be slightly less stringent, where he's saying: the physical sensation is different, but that the difference in physical pleasure is not the major part of what makes one more pleasurable than the other.

Edited by softwareNerd
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I cannot speak to the physical differences. I am, however, willing to concede (or assume, rather) that sex is more physically pleasurable. But so what? What is the point of this discussion? Masturbation is moral because, when done reasonably, it contributes to one's happiness. I would not consider it an evasion to fantasize about having sex with an ideal person while masturbating. I would consider it an evasion to do so while having sex with another person. The ultimate point is that having sex with another person who is not worthy of you - who is not ideal- leads to a deprication of self-esteem. With masturbation, there is no loss of self-esteem.

So, again, the fact that sex is physically more pleasurable than sex is pointless.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

you think Inspector is saying: the physical sensation is different, but that is not what makes one more physically pleasurable than the other.

Actually, that is what I am saying. Although it does occur to me now that if one is practicing bad masturbation technique that it might be significantly worse in terms of physical sensation.

Edit: So, yeah, I think RB might be right.

Edited by Inspector
Link to comment
Share on other sites

...Masturbation is moral because, when done reasonably, ...

I have been laughing since I read this.(I mean this in a good natured way) I am still trying to figure out how to masturbate in an "unreasonable" fashion, because it sounds like more fun then maturbating "reasonably". I'm guessing unreasonable masturbation is doing so in a way which does not accomplish your "goal", but I am not at all sure about that.

I need to add too, that while I usually agree with you, inspector, this time I am having trouble. I certainly agree that the emotional factors dwarf the physical by at least a factor of 10 to 1, but I wouldn't go so far as to say the physical differences between a hand and a vagina were imperceptable. Of course, I'm looking at this from the perspective of almost 2 decades of cllus buildup in construction work....maybe if I had softer hands we could come to an agreement? :dough:

Edited by aequalsa
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Of course, I'm looking at this from the perspective of almost 2 decades of cllus buildup in construction work....maybe if I had softer hands we could come to an agreement? :dough:

LOL!

I really think this whole thing is terribly silly. I could prove my point, I think, but not without getting into the really gory details of technique. It's not really worth it for me to do so. (imagine, being an instructor in a class to teach that) If y'all don't believe me, then I really don't care.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually, that is what I am saying.
From your response, though, it sounds that you're not saying that. Rather, I think you're saying that there is no significant difference in the physical pleasure.

If that's the point you're making, if one concedes that point, how does it relate to "using another person" for sex? I assume the broader point you're making then is: if one truly only uses a person like that (say a prostitute in a dark parking lot), then it is no different -- in terms of physical pleasure -- than masturbating. Is that what you're saying? If so, what if someone comes back by saying that for him the anonymous sex is more pleasurable; is it moral in his case?

I am, however, willing to concede (or assume, rather) that sex is more physically pleasurable. But so what? What is the point of this discussion? Masturbation is moral because, ...
For purposes of this thread, I think we should concede that masturbation is moral. If there is some type of masturbation that's immoral, then we can assume we're not comparing "pure physical sex" to that. (Truth is, I wonder if one can even term masturbation as being "purely physical". But that probably belongs back in the "masturbation thread".)
Link to comment
Share on other sites

From your response, though, it sounds that you're not saying that. Rather, I think you're saying that there is no significant difference in the physical pleasure.

Yes, perhaps that is more accurate.

If that's the point you're making, if one concedes that point, how does it relate to "using another person" for sex? I assume the broader point you're making then is: if one truly only uses a person like that (say a prostitute in a dark parking lot), then it is no different -- in terms of physical pleasure -- than masturbating. Is that what you're saying?
Correct.

If so, what if someone comes back by saying that for him the anonymous sex is more pleasurable; is it moral in his case?

Since it cannot be more pleasurable on account of the physical difference, then it must be more pleasurable for him due to non-physical values. And since the woman in the example given has no non-physical values to offer, then the difference in pleasure can only be accounted for by evasion on the part of the man. If the experience is more gratifying than masturbation to him, then it must be because he is deluding himself into thinking that the sex is anything more than the rubbing of parts that the example claims it to be.

Therefore, it is necessarily immoral, since it is an evasion of reality.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If the experience is more gratifying than masturbation to him

I should note, however, that that is a big "if." In all likelihood, anyone attempting such an act will find it completely lousy, and much less gratifying than masturbation. I know/have heard from several people who tried this and all of them report it was a bad experience.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Okay, I'm gonna try one more thing before recusing myself from this debate. This will be my most graphic post so far, so beware.

Imagine that someone makes a perfect mold of a woman's vagina. It is exactly the same shape, tightness, wetness, and texture, but it is not attached to an actual woman, therefore, there can be no psychological or moral issues involved. Psychologically and morally, sticking your penis in it is the same as masturbation. But, according to you, doing so will not feel any better than rubbing your penis with your hand.

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...