"Using" someone for sex

[aequalsa]

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?

Above, I was looking for an example of a circumstance where someone would be better off having casual sex.

I can think of many good reasons(in that they lead to a better mental outlook) to pursue intimacy with someone you value, but when I think of circumstances of people I have known where it "made sense" to pursue casual sex without any emotional connection I have only bad examples. Cheating on your spouse-casual is easier to get away with; deriving self-esteem from conquests; not being introspective enough to know what you want(thats a common one I call the 31 flavors principle); Low self esteem and it's associated fear of rejection; etc. I just can't come up with a circumstance where someone honestly and for the right reasons wants casual sex.

So if you can, please provide a circumstance where someone would properly desire casual sex and the pursuit of this value would lead to happiness of the not-hedonistic kind. The argumant that you know people who want it, is not meaningful in determining what is best for your life without providing the causlal reasons why they want what they do.

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!

Thats a clever way to deal with copyright infringmment. lol

[The Wrath]

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.

People have repeatedly insinuated that I said things I did not, and continue to do so. The places you have done this are highlighed in bold. I wouldn't go so far as to use the word "injustice," but I certainly think it's unfair.

Let me give you a helping hand:

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.

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?

I have never voiced support for the idea of picking up random people at bars. This would be foolish if, for no other reason, potential for STDs. Not to mention that the person might be a psycho and start stalking you.

(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?

I also never suggested this. What I have said is that there's nothing wrong with having casual sex with a person who may have a different outlook on life. I know quite a few people who look at life in a totally different way than I do, but I consider them friends and enjoy their company. It's not a stretch to say that such people could enjoy sex with each other.

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.

I have never denied the non-physical aspects of what makes sex feel good. I challenge you to find a post where I did. You, however, have repeatedly denied that there are any reasons that are purely physical which make sex enjoyable.

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?

I have not read it lately. But you won't get me to change my mind by quoting Ayn Rand, the way you can get a Baptist to change his mind by quoting the book of Matthew. I have not defended frat boys. In fact, I have gone out of my way to specify that I am not defending their behavior, because I do believe they use sexual conquests as a replacement for genuine self-esteem.

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?

This reminds me of the argument for God's existence that, although no single argument may be convincing, they prove his existence when considered together. Sorry, but if a dozen arguments don't convince me, considered by themselves, then they won't convince me when considered together.

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."

You aren't supposed to demonstrate anything about my friends. If you know people who have engaged in casual sex and their lives suck, I'm gonna go ahead and guess there's something else at work there that makes their lives suck. I know people who have engaged in casual sex whose lives suck. I also can think of at least 2 who are now happily married with children and have respectable jobs. They found someone they were willing to commit to, and decided it was time to change their sexual habits. But that doesn't mean they have reason to regret their former habits. Have you considered that you really have no idea what you're talking about when it comes to other people's happiness? They look perfectly happy to me. Sure, you can say that they may just be putting on a show, but you have no way of knowing that and no reason to suspect that it's true. It occurs to me that you're just assuming that it is a fake happiness, because it supports your position to do so.

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.

Yes, casual sex can go sour. But it does not have to. It goes sour when one party gets more emotionally attached than the other. That's why I have said (and I have said it, by the way) that casual sex involves risks. But there is nothing immoral about it, in and of itself. If it starts to go bad, then you should obviously exit the situation.

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!)

You're right. I can't take people's word for it. But I can observe their lives. And their lives appear to be quite happy. Does that meant that they are totally happy and they have absolutley no inner demons eating away at them as a result of past sexual practices? No. But I have no reason to believe that isn't the case, and my own observations of their lives count for more than you plugging your ears and humming loudly in an attempt to deny that no one in such a situation could possibly be happy and psychologically fulfilled.

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

I have. And maybe, instead of sitting here and asking me to discount my own personal observations, you should recognize that there are many sources of psychological problems, and that practicing casual sex may not be the cause of them for everyone who does so.

So if you can, please provide a circumstance where someone would properly desire casual sex and the pursuit of this value would lead to happiness of the not-hedonistic kind. The argumant that you know people who want it, is not meaningful in determining what is best for your life without providing the causlal reasons why they want what they do.

I don't know how many different ways I can answer this. Firstly, seeking physical pleasure is not a sin. Secondly, regardless of its other psychological benefits, sex is an enormous stress-reducer. I daresay there would be a few less traumatized Catholic children in this world, if the priests had one day decided to get together with a few nuns.

[mrocktor]

Mrocktor basically just proved my point, by showing that he accepts it axiomatically.

Quite the contrary. I said your statement that people take that definition of sex axiomatically is true and uncontroversial not that I accept that definition at all.

[The Wrath]

Quite the contrary. I said your statement that people take that definition of sex axiomatically is true and uncontroversial not that I accept that definition at all.

Ah, I see. Well, it's nice to have another supporter.

[aequalsa]

I don't know how many different ways I can answer this. Firstly, seeking physical pleasure is not a sin. Secondly, regardless of its other psychological benefits, sex is an enormous stress-reducer. I daresay there would be a few less traumatized Catholic children in this world, if the priests had one day decided to get together with a few nuns.

Sex is a stress reducer and not a sin. If I wrote that I believed that somewhere, ever, I certainly do not remember it nor do I believe it. I also have no idea why you bring up the priest issue as I have not, and would not advocated abstinence.

I am not asking why someone should have sex. Which is the question you answered. I am asking for an example of some way in which someone should want sex detached from any other values as opposed to sex with someone who they value.

By refusing to pass judgement on people who "prefer" casual sex detached from meaning, you make the implied statement that there is no objective reason why someone pursuing a valuable and meaningful relationship is better then someone having casual sex with someone they regard poorly or not at all. What you are advocating is, at root, moral relativism and primacy of conciousness with regard to relationships.

"What someone else wants to do is fine. I want what I want and they want what they want. Who am I to judge?" Sound about right? Their claim of desiring casual meaningless sex does not make it a good. And our judging it to be not in someones best interests(a bad) does not mean that they should not be allowed to do it. Only that they should not want to do it since it cannot lead to their long-term rational best interests.

[The Wrath]

Sex is a stress reducer and not a sin. If I wrote that I believed that somewhere, ever, I certainly do not remember it nor do I believe it. I also have no idea why you bring up the priest issue as I have not, and would not advocated abstinence.

I am not asking why someone should have sex. Which is the question you answered. I am asking for an example of some way in which someone should want sex detached from any other values as opposed to sex with someone who they value.

Firstly, this depends on what you mean by "someone who they value." I am thinking in terms of a friend or an acquaintance. As I already said, I don't condone picking up random people at bars...that sort of behavior is incredibly risky and can lead to all sorts of terrible situations.

So, the way I take your question is: when would someone want sex from someone other than a romantic partner? Well, there are people who have extraordinarly high sex drives. If not dealt with properly, unsatisfied sexual urges can lead to pretty serious stress and other psychological issues. I think it would be much healthier for these people to engage in a sexual relationship with other people, rather than either repressing their urges or channeling them into less satisfying means. This is the type of relationship I referred to earlier and you have probably heard of before, called "fuck buddies." People in this type of relationship generally already know each other well enough to know that they enjoy each other's company, but may not be right for each other, romantically.

By refusing to pass judgement on people who "prefer" casual sex detached from meaning, you make the implied statement that there is no objective reason why someone pursuing a valuable and meaningful relationship is better then someone having casual sex with someone they regard poorly or not at all. What you are advocating is, at root, moral relativism and primacy of conciousness with regard to relationships.

"What someone else wants to do is fine. I want what I want and they want what they want. Who am I to judge?" Sound about right? Their claim of desiring casual meaningless sex does not make it a good. And our judging it to be not in someones best interests(a bad) does not mean that they should not be allowed to do it. Only that they should not want to do it since it cannot lead to their long-term rational best interests.

Ah, I see the problem here. Of course, I believe that sex within a meaningful relationship is better, more satisfying, and more complete. I've never had casual sex, so I really can't compare, but I think these are fair assumptions. But everyone doesn't always have access to meanginful relationships. So, with the type of sexual standards some people in here seem to be advocating, these people should just suck it up and either repress their feelings or stick to masturbation, which most people agree is much less satisfying.

I never said that casual sex was as good as meaningful sex. I have argued that, in the absence of opportunity for the latter, there is nothing wrong with choosing to engage in the former. Choosing casual sex over meangingful sex would be pretty stupid and I certainly think that people who would do so have psychological problems.

[Inspector]

Bold#1: Yes, you did suggest that. You are defending the topic example of this thread: "using" someone to pursue sex as a form of masturbation. As I said, this goes way beyond "casual" sex.

Bold#2: In the title example, the woman offers no value whatsoever besides her oriface. The way that you're arguing, she could even be way ugly (since appreciation of beauty is not part of the mechanics of sex, which you claim can alone be worth seeking) You won't acknowledge that this oriface is not, itself, a value and that when people seek sex over masturbation, they are seeking something non-physical.

Bold#3: I said that it is frat boys who behave in the way you defend. Not that you defend frat boys but that you defend a behavior that frat boys qua frat boys like and pursue. That the poster boys for the behvior you defend are disgusting, not that you in particular defend those boys. There is a difference.

Moose, my advice remains: assume for the sake of argument that I am right, and look for patterns and evidence of it in the world.

(As for your friends that gave up their previous lifestyle, ask if they have any regrets about having engaged in it. As they answer, think about how their answer reflects on how much they respect and value their spouse. Each answer will say something different but they will all say something.)

Unanswered, it seems, is the question of whether what you demand here in terms of proof is reasonable. And you have yet to provide an example of what you would consider convincing proof. Assuming I am right, how would it be possible to prove it to you given that your friends can lie or be wrong about what is good for them? How is your position disprovable?

[The Wrath]

I've said everything I need to say. I've answered everything in your post, at least once. I think I'm done in here now. And, unlike last time I said that, I really am going to stop posting in here. I will still read replies by other people, however, so don't expect me to reply just because you see my name on the readers list.

[simonsays]

Inspector, I have not made up my mind who is right, either you or Moose, but I have a question for you.

I want to compare what your philosophy says with my own sexual experiences, whether I have conducted myself sexually according to principles that you would agree with, or according to principles that Moose would agree with.

As far as I see it, there is a smooth continuum of sexual possibilities, but for the sake of argument lets assume 6 main possibilities:

1 You have to know and love everything about the women in order to have moral sex with her.

2 Or can you just love some of her ideas and values and hate some of her other ideas and values, and like her looks and still have moral sex?

3 Or can you despise most of her ideas and values but like only a few and like her looks and still have moral sex?

4 Or can you not know what her ideas and values are (because you haven't talked about them), but have sex based on her physical appearance alone?

5 Or can you not know her ideas, and also not like her appearance and still have moral sex, ie using her as an orifice?

6 Or can you hate both her ideas and her appearance and still have moral sex, ie using her as an orifice regardless of her bad/evil ideas?

Where is the line drawn at when sex is moral?

I know that your answer might depend on context, but in order to simplify it for me let's assume a context; that the guy is Joe Blogs, ie a normal guy in a normal situation (say in a coffee shop) who meets a girl.

So, assuming these 6 possibilities and the above context, where is the line drawn as to when sex is moral? Feel free to criticize any of my assumptions. The reason for them is to make it simpler to understand for me, because I am having a hard time following it otherwise.

So far in my life I have stooped to number 5 on the list a few times. Everytime, it lead to unforeseen negative consequences, some of which were huge consequences and some of which were small ones. I have also been up to number 2, which was the best sex of my life, but then lead to a horrible break up, when some parts of her negative sense of life impacted on our relationship. Therefore I personally, do not know where to draw the line.

What about you Inspector? (and others)

[Inspector]

Simon,

The first thing I notice is the language you use: moral. A big hangup with this is that if I say something is immoral, then people think this has to be in the sense of killing people or in the sense that God Will Punish You. Whereas to call something immoral in this context just means it's not a good idea, either practically speaking, or in terms of your self-esteem and values (or both).

That said,

1. Is obviously great; it is the proper basis for a sexual relationship.

2. I would break up into:

2a: You have your conflicts but you expect her to change her mind. I could see this, but it's a risk you take. (and, which you have seen the ugly end of, from the sound of it) And of course you are in for a lot of bad, hard-drinking times as you cope with the fact that the love you fooled yourself into feeling never really existed. It's not pleasent.

2b: You have your conflicts that you do not expect her to change her mind about. This is a problem, because you are in this case deliberately evading the reality of the fact that you don't really value this person.

3. Is hedonism, and doesn't work for the same reasons hedonism doesn't work.

4. To assume that someone is worthy of your affections when you don't really know is either a big evasion or massive wishful thinking. Maybe you'll get lucky. But likely not. Do you like eating things you find in the street? Maybe it's tasty. Maybe it has a disease.

5 and 6 are just beyond disgusting and incompatable with self-esteem.

Somewhere between 1 and 2 lies a gray area where the things you don't like about here aren't essential to her character or overall value as a person. Venture here at your own risk.

That's my opinion, since you asked. I don't think there is anything to be gained from sex over masturbation other than as a value-laden expression of love. Sex without love is no more gratifying than masturbation and it leads to all kinds of problems. "Value" gained from it versus masturbation is a delusion. Lots of people want it and chace it, but Francisco had their number. Cause and effect.

[aequalsa]

Simon,

...

but Francisco had their number. Cause and effect.

Great answer, Inspector. I just wanted to add that, in my experience, that grey area between 1 and 2 is usually grey because of the difficulties involved in accurate character judgement. It can take a good deal of time to determine if someone with a few mistaken views is on a path of improvement or not. Often times it takes longer to find out that truth, then it does to become involved sexually. Especially with the whirl of emotions involved in infatuation, where their faults might be artificially minimized in your mind.

[spadeaspade]

....It occurs to me that you're just assuming that it is a fake happiness, because it supports your position to do so.

........But I have no reason to believe that isn't the case, and my own observations of their lives count for more than you plugging your ears and humming loudly in an attempt to deny that no one in such a situation could possibly be happy and psychologically fulfilled.

Bingo! Hit the nail, I guess.

Simon,

..... I don't think there is anything to be gained from sex over masturbation other than as a value-laden expression of love. Sex without love is no more gratifying than masturbation and it leads to all kinds of problems. "Value" gained from it versus masturbation is a delusion. ........

Man, you have no idea what you are saying! And you are being so very presumptuous. If you had just added 'For me' for all of the above quote, it would be fine. It seems from all your posts (not just the above) that you have no idea of what you are talking about - sex and the fine art that it is. For you, the only purpose of sex is to use it as a means to express your 'love' (with no regard to the how, the technique, the skill, the fine craft of the act - which very much goes into the pleasure or satisfaction index) .That is ok as long as you talking for yourself. Don't generalise it. If you do, what you are saying is essentially, anyone who engages in sex for anything else other than expressing their love are 'wrong' or 'immoral'. That is heavy ammo. Completely unwarranted.

Nobody (including Moose) is denying the superiority of spiritual sex with a romantic partner over casual sex with a non-romantic partner. You are working on the premise that whoever engages in sex does so only for psychological reasons. I don't understand why you would assume that. The whole point in the given example is that a man engages in sex with a woman and both agree not to bring in psychological factors and enjoy only the physical act (in which both could be experts). Why is it so difficult for you to imagine that there could be someone looking for enjoying, say, the craft of sex only and has found someone who is similarly interested - ask price matches bid price : trade goes through. Why is that 'wrong' and 'unproductive' for either of them? It will be 'psychologically unproductive' iff he is looking for psychological satisfaction. What if he is not? If you are saying that there are only psychological reasons for enjoying sex and no physical factors are involved, what would you (not personally but anyone with your viewpoint) do if you found that your romantic partner is not 'good in bed'? For 'psychological reasons' you may not leave that person for someone else but that will not deny the fact that you don't enjoy the 'sex' at a 'physical level' with her no matter how well wired you are psychologically. Or you have to enjoy whatever she does no matter how lousy it actually 'feels physically' and then that would be an evasion of reality. For a moment think on why one says so and so is or is not 'good in bed' - according to you it should suffice to say so and so is 'good' or 'not good'- period. But you see, sex is very much a physical activity until one adds the psychological basis to it - and that is a choice which an individual has to make for himself. In the given example, the choice is made not to involve psychological basis. And anyway if this is mindless, how is the mind going to be affected in any way when the one making the choice is completely aware as to the what and why of his action and has decided precisely to block the mind out? Are you denying the possibility of existence of such a man or the non-possibility of blocking the mind out? You see, even if pleasure or satisfaction are a feature of the mind or they arise in the mind, their source could very well be physical. Have you never eaten smth which was harmful to your body (read 'junk' food like an overweight person hogging on a pizza) because you loved the taste of it and you were not even hungry? If you eat smth that is harmful when you are not hungry, isn't that 'immoral' according to your viewpoint?

Also, for one moment let us assume you are right. What then? W.r.t such a man will you refuse to 1. buy a pizza from him 2. play TT with him 3. be operated on when he is the only one who can? What? What is the point of you despising him? How is that productive for you when you have already made your choice of a sex partner and not looking for any other? Are you saying according to you one who is immoral in such a way can't be competent in any other thing? And do you think you judging him thus is going to make any difference to him in any way? The chances are he will just laugh in your face and go ahead anyway.

Do you not see how so very pointless this is?

I am through with here.

[Inspector]

spadeaspade,

It's clear to me that you don't understand my position. I will direct you to the 12 existing threads on the matter. Good luck.

EDIT: But, really, the above is by no means a comprehensive explanation of my position. If you don't understand it from that little snippet, I can hardly blame you. If you want the long version, well, it's out there.

Edited December 15, 2006 by Inspector

[mrocktor]

If you want the long version, well, it's out there.

Actually, its not. Every argument you find will start out with "sex is the highest, most sacred celebration of values" and go on from there.

[hunterrose]

Every argument you find will start out with "sex is the highest, most sacred celebration of values" and go on from there.

For the win. It starts with the above and ends with "if an instance of sex is not done with someone who shares (or seems likely to eventually share) one's highest, most sacred values... then the sex is immoral/detrimental/indicative of low self-esteem/evasion."

It's a stupid argument (particularly the second part), and it always gets rehashed in these threads yet is never actually shown to be a good argument.

I am asking for an example of some way in which someone should want sex detached from any other values as opposed to sex with someone who they value.

The main problem with your request is the (apparent) assumption that "sex detached from any other values" is never "sex with someone whom they value". You seem to be using the verb "value" in a highest most sacred sense, and discounting the idea that "valuing" is a matter of degree.

A person who has noncommital sex with multiple people on the basis that the partners are attractive (and presumably not heinously offensive in any pertinent evaluation) can still value these noncommital partners; they may all in fact be friends outside/regardless of sex.

As to the kind of answer you were probably looking for

1. a person may, in the absense of any highestmostsacreds, wish to have sex with a person/persons who are valued (albeit to a lesser extent than highestmostsacred)
   
2. a person may believe that commital sex will bring unwanted requirements of time, attention, etc that is avoided in having noncommital sex
   

[Moose makes]the implied statement that there is no objective reason why someone pursuing a valuable and meaningful relationship is better then someone having casual sex with someone they regard poorly or not at all.

Again, your assumption is that casual partners are necessarily unvaluable/meaningless and necessarily regarded poorly or not at all. Casual partners may not be regarded/valued as highestmostsacred, but that's not the same thing.

What [Moose is]advocating is, at root, moral relativism and primacy of conciousness with regard to relationships.

Nonsense.

Where is the line drawn at when sex is moral?

simonsays, have you read the Fountainhead? If you have, my reply would be that Roark's sex with Dom at the quarry mansion was moral. Which number is that sex under?

If you haven't, ask Inspector or aequalsa what number the initial Roark/Dom sex counts as on the scale.

I don't think there is anything to be gained from sex over masturbation other than as a value-laden expression of love. Sex without love is no more gratifying than masturbation [without love]

...must...resist...mocking...

[aequalsa]

The main problem with your request is the (apparent) assumption that "sex detached from any other values" is never "sex with someone whom they value". You seem to be using the verb "value" in a highest most sacred sense, and discounting the idea that "valuing" is a matter of degree.

A person who has noncommital sex with multiple people on the basis that the partners are attractive (and presumably not heinously offensive in any pertinent evaluation) can still value these noncommital partners; they may all in fact be friends outside/regardless of sex.

You are very mistaken with regard to my position. I do not believe that they are necessarily heinous. I am not the one choosing to to compartmentalize the physical and mental aspects of sex, thats the other side. I only point out that if it could be "purely physical" and you just want an orifice, then any will do. A horrible ugly, communist crackhead...a goat...whatever. Any orifice would feel "superior" to my hand. The mistkake made is the belief that you actually can seperate sex from values.

As to the kind of answer you were probably looking for

1. a person may, in the absense of any highestmostsacreds, wish to have sex with a person/persons who are valued (albeit to a lesser extent than highestmostsacred)
   
2. a person may believe that commital sex will bring unwanted requirements of time, attention, etc that is avoided in having noncommital sex
   

Again, your assumption is that casual partners are necessarily unvaluable/meaningless and necessarily regarded poorly or not at all. Casual partners may not be regarded/valued as highestmostsacred, but that's not the same thing.

On a desert island with one communist chick where no one else is available, fine. She is the best possible woman in existence. Fortunately we do not find ourselves stuck on desert islands with communists very frequently. In the world I inhabit, I can choose which values to pursue. I can choose ti sleep with a beautiful intelligent woman or a beautiful vapid woman. The choice I make in that regard determines what sort of person I am and how I value my time and myself. It doesn't necessarily mean I am a bad surgeon or categorically evil.

Nonsense.

Was that your argument? Your intellect astounds....Okay...my turn...erm...I know you are but what am I?..How's that? Ok...your turn now.

simonsays, have you read the Fountainhead? If you have, my reply would be that Roark's sex with Dom at the quarry mansion was moral. Which number is that sex under?

If you haven't, ask Inspector or aequalsa what number the initial Roark/Dom sex counts as on the scale.

would call it a 5

[aequalsa]

Also, for one moment let us assume you are right. What then? W.r.t such a man will you refuse to 1. buy a pizza from him 2. play TT with him 3. be operated on when he is the only one who can? What? What is the point of you despising him? How is that productive for you when you have already made your choice of a sex partner and not looking for any other? Are you saying according to you one who is immoral in such a way can't be competent in any other thing? And do you think you judging him thus is going to make any difference to him in any way? The chances are he will just laugh in your face and go ahead anyway.

Do you not see how so very pointless this is?

I am through with here.

Answering for myself, it's not about despising...it's more about pity. I judge people I meet. I also judge hypothetical people that are presented to me. The point is it helps me learn about the world, the types of choices people make and what those choices lead to. It also helps me to some extent in understanding their character and values which can be extrapolated to other things, making their behaviour a little more predictable. Mainly it allows me to not have to make a mistake myself to learn it's harm.

[Inspector]

It's a stupid argument (particularly the second part), and it always gets rehashed in these threads yet is never actually shown to be a good argument.

Careful. I might remind you of the forum rules vis a vis posting arguments contrary to Objectivism (although "it's stupid" isn't really an argument). To the see Objectivist position on this, see the appropriate chapter ("Sex") of OPAR.

[Antonio]

I have tried to make sure I've read through all the voluminous posts on this thread, but I think something huge is missing in this repeated comparison of vaginal sex to hand masturbation. Sex involves all five senses. Unless I have missed something, I have not heard references to oral sex and the various stimuli involved, such as taste and smell and touch. I've seen a few references to appearance, and I can relate an experience that to this day I can say was very fulfilling.

For about four years I used to have sex once in a while with a beautiful girl whose company I enjoyed, but we both knew that a deep romantic relationship would not work. But both found one another attractive and found sex fun. We were friends, but once in a while felt like having sex. In a sense, we were "using" each other for sex. We both enjoyed it and though we have not talked in 11 years, I still look back and recall how good it was.

There's no way that compares to any form of auto-eroticism, but it would fit the definition of "using" someone for sex.

[Inspector]

Sex involves all five senses.

I have to say that I do acknowledge that the example given and arguments I was responding to were highly rationalistic. Thus, by necessity, so was my response. This is my fault, but I honestly didn't think it would get caught on such a minor point.

What I was trying to express is that the value of sex cannot be separated from the value of the person one is having sex with. "Sex," apart from that, is not a value.

It was being argued that "sex" is, itself, a value that can and should (by at least some people) be pursued independent of any evaluation of the partner, (including physical beauty, I might add) because a particular orifice is a value in and of itself. It then, because I stupidly let it, became a debate about the merits of that orifice apart from the person who posessed it.

What you did does not even remotely fall under the example given in this thread.

[hunterrose]

The mistake made is the belief that you actually can seperate sex from values.

Is physical attractiveness/fitness a value?

I know you are but what am I?..How's that? Ok...your turn now.

If you wish. I'll restate it then.

By refusing to pass judgement on people who "prefer" casual sex detached from meaning ...what you are advocating is, at root, moral relativism.

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.

What (Moose is) advocating is ... primacy of conciousness

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.

Your intellect astounds

Thank you

would call it a 5

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

I might remind you of the forum rules vis a vis posting arguments contrary to Objectivism (although "it's stupid" isn't really an argument). To the see Objectivist position on this, see the appropriate chapter ("Sex") of OPAR.

I just reread the Sex section in the Happiness chapter of OPAR, if that is what you are referring to. I saw several scissors in the section that you are running with, but nothing that definitively states that sex based on physical attraction is either totally devoid of value or necessarily not sufficiently valuable to be worthy of sex. Please correct me (with quotes) if I am wrong.

What (Antonio) did does not even remotely fall under the example given in this thread.

Really?

"Using" a person for sex? Check.

No possibility of a deep romantic (i.e. long term?) relationship? Check.

Inspector, on what basis are you saying that Antonio's personal example is any different from what Moose is saying?

[The Wrath]

Not here to make an argument, just to point out that Antonio's situation is exactly what I was describing. And he appears to be quite happy with his past experience. Okay, I'm done again.

[Inspector]

Please correct me (with quotes) if I am wrong.

Already done, in other threads. Not going to do it again. Don't bother responding to this. I will ignore any response.

Inspector, on what basis are you saying that Antonio's personal example is any different from what Moose is saying?

The example of this thread is this:

Because a woman's body feels much better than my right hand.

The pursuit of sex on that basis and that basis alone.

(and aequalsa has a typo; I'm sure he meant "4")

[DavidOdden]

And, unlike last time I said that, I really am going to stop posting in here.

Such sentences tend to damage your credibility.

[simonsays]

(and aequalsa has a typo; I'm sure he meant "4")

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

Such sentences tend to damage your credibility.

Give him a break, I want him to continue posting!

Here are my views on the topic.

Personally I know exactly the kind of girl I want to marry, my problem is that I am not the kind of man I want to be yet. It will take me another 5 years before I have matured enough, advanced in my career, worked on my body a bit more, etc, etc. What I am saying is that I will need to work on myself to become the kind of man that my kind of women will be attracted to.

In the meantime, 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.

Therefore I think I agree with Inspector, but also Moose, in that sex with someone who is not your ideal can be moral if done with the right motivations.