"Using" someone for sex

[Inspector]

Imagine that someone makes a perfect mold... But, according to you, doing so will not feel any better than rubbing your penis with your hand.

No. (if anything, I would imagine such a device would only get in the way... they do exist, by the way)

The reason why sex is better than masturbation is psychological, value-laden, and spiritual. In terms of sheer genital-stimulation ability, the difference is not significant.

Edited December 13, 2006 by Inspector

[The Wrath]

Good God, you're dense. Keep on thinking that if you want, but if such a thing were invented and sold for $10 a piece, all single men in this country would be falling over each other to buy them.

[Inspector]

Good God, you're dense. Keep on thinking that if you want, but if such a thing were invented and sold for $10 a piece, all single men in this country would be falling over each other to buy them.

Listen, we agree: sex feels better. But you're mistaken as to why. Oh, and check out my edit.

And I'm not dense, I just don't agree with you.

[Ifat Glassman]

Moose, would you do this woman?

Or how about a guy, with a beard (and all), who has a vagina (done by a really good doctor)?

What about a woman with a good looking body, but an expression of a complete idiot on her face?

In these three examples (I guess) that your concept of femininity is absent, but the physical sensation should remain the same.

If you won't do any of these people I suggested, the reason is probably that the concept of femininity is missing. Read again: the concept. The physical sensation is the same.

[Scott_Connery]

All of you who are saying that the only physical stimulation in sex comes from the genitals must be doing something very different from what I do in bed.

[The Wrath]

Moose, would you do this woman?

Or how about a guy, with a beard (and all), who has a vagina (done by a really good doctor)?

What about a woman with a good looking body, but an expression of a complete idiot on her face?

No, because I'm engaged. If I were single, still no, because the psychological revulsion would outweigh any physical pleasure I might receive. That doesn't mean that the physical sensation being received by my penis would be any less pleasurable.

All of you who are saying that the only physical stimulation in sex comes from the genitals must be doing something very different from what I do in bed.

I don't think anyone has suggested that. But it's the only part we're talking about, since masturbation involves pretty much just the genitals, and we're comparing the two. If you know a way to masturbate using your whole body, I'd be interested to hear about it.

[Scott_Connery]

I was trying to point out exactly that distinction, which it seems like is being ignored by those saying the physical act is essentially the same for both cases.

[The Wrath]

I'm sure inspector recognizes the physical difference when you consider things other than the genitals. But he's also saying that real sex doesn't feel any better to your genitals than masturbation.

[Myself]

Three pages of this thread have mostly overlooked the fact that there is no such thing as a "purely sexual relationship" with another human being. A is A - and an individual human being will always be an individual human being unique in their own characteristics. No matter what lengths you go to convincing yourself that your partner is not a human being, you cannot change the metaphysical fact that she is one. The amount of physical stimulation you recieve from sex will of course, be greater than masturbation - but your ability to derive pleasure from that stimulation is a seperate issue. Pleasure is more than simply physical. The level of intimacy required for sex, requires a level of intimacy with the person you're having sex with. If the woman you're sleeping with holds values opposite from yours, if she's commmitted despicible acts, if she hates you as a person - would you feel good about having sex with her? Yes the physical stimulation is there - but your ability to derive pleasure from it is severely hampered. Pleasure is not purely physical - it is psychological.

For reference see "The Psychology of Pleasure" in VOS.

[~Sophia~]

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.

Exactly. But having sex with an actual woman would be even better. Why is that?

With all due respect, Moose, your argument here, in support of 'using people as sexual objects' has been one of the more revolting ones I have herd on this particular topic (which I am not sure why this topic gets rehashed every few weeks)

I hate to break it to you but some of the vibrating devices out there produce stimulation to female genitals, which is MUCH BETTER on a purely physical level and can never be reproduced by a human. Yet having sex with a man, asuming certain level of competence and endurance, will always be better. It is due to the fact that a person is not just an object. What makes sex enjoyable depends on more than physical stimulation - even if superb in technique. It is the non-physical factors that take a person to hights of ecstasy, something that no object can ever do.

Why it is not ok to treat people as objects when it comes to everything else but not when it comes to sex? Why is it that when it comes to the most intimate activity available to a human that suddenly it becomes acceptable to drop all of your standards? Because what you are proposing here is not just casual sex, for example, two people meeting on an exotic vacation, liking each other, enjoying each other's comany, and ending up in bed. You are proposing removing value judgment of non-physical attributes all together by using another as an object, essentially dropping context of what a human is - body and mind.

It is simply revolting to me.

[The Wrath]

Three pages of this thread have mostly overlooked the fact that there is no such thing as a "purely sexual relationship" with another human being. A is A - and an individual human being will always be an individual human being unique in their own characteristics. No matter what lengths you go to convincing yourself that your partner is not a human being, you cannot change the metaphysical fact that she is one. The amount of physical stimulation you recieve from sex will of course, be greater than masturbation - but your ability to derive pleasure from that stimulation is a seperate issue. Pleasure is more than simply physical. The level of intimacy required for sex, requires a level of intimacy with the person you're having sex with. If the woman you're sleeping with holds values opposite from yours, if she's commmitted despicible acts, if she hates you as a person - would you feel good about having sex with her? Yes the physical stimulation is there - but your ability to derive pleasure from it is severely hampered. Pleasure is not purely physical - it is psychological.

For reference see "The Psychology of Pleasure" in VOS.

No one has denied this. This conversation has been solely about the physical aspect.

[~Sophia~]

No one has denied this. This conversation has been solely about the physical aspect.

The topic of the discussion is "Using" someone for sex and you brought your physical argument in support of this topic.

[The Wrath]

Exactly. But having sex with an actual woman would be even better. Why is that?

That is for psychological and moral reasons. I have never debated that. All I have said, and all the Inspector has denied, is that a vagina feels physically better than a hand.

With all due respect, Moose, your argument here, in support of 'using people as sexual objects' has been one of the more revolting ones I have herd on this particular topic (which I am not sure why this topic gets rehashed every few weeks)

Nowhere have I argued for treating anyone as a sexual object.

I hate to break it to you but some of the vibrating devices out there produce stimulation to female genitals, which is MUCH BETTER on a purely physical level and can never be reproduced by a human.

I'm quite sure this is true. But if you'll look through the conversation, you'll find that we have never once talked about physical sensations experienced by women...most likely because everyone in the conversation, until now, has been a man.

Yet having sex with a man, asuming certain level of competence and endurance, will always be better. It is due to the fact that a person is not just an object. What makes sex enjoyable depends on more than physical stimulation - even if superb in technique. It is the non-physical factors that take a person to hights of ecstasy, something that no object can ever do.

I have never denied this is true (as long as you reverse the genders back to my perspective). All in the world I have said is that, whatever other psychological and emotional factors may factor into the equation, increased physical pleasure is also a factor in determining why sex with a woman is better than masturbation. I have never denied that such psychological factors exist...I have only said that a physical one also exists. Inspector has denied that raw physical sensation has anything to do with it.

Why it is not ok to treat people as objects when it comes to everything else but not when it comes to sex? Why is it that when it comes to the most intimate activity available to a human that suddenly it becomes acceptable to drop all of your standards? Because what you are proposing here is not just casual sex, for example, two people meeting on an exotic vacation, liking each other, enjoying each other's comany, and ending up in bed. You are proposing removing value judgment of non-physical attributes all together by using another as an object, essentially dropping context of what a human is - body and mind.

It is simply revolting to me.

I have suggested nothing of the sort and I challenge you to find a quote where I did. I don't see how people can take my stance and turn it into something like that. My stance is as follows:

There are many reasons why sex with a woman is better than masturbation. These include psychological, spiritual, and moral reasons. But it is ridiculous to deny that there is a raw physical component that increases the tactile pleasure on the penis, when the source of arousal is a woman's vagina rather that one's own right hand.

Nothing in that quote implies that I think women should be treated as sex objects. In fact, I think that to deny the truth of anything in that quote is to support an utterly ridiculous position.

The topic of the discussion is "Using" someone for sex and you brought your physical argument in support of this topic.

The topic was split from another one. Our conversation was already ongoing when this happened. It is, perhaps, a bad title for a thread containing this discussion. If you have a problem with the title, I suggest you ask a mod to change it, rather than accusing me of saying things that I clearly did not say.

Edited December 13, 2006 by Moose

[The Wrath]

Why is it an evasion? If you want to have a purely sexual relationship with someone, as long as the other person is aware of your intentions, then what's wrong with it? Especially if the other person, like you, is just looking for a way to get off. If one party is in it for the sex, while knowing that the other party wants a deeper emotional/psychological connection, that's obviously wrong. But if both parties just want sex...I just can't see the problem.

I'll spare you the trouble of pulling up this quote, because I feel certain that you will, upon reading my challenge. So, I'll go ahead and answer.

This post does not suggest using anyone as a "sex object." A "sex object," much like a vibrator or a vaginal mold of some sort, would be an object that exists solely for the physical pleasure of its owner. If two people get together and decide that they want sexual release, realizing that sex is better than masturbation, this does not amount to them using each other as sex objects. It would be using them as a sex object if one person didn't want it, but the other person decided they were going to take it anyway (i.e. rape), either through physical force or some sort of drug-induced compliance.

In my scenario each person has made up his/her own mind to bring together their two bodies (the two components of a human being, as you mentioned) to obtain a positive physical and psychological value: sexual release. It feels good physically and does wonders for the mind of someone who is stressed out. If one person rapes another, then the rapees mind does not even factor into the equation. They take the body, but do not consider the mind. But, by granting your consent to have sex, you have used your mind and, in a sense, shared it with your sexual partner. Even if you don't necessarily share the same values and views on life, this is not analagous to treating someone as a sex object.

For the record, I don't even support such practices. I have only had sex with one person and I plan to keep it that way. But I'm not going to condemn people who practice casual sex with friends or acquaintances.

Edited December 13, 2006 by Moose

[Myself]

In my scenario each person has made up his/her own mind to bring together their two bodies (the two components of a human being, as you mentioned) to obtain a positive physical and psychological value: sexual release. It feels good physically and does wonders for the mind of someone who is stressed out. If one person rapes another, then the rapees mind does not even factor into the equation. They take the body, but do not consider the mind. But, by granting your consent to have sex, you have used your mind and, in a sense, shared it with your sexual partner. Even if you don't necessarily share the same values and views on life, this is not analagous to treating someone as a sex object.

Questions:

Would you want to be in a relationship with this person?

What part of your mind have you shared? Consequently, what part of yourself have you shared? What parts haven't you?

How is having a "purely sexual relationship" (using the definition of those words) different from viewing your partner as a "sex object"?

What about this hypothetical "sex partner" prevents you from having a real emotional connection with her? Is this reason significant?

What are some of the reasons that would prevent you from having sex with someone? Or are there none? Does merely having a working vagina suffice?

Edited December 13, 2006 by Myself

[~Sophia~]

Even if you don't necessarily share the same values and views on life, this is not analagous to treating someone as a sex object.

Explain to me how a person can enjoy sex with, for example, very physically attractive nihilist, without evading this person's non-physical attributes.

[The Wrath]

Questions:

Would you want to be in a relationship with this person?

No. I've already mentioned that I have only had sex with one person, and that I will keep it this way. I do not support the idea of casual sex...I just don't condemn it either.

What part of your mind have you shared? Consequently, what part of yourself have you shared? What parts haven't you?

The part that makes you capable of making your own decisions.

How is having a "purely sexual relationship" (using the definition of those words) different from viewing your partner as a "sex object"?

I think I fully explained this in my above posts.

What about this hypothetical "sex partner" prevents you from having a real emotional connection with her? Is this reason significant?

This is a problem that is frequent with such arrangements. People who have "fuck buddies," (pardon my French, but that's the term that I hear quite often) usually end up with the problem of one person starting to invest a lot more emotion into the situation than the other person is willing to do. This is another reason why I would not recommend such an arrangement.

What are some of the reasons that would prevent you from having sex with someone? Or are there none? Does merely having a working vagina suffice?

The only reason I need is that it be someone other than my fiancee. Everyone will have his/her own standards, and I wouldn't presume to think that I have the right to tell them what they should be.

[The Wrath]

Explain to me how a person can enjoy sex with, for example, very physically attractive nihilist, without evading this person's non-physical attributes.

Why would that be any different than getting a backrub from a nihilist when the muscles in your back are tense? Practically every religion in the world gives a different set of rules to sex, than it gives to everything else. Objectivism, judging by people's posts I have seen on this board, appears to do the same thing. I honestly can't understand why. Surely you wouldn't argue that it's immoral to let a Marxist give you a back massage if your back is aching. Why, then, is it wrong to have sex with someone with a bad ethical system, if you're horny?

Sex is, first and foremost, a physical capacity. It didn't evolve so that we could share our values with people. It evolved because it serves an evolutionary purpose. It also evolved in such a way as to be physically enjoyable...this ensures that we actually do it. People place a special value on sex with those that they love, as do I. But, when you think about it, the only difference between sex and a backrub is which body parts go where.

So, while we choose to place a different value on sex with a lover, I can see no good reason to condemn those who practice casual sex, outside of meaningful romantic relationships, anymore than we should condemn people who take backrubs from someone other than a romantic partner.

Edited December 14, 2006 by Moose

[Myself]

When I said "you" I meant a person who was hypothetically engaging in those acts. I thought you were advocating that a purely sexual relationship was acceptable and thus responding from that position.

[The Wrath]

When I said "you" I meant a person who was hypothetically engaging in those acts. I thought you were advocating that a purely sexual relationship was acceptable and thus responding from that position.

I don't think there's anything immoral about it. I was just making the point that I don't think I have the right to decide what other people's standards should be. Obviously, I think there is a limit. I think there's something seriously wrong with someone who would subject themselves to STDs by going to a prostitute, or to get into sado-masochistic stuff.

[~Sophia~]

But, when you think about it, the only difference between sex and a backrub is which body parts go where.

[KevinD]

Why so shocked, Sophia? That Moose has no understanding of the moral meaning of sex, and consequently has very little respect for its metaphysical significance in human life, has been evident since his very first post in this thread.

[The Wrath]

Why so shocked, Sophia? That Moose has no understanding of the moral meaning of sex, and consequently has very little respect for its metaphysical significance in human life, has been evident since his very first post in this thread.

Statements like that are the reason why, when I disagree with someone on this board, I usually prefer to keep my mouth shut. I think that Objectivism is a wonderful philosophy, but many people on this board treat it like dogma. I think this is highlighted nowhere better than in the recent thread about Dr. Peikoff's opinions on the recent election. If I'm not mistaken (and I may be), Inspector was one of the people who adamantly agreed with Peikoff's absurd proposal that voting for Republicans meant that you "had no understanding of the role of philosophy in man's life." This thread has only reinforced my opinion of him.

Until now, I had no reason to dislike you in any way. But anytime your argument consists of "you obviously have no understanding of this topic," I think it's fair to say that you have no rational argument to provide and that discussing the topic further is not worth my time. My most recent posts in here were thought-out, well-reasoned (in my opinion) responses. But did you respond to a single point that I made? No. Neither has Sofia, by the way. Instead, you accuse me of having no understanding of or respect for the meaning of sex.

Before Sofia became a part of the discussion, my opinions regarding the sanctity of sex had not even been expressed. All I had done was try (apparently unsuccessfully) to show Inspector how ridiculous his position is that there is no physical aspect as to why sex feels better than masturbation. I might add that several people, including a moderator of this board, expressed complete agreement with me on that point. Then Sofia came in and accused me of making statements and implications that I clearly did not make and that no reasonable person could gather from my posts. After I defended myself with thought-out posts, you make your own similar accusation, while failing to provide examples of my own mistakes or anything that resembles a rational defense of your own position. I am through with this thread.

Edited December 14, 2006 by Moose

[kufa]

Okay, this is just getting ridiculous. I am with moose. So far all of the arguments I have seen against causual sex make absolutely no sense. So, how is causual sex an evasion of reality? If casual sex is so immoral, then isn't masturbation too? If, while masturbating, a man is pretending to be with his ideal woman, isn't this evasion of reality? Usually, when people masturbate, they are not doing it for emotional, but for physical reasons. Usually when people have causal sex, they are doing it for physical reasons. If a partner can give a person more pleasure, not necessarily "oh im sleeping with a hottie" pleasure, but physical pleasure, I don't see how it is any different than masturbation.

[KevinD]

Moose:

If you were a twelve year-old boy, saying the kinds of things that you have here, and you exhibited the slightest inclination toward growing in your understanding of this subject, then I'm sure you'd find me infinitely more benevolent, and much more eager to help you.

But clearly you already know it all, so why should I bother?