"Using" someone for sex

[The Wrath]

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

Obviously, this is as opposed to you, Sophia, and Inspector who, despite knowing everything, have offered personal attacks against me, rather than anything resembling a rational argument. I'm more than willing to continue debating the matter, but not if your arguments consist of personal attacks.

I mean, seriously...just because I have offered up a somewhat unconventional way of thinking about sex, I have been branded with all sorts of personal attacks. In the numerous threads on this topic, I have never seen a satisfactory reason for why Objectivist ethics applies some special set of standards to sex. People repeatedly assert that sex is the "expression of deepest intimacy and sharing of values," but no one ever says why. It's like you treat it as an axiom and, from that axiom, you come up with your moral judgements regarding people's sex lives.

All on God's green earth I have said is that, if other people want to practice sexual lifestyles that don't appeal to you, then the most you can say is just that...that they don't appeal to you. There is nothing inherently destructive about casual sex. It doesn't particularly appeal to me either. As I have said, I am extremely monogamous and want nothing resembling a sexual relationship with anyone other than my fiancee. Why? Because I choose to place a higher value on it.

But if you want sexual release and can only get it through casual sex, I have no ethical objections to that at all. If it gives you physical pleasure and psychological stress relief, there is no good reason to apply this puritan standard of sexual behavior, that some people on this board seem to be advocating. These are the same arguments I would expect to hear from a religious nutcase.

So, in a nutshell, here's what I have said:

• Sex feels physically better than masturbation.
  
• Sex is a physical capacity that evolved from a need to reproduce.
  
• Sex is, for most people, a psychological need and an enormous stress-reducer.
  
• Some people can be psychologically healthier by utilizing casual sex.
  
• Physical pleasure, for its own sake, is no sin. That is, as long as it does not become your sole purpose for existing.
  
• Many people place a higher value on sex, and wish to share it only with a romantic partner. I am one of them.
  
• Many people do not. They wish to reserve the right to practice casual sex, if they think that doing so will provide them a certain level of happiness. For these people, sex may be no psychologically different than a backrub.
  
• People in the former category have no rational basis for moral condemnation of people in the latter.
  

From those points, I have been accused of seeing women as sex objects and having no understanding of the nature of sex. The posts by you, Inspector, and Sophia make me sound like some evil pimp with no respect for human life, who is willing to sell my body and soul to the first fat, ugly, 93-year old Islamic Marxist Nazi transexual bearded-lady circus clown with genital warts who comes along, just so I can have an orgasm.

Okay, so much for being done with this thread.

[~Sophia~]

Moose,

As, DavidOdden correctly identified, the question on the table is not causal sex per say, but instead is about when two people don't value each other at all, i.e. when each party simple uses the other as a physical tool; when sexual experience becomes devoid of any positive emotional meaning for either of parties and instead is all about 'getting off'.

I don't care how other people treat their sex life (well...not unless they are seeking a relationship with me) but I object to the idea that what I just described above is a 'good thing' for a rational person of self esteem - one where supposedly one gets a greater value from masturbating with another's body because it physically feels better than their hand (lesser value).

Edited December 14, 2006 by ~Sophia~

[aequalsa]

Moose,

As, DavidOdden correctly identified, the question on the table is not causal sex per say, but instead is about when two people don't value each other at all, i.e. when each party simple uses the other as a physical tool; when sexual experience becomes devoid of any positive emotional meaning for either of parties and instead is all about 'getting off'.

I don't care how other people treat their sex life (well...not unless they are seeking a relationship with me) but I object to the idea that what I just described above is a 'good thing' for a rational person of self esteem - one where supposedly one gets a greater value from masturbating with another's body because it physically feels better than their hand (lesser value).

I agree with sophia. It seems to me, moose, that you are applying a different(higher) standard to yourself then to everyone else. "For you", meaningless sex is not good for short term pleasure detached from any values, but for someone else it might be fine. What context do you believe would make the extra physical pleasure derived from meaningless sex(as opposed to masturbation) for the purpose of "getting off" a value worth pursuing without any emotional drawbacks?

[Inspector]

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.

And I think that there is no insult more tired and worn out than that one. Please at least think of a more creative one.

Now, as for your claim - that we have no rational argument to provide - well, gee sparky. Do you think maybe this thread has been done umpteen million times already? Maybe - just maybe - everyone else is as sick of repeating themselves on this as I am. And instead of spelling the whole thing out for you - once again - a different approach was taken and there we asked some questions of you instead.

Now Kevin's statement: "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."

I understand that you've got your undies in a bunch over that. Oh, how dare he. He offended your precious sensibilities.

Please. Since when are you so thin-skinned?

Did you ever stop to think for a second that, from our perspective, that statement is not only true but utterly uncontroversial? From your statements, it is completely obvious that you don't have the first understanding of what we believe (and understand that I only speak for my own) to be the moral meaning of sex, and its metaphysical significance in human life.

I might add that several people, including a moderator of this board, expressed complete agreement with me on that point.

RB did nothing of the sort. He posited that the experience might be different for one person than it is for another. (something I agreed with, once I realized that masturbation is a skill, and that people can be bad at it) This is not in congruence with your position.

[Inspector]

Obviously, this is as opposed to you, Sophia, and Inspector who, despite knowing everything, have offered personal attacks against me, rather than anything resembling a rational argument. I'm more than willing to continue debating the matter, but not if your arguments consist of personal attacks.

Where have I attacked you personally? I recall that you insulted me (you called me "dense") but I have not insulted you.

Why don't you take a careful look at how you have behaved in this thread, read everything you have posted, and ask yourself if maybe there is anything you have said that might warrent the kind of treatment that you are getting.

I think once you see what an ass you've been, you might want to reconsider your "I'm so persectued" position.

[DavidOdden]

This observation may seem a bit odd, but the general topic has been discussed previously, see for example the threads on stripping, nakendess, Clinton, arousal, urges, sex with critters, sex in a relationship, love and sex, loveless sex, what is sex, prostitutes, and porn. More than a few of these arguments have come up in those threads. One can find some clues about the Objectivist position on sex in the writings of Ayn Rand, for example Rearden & d'Anconia have a chat in "The Sanction of the Victim" where Francicso points out

...the man who despises himself tries to gain self-esteem from sexual adventures—which can't be done, because sex is not the cause, but an effect and an expression of a man's sense of his own value.

and

The men who think that wealth comes from material resources and has no intellectual root or meaning, are the men who think—for the same reason—that sex is a physical capacity which functions independently of one's mind, choice or code of values. They think that your body creates a desire and makes a choice for you—just about in some such way as if iron ore transformed itself into railroad rails of its own volition. Love is blind, they say; sex is impervious to reason and mocks the power of all philosophers. But, in fact, a man's sexual choice is the result and the sum of his fundamental convictions

and

He does not seek to gain his value, he seeks to express it. There is no conflict between the standards of his mind and the desires of his body. But the man who is convinced of his own worthlessness will be drawn to a woman he despises—because she will reflect his own secret self, she will release him from that objective reality in which he is a fraud, she will give him a momentary illusion of his own value and a momentary escape from the moral code that damns him. Observe the ugly mess which most men make of their sex lives—and observe the mess of contradictions which they hold as their moral philosophy. One proceeds from the other.

[mrocktor]

People repeatedly assert that sex is the "expression of deepest intimacy and sharing of values," but no one ever says why. It's like you treat it as an axiom and, from that axiom, you come up with your moral judgements regarding people's sex lives

From my perspective, that statement is not only true but utterly uncontroversial.

[DavidOdden]

Something just struck me.

• Many people place a higher value on sex, and wish to share it only with a romantic partner. I am one of them.
  
• Many people do not. They wish to reserve the right to practice casual sex, if they think that doing so will provide them a certain level of happiness. For these people, sex may be no psychologically different than a backrub.
  

How do you know this second point? That is, are you equating claims and reality? I am seriously skeptical about the existence of the "Many people do not" category. First, there is no issue of "reserving the right", since it's totally uncontroversial that laws against having sex are utterly immoral and a perversion of the function of government, so take the "reserve the right" part off of the table. By mentioning "provide them with a certain level of happiness", we don't need to inquire into the psychology of prostitutes who look at intercourse as a means of making money. Although I've never met such a person, there might well be some people who make the claim "I don't care who I sleep with, I'm just out for a good time", but making the claim does not make it a fact. Every person who I have known (of the few...) who even remotely seem to follow this "Sex, backrub, whatever" ethos have actually been rather screwed-up psychologically, and I have concluded that they are using sex as a substitute for rational self-esteem. Since you don't even put yourself in the category of sex-debasers, why do you assume that there are any psychologically healthy individuals of this type?

[The Wrath]

Something just struck me.

How do you know this second point? That is, are you equating claims and reality? I am seriously skeptical about the existence of the "Many people do not" category. First, there is no issue of "reserving the right", since it's totally uncontroversial that laws against having sex are utterly immoral and a perversion of the function of government, so take the "reserve the right" part off of the table. By mentioning "provide them with a certain level of happiness", we don't need to inquire into the psychology of prostitutes who look at intercourse as a means of making money. Although I've never met such a person, there might well be some people who make the claim "I don't care who I sleep with, I'm just out for a good time", but making the claim does not make it a fact. Every person who I have known (of the few...) who even remotely seem to follow this "Sex, backrub, whatever" ethos have actually been rather screwed-up psychologically, and I have concluded that they are using sex as a substitute for rational self-esteem. Since you don't even put yourself in the category of sex-debasers, why do you assume that there are any psychologically healthy individuals of this type?

I find it difficult to believe that you don't know anyone who has ever engaged in casual sex. I'll admit, that the frat daddies you find on any college campus use sexual conquests as a way to boost their self-esteem and brag to their cohorts. I have known a number of highly intelligent and rational people, however, who have engaged in casual sex.

I still have not seen anyone post a reason that sex must always be reserved for a romantic partner. The most I've seen is a suggestion that people who think otherwise are psychologically screwed up. Mrocktor basically just proved my point, by showing that he accepts it axiomatically.

[The Wrath]

I have disagreed with people on this board about a wide range of topics. I find it interesting that this is the only one that has caused such controversy. The way that certain people have had to take my quotes out of context or just make up things that I have never said, in order to prove their point, astounds me.

DavidOdden, this doesn't apply to you because, as far as I'm concerned, your post was respectful and thought-out, unlike the gut-level reactions of Sophia and Kevin.

[Inspector]

[*]Sex is a physical capacity that evolved from a need to reproduce.

So what? Our hands evolved to swing from trees, but I don't see what bearing that has on anything.

[*]Sex is, for most people, a psychological need and an enormous stress-reducer.

The psychological needs of sex cannot be fulfilled by the animal act. They are psychological and philosophical in origin and can only be satiated by meeting the psychological need of self-esteem. Reversing cause and effect when it comes to sex is a vice well-outlined by Francisco's speech in Atlas.

[*]Some people can be psychologically healthier by utilizing casual sex.

That's like saying some people can be physically healtheir by pounding nails into their feet. Prescribing poison as the cure for a stomachache.

[*]Many people do not.

Many people do not place a high value on their own lives. Many people do not place a high value on reason. Many people do not place a high value on reality. Some people do not place a high value on happiness. This is not a "lifestyle choice," exempt from moral judgment. The fact is that sex is that highest expression of values. To pervert this is to cause harm to oneself or others. This is not a matter of "I like pizza, he likes hot dogs."

David addressed the rest of this.

[The Wrath]

Once again, you assert that sex is governed by a different set of moral laws, but provide no support about why.

[Inspector]

Once again, you assert that sex is governed by a different set of moral laws, but provide no support about why.

My support is my lifetime of experience in the world and every bit of evidence I've ever seen. All the people I've spoken with who tried to deny this fact and failed. All the people I know who have acted correctly and lived happily. Yes, frat boys will tell you otherwise. But frat boys never lie, do they? Nah.

The thing you wish me to prove is that sex is the expression of your highest values and that if it is used any other way you will come to harm. This isn't the sort of thing that can be proved by deduction. Either it is what I say or it isn't. Either the box is blue or it isn't.

You seem to acknowledge that it can be that, but think, because other people tell you, that it can be other things, too. This is an evasion on their part and you would do well to not believe it. But the "proof" of this is only their inevitable failure. There is no other proof.

If you think I'm wrong, then act on it. I dare you.

[DavidOdden]

I find it difficult to believe that you don't know anyone who has ever engaged in casual sex.

Wait, you're not really conflating the systematic belief that sex is a triviality, and the person who happens to have had casual sex, are you?? I don't believe in getting drunk, but by jove I have actually gotten drunk before in my life in my life. Neither drunkenness nor meaningless sex are rational values, although they are things that a generally rational person can (in a moment of great personal weakness) engage in. Is this a debate over moral principles and rational values, or individual errors of choice on occasion?

Let me put it to you this way: do you claim that there are actually psychologically healthy people who do actually consider sex to be no more of a systematic value than a backrub? Setting aside the fact that you personally repudiate this bit of evasion.

[The Wrath]

My support is my lifetime of experience in the world and every bit of evidence I've ever seen. All the people I've spoken with who tried to deny this fact and failed. All the people I know who have acted correctly and lived happily. Yes, frat boys will tell you otherwise. But frat boys never lie, do they? Nah.

The thing you wish me to prove is that sex is the expression of your highest values and that if it is used any other way you will come to harm. This isn't the sort of thing that can be proved by deduction. Either it is what I say or it isn't. Either the box is blue or it isn't.

You seem to acknowledge that it can be that, but think, because other people tell you, that it can be other things, too. This is an evasion on their part and you would do well to not believe it. But the "proof" of this is only their inevitable failure. There is no other proof.

If you think I'm wrong, then act on it. I dare you.

You say your opinion is based on your lifetime of experience and every bit of evidence you've ever seen. So, after repeatedly asking you for evidence, you assert that you have it, and you just leave it at that. Your middle paragraph is a gross oversimplification of the issue. For someone in a field that its totally unrelated, you presume to know quite a bit about human psychology. My opinion is not based on "what other people tell me," but on the recognition that no two human beings have exactly the same psychological wants and needs. I'm not defending the horny frat daddies who really do, as David suggested, really do attach their self-esteem to sexual conquests. I am defending people who choose to engage in casual sex, if they think that doing so provides them enjoyment that they might not get otherwise.

[The Wrath]

Let me put it to you this way: do you claim that there are actually psychologically healthy people who do actually consider sex to be no more of a systematic value than a backrub? Setting aside the fact that you personally repudiate this bit of evasion.

Sorry, didn't see this post before.

But, yes, that is what I claim. And I don't "repudiate" it, per se. It's just not for me. Don't go thinking that this makes me a flaming, moral tolerationist hippie. I think that my posts on other subjects prove otherwise. I just have not seen anyone post a good reason to consider sex as being on a different moral/psychological plane.

Edited December 14, 2006 by Moose

[Inspector]

You say your opinion is based on your lifetime of experience and every bit of evidence you've ever seen. So, after repeatedly asking you for evidence, you assert that you have it, and you just leave it at that.

You want me to start naming names? You want me to tell you the full life story of every person I know who has demonstrated this fact in their lives?

Why don't you tell me what would constitute proof to you?

What deduction there is to do on this topic (as David points out...) has already been done. I did oversimplify it above, you are right. There are deductions to be done, and not just inductions. But at this point, your demands for proof are a little bit silly. You didn't see one shred of convincing logic in the 12 threads David linked to? (and yet oddly, you live your life by our premise...) What the hell am I supposed to offer you, then?

And to be clear, you are not defending casual sex. You are defending utterly meaningless sex: using another person to "get off," without even the level of connection or intimacy that the word "casual" implies.

Edited December 14, 2006 by Inspector

[The Wrath]

You want me to start naming names? You want me to tell you the full life story of every person I know who has demonstrated this fact in their lives?

Not really, because I can also name names that support my point.

Why don't you tell me what would constitute proof to you?

Something other than your assertions that it has already been proven.

What deduction there is to do on this topic (as David points out...) has already been done. I did oversimplify it above, you are right. There are deductions to be done, and not just inductions. But at this point, your demands for proof are a little bit silly. You didn't see one shred of convincing logic in the 12 threads David linked to? (and yet oddly, you live your life by our premise...) What the hell am I supposed to offer you, then?

I didn't go through and reread all those threads, but I remember reading most of them before. I had even participated in some of them. And, no, I don't recall seeing anything that convinced me that sex deserves a higher degree of moral consideration.

And to be clear, you are not defending casual sex. You are defending utterly meaningless sex: using another person to "get off," without even the level of connection or intimacy that the word "casual" implies.

And what, praytell, is casual sex, if not sex for the purpose of gratification.

[Inspector]

Not really, because I can also name names that support my point.

You can name liars and self-deluded fools who have comeuppances pending.

Something other than your assertions that it has already been proven.

Good answer. Really helpful. It inspired the helpful attitude I am taking with this post.

And what, praytell, is casual sex, if not sex for the purpose of gratification.

I already gave you enough information in my previous post to be able to figure out the distinction I am making.

[The Wrath]

You can name liars and self-deluded fools who have comeuppances pending.

I'm glad that you know my friends better than I do.

Good answer. Really helpful. It inspired the helpful attitude I am taking with this post.

Well what am I supposed to say? I love that everyone accuses me of being stubborn and unwilling to move, when you're all doing the exact same thing. I really don't think there's anything I would consider proof, because I consider the position to be illogical. But then again, you apparently have the same opinion of my position, so we're really in the same boat on this one.

I already gave you enough information in my previous post to be able to figure out the distinction I am making.

Not really. It depends totally on what you mean by "casual sex."

[spadeaspade]

What I don't get is why is it so difficult to understand what Moose is trying to say? Nowhere is he 'supporting' or 'recommending' or any such thing for 'using other' sex or 'casual sex'. He is just saying that if someone wants to engage in it, fine, if that person wants to.

And as to the others, what would you do if you came across a completely rational, happy individual with high self-esteem come and tell you that he has engaged in casual sex and utterly enjoyed it physically? Would you say that he is not applying his values/principles to 'sex' even though to everything else and therefore is immoral? Or are you all denying that person the 'fact' that it could've been enjoyable (physically) to him? And why in heaven's name would his self-esteem be affected in any way if the purpose of his act has got nothing to do with it? Again just as you all have misunderstood Moose, it is very likely that you will misunderstand me. So, for the record, I don't recommend 'using other' sex either.

And also the personal accusations made by Sophie and Kevin against Moose are completely baseless. What they suggest cannot be deduced from any of Moose's posts on this thread.(I haven't read any of his other posts but the ones on this thread are very clear).

[hunterrose]

This thread is a riot

RB did nothing of the sort. He posited that the experience might be different for one person than it is for another. (something I agreed with, once I realized that masturbation is a skill, and that people can be bad at it)

I don't think you are agreeing with what RB said, Inspector. You're saying that bad (and only bad?) masturbation can be less physically pleasurable than (presumably good or so-so) sex. You seem to be entirely disagreeing with Moose that skillful sex can be/is quite physically different from skillful masturbation. Even ~Sophia~ agrees with Moose on that point

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.

As far as I can tell, you are the only person who actually disagrees with Moose on that point.

Edit: Included a word for Inspector. My bad

Edited December 14, 2006 by hunterrose

[Inspector]

I haven't accused you of being stubborn. If I was going to accuse you of something, it would be this: I've lost count of the number of times you have accused people (or the board in general) of injustices toward you that never actually happened.

Not really. It depends totally on what you mean by "casual sex."

Let me give you a helping hand:

You are defending utterly meaningless sex: using another person to "get off," without even the level of connection or intimacy that the word "casual" implies.

Note the distinction drawn between the two. The latter might be a mixture of romance and hedonism; the former is a physical act with no values whatsoever present.

Well what am I supposed to say?

You're asking for "proof." Concretize that. What would be an example of something that would prove my point to you? A person who lived that life and renounced it? How about the endless string of such people in books, movies, television, or any bar you care to visit, who mutter into their drinks that they are unhappy? Every relationship there ever was where it was "just for sex," and one or both of the parties goes crazy jealous? How about the fact that "casual sex" was a counterculture element brought by the hippies? (doesn't that at least give you pause?) The repudiation of hedonism as a philosophy? A demonstration of the value of love? A Socratic question that causes you to think about how awkward it would be to try to have sex with someone you don't even like? A reducto ad absurdum of your (already absurd) position; the noting of the fact that if a person's sole motivation for sex is the tactile sensation of a warm, wet orifice, that any warm orifice will do, including an animal's? And if that isn't true, then there really is a non-physical factor at work, which you won't, for some reason, acknowledge. Or how about Francisco's speech? Have you read it lately? How about the fact that it is frat boys who behave in the way you defend?

Or how about you take a step back for a second, and look at all of those things at once. And the 12 threads on this board. And the scathing passages I've been known to quote from Ayn Rand on this topic. Doesn't all of that, when taken as a whole, count for something?

You want to know what you're supposed to say? Put yourself in my shoes for a second. How am I supposed to demonstrate something like this to you on a message board? Have you considered that your request may not be reasonable? If you were in my shoes, how would you show something like this to someone who said, "I just don't believe you. My friends seem to be doing okay."

Well, what do I say to that? Comeuppances aren't always the most forthcoming things in the world. People evade things. Especially when it comes to the kind of deep-seated values we're discussing here. (and you wonder why this topic is so fiercely defended!) I've heard people swear to me, up and down, that they love the car they just bought. They'll tell me day after day how glad they are that they bought it. Until it all breaks down, days or weeks or months later, and they come and yell to me about how that hate that effing car and they've hated it since they day they bought it. When people invest a lot in something that goes sour, they'll often go to extraordinary lengths to convince themselves and others that everything is in fact okay. There is a certain observable pattern to the mannerisms of a person who is doing the car-buyers-remorse-evasion thing, and I can tell you that I have picked up that vibe from every person I've ever met in person who said they were happy with their hedonistic-sexual lifestyle. And I've also met plenty of people who used to say how happy they were and how much fun they had, and who couldn't keep up the act any longer.

You can't just take people at their word, not even your friends (and not me, either, but you seem to have no problem with that). You have to do some detective work. Hell, maybe even ask them a few questions about it. See if you start noticing facts that support what you're told here on this board. Assume for the sake of argument that I'm right, and ask: "What things would have to be true if he is right? Are those things true? Maybe I never noticed them, but had I ever been looking for those things before?" (you'd be surprised what you notice if you look!)

Maybe instead of sitting here demanding that we prove it to you, you should be looking out at the world.

[Inspector]

You're saying that bad (and only bad?) masturbation can be less pleasurable than (presumably good or so-so) sex.

Careful. You said "pleasurable." That part of the discussion was only addressing physical stimulation, not overall pleasure of the experience.

I'm just not willing to continue publicly this line of questioning. I'm just too tired, and this is just too silly.

Edited December 14, 2006 by Inspector

[simonsays]

If you were at an art gallery and you met an art student who hates herself and every other human being, would you have sex with her if the two of you were completely alone and she offered it?

This is what the girl looks like:

Look at that girl's eyes in the picture and look at her lips. I think that any healthy, red-blooded, single male would have sex with her, despite her self esteem issues and outlook on life. It may not be the best sex, but you would still do it. You might even feel bad afterword, but you would still do it. This is because of testosterone.

Argument from intimidation alert: Anyone who argues they would not have sex with her has a low level of testosterone in their blood!